Anyone else think N.Y. Times is elitist?

[quinnox]

There are sometimes good articles at the website but I get annoyed sometimes at what seems to be a 'snooty' or 'snobby' tone to some of their stories. I can't explain it, but there is a certain 'cater to the rich or elite' vibe I get at times from the website.

edited because I misspelled elitist. (heh)

[wtmusic]

1. Love the NYT

They are droll and sophisticated, at times bordering on snooty, but some of the best writing in journalism

[el_gato]

12. uh Hello?! NYT was instrumental in spreading the Iraq war lies

Judith Miller? Remember her?

The truth about NYT is that it has a phoney liberal facade while serving as a mouthpiece for corrupt organizations like the CFR.

[Caution]

2. I disagree

I think it is more that the NYT actually attempts to sound like real journalism occasionally whereas most of the papers out there only like to SHOUT AT YOU with BIG GIANT HEADLINES and spoon feed stories meant to frighten or spark interest. It's simply a matter of perception.

Here's a good test for you. Read the New York Times for one week solid. Do not read any other newspapers. Read as much as you have time to read in the NYT. The following week read the New York Post and then come back and tell us whether the NYT assumes its readers are "wealthy or elite" or whether the Post assumes its readers have the IQ of a turnip and that in fact the NYT actually makes the cardinal sin of assuming its readers have a brain.

[Skittles]

4. I agree with Caution

it's the difference in QUALITY you are noticing.

[skippysmom]

3. I've noticed this in many mainstream publications

like Time, the NYT, the Globe, etc. They definitely write for the upper classes. It's the most telling when they write about economic issues. For example, when Time did an article on the economic downturn and its effect on raises, they were trying to elicit sympathy for a middle class family who'd been affected. The husband had been making $110K and was now trying to "make do" on $70K. I realize that it's a substantial hit -- but that's more than most Americans will ever make. Come cry to me when you're on welfare.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Bear in mind the NY cost of living

$100k isn't as much there as it is in my neck of the woods.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. Tom Friedman could ruin anyones day with that tone.

.

[Cocoa]

7. the magazine seems elitist

and the TV ads and some of the columninsts are condescending.

[AP]

21. The crossword puzzle, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, is often the only part

of the Times that doesn't make my head hurt.

[prodigal_green]

8. In the words of Get Your War on (second strip)

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war34.html

<snip>
"'East Coast Elitest?' Fuck it, sure--is that what you call it? Fine. All I know is I'm from New York City. I can actually think on my feet, I can string two fuckin' sentences together without notes, and I could answer some motherfuckers' question about a war without just spitting out eleven different permutation of the same goddamn, 'goo-gah freedom' phrase! So sue me--that makes me elitist? Godd! If 'elitest' just means 'not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,' I'll be an elitist!"

[sadiesworld]

9. To an extent.

The problem is that "elite" has become synonymous with "democrat" and the NYT sure as hell doesn't support dem candidates.

On balance, I think they are harmful to our party.

[Classical_Liberal]

10. They are neoliberals or liberal cousins of the neocons

Both fundamentally antidemocratic philosophies.

[sadiesworld]

15. Sad but true.

[Snellius]

11. This sounds like the kind of argument that Bush makes

When Woodward asked Bush if he was bothered about not finding WMDs, Bush responded that Woodward was only bothered because he only hung out with "elites". I'm not sure why people have such a problem with a newspaper that addresses itself to an educated, sophisticated audience, or why that audience are necessarily classed as "elites".

[Jacobin]

13. No. Its just a RW rag

David Brooks
Tom Friedman
Rejected Ted Rall.

Huge war whore paper.

Basically useless pulp

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. Funny, the right considers it left wing

[sadiesworld]

17. The right thinks that anything to the left of Fox is a socialist

propaganda machine (and the NYT is anything but). Sure, they don't play to a fundie audience on social issues, but they are RW on economic issues and treat puke candidates much better than they treat dems.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. And the left thinks anything to the right of WSWS is fascist

It cuts both ways.

Even you admit they are liberal on some of their agenda. They are also elitist as hell.

[sadiesworld]

23. Liberal on social issues.

And yes, their focus on cultural events, etc., could be considered "elitist".

But they consistently denigrate dem candidates and let the pukes get away with bloody murder. Remember their coverage of the Clinton "scandals"? How about the 2000 election? Where have they been in exposing Bush?

They certainly weren't anti-war. Their economic positions aren't much different than the editorial page of the WSJ. (Where are the anti-globalization columnists?)

Sorry, talking about other cultures and posting wedding announcements for gay couples doesn't make them leftists to me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Again, it WOULD prove it for righties

Who would complain about all of the items you listed.

Newspapers notoriously can't please all of the people all of the time.

[sadiesworld]

28. Yes, I think we agree.

Even though the NYT is pro-war, pro-globalization and outsourcing, and pro-republican politicians, the gay wedding announcements and opera coverage PROVES to the RW that the NYT is leftist.

[el_gato]

24. Prove it muddle

oh you can't? never mind.

[Jacobin]

19. Actually, if a paper ever prints anything that questions

their heroes, they call it "left wing"

With writers like Brooks, Friedman and Judith (CIA)Miller and their whoring for the war, I would be extreeeeemely hard pressed to say they were anything but waaaaay right on the political dial.

[AP]

20. And don't forget Saffire.

He isn't above fabrication.

[theboss]

16. I like it because it is elitist

Though the front page under Raines did get to be almost unreadable at times.

[AP]

18. The Sunday Style section is a shameless ode to desire and celebration of..

...wealth.

Furthermore, that paper has done some obscene things over the years.

Setting aside its Africa reporting for a moment, some of the more subtle things include:

- A couple weekends before the recall election they managed to shove FIVE gratuitous Arnold stories into one paper, spread out over several sections. The worst of those stories was a front page business story about how Arnold's efforts to promote the Hummer might have single-handedly saved the American auto industry (HUH?).

- IIRC, in that issue, they also had a story about a white Dartmouth graduate who had been rich but became a crack head. The tone of the story was "can you believe this can happen in America!!??" The Times should notice that the crappiest thing about America is not that sometimes people slip down the ladder, but that for many Americans (who never get the chance to go to Dartmouth) it's impossible to go UP the ladder.

- That very same issue had a cover story in the Magazine which tried to rehabilitate Lawrence Summers's character after he lost Cornell West to Princeton. They should have been doing a "what the hell is wrong with Harvard story," rather than a "isn't Larry Summers a great guy" story.

[theboss]

29. Out of curiosity . . .

Why did the Larry Summers article bother you? (I ask this as probably one of the only people here who took a course taught by Cornel West).

[AP]

31. Because, when I read the article, the question that I had in my mind...

...was, how is this guy going to explain what happened to Cornell West.

Rather than take that very intersting issue head-on, the article read as an apologia for Lawrence Summers.

I'm not saying that West was right and Summers was wrong, but there was definitely something worth discussing. The article didn't really discuss it, IIRC.

I remember reading some very specific things that had my eyes rolling, but I can't remember them now.

I'd love to reread the article and revisit my earlier conclusions.

[maggrwaggr]

25. well, it's written for people who can actually read .....

so Bush's base is understandably pissed off at them.

[artistforpeace]

27. Elitists new word for intellect?

What is this fear in this country with intellect? It really scares me that people are proud of their dumbing down. You don’t have to agree with what they are writing, but it must exists in order for society to progress. But nowadays it’s like a game in this country to target any REAL thought and label it elitist. It really scares me!

Here’s a simple example:

When was the last time you heard someone tell you they just finished a Dostoevsky (or insert any other “Elitists” (sarcasm) author)? No, you will more likely hear about the latest Grishim novel. Now I’m not saying that Grishim is below me and in fact don’t care at all and would be happy to hear he is someones favorite author. But tell me why he is your favorite in reference to others, but no, this can’t be done by a majority of people now.

I consider myself far from an academic and in fact need to read much more then I do, but I do realize how important it is to have a knowledge base and reference source in order to relate to my social surroundings and have context to what is going on. People don’t do this anymore AND not only are they proud of that notion, they target people who do as elitist AND view them as the reason the world is screwed up.

What is this world I live in?

[stopbush]

30. Elitist? No. Clueless? Yep. n/t

[Logansquare]

32. Well, if you mean "caters to rich people," yes.

It's not "elitist" in the sense that it reflects the viewpoints primarily of academics or intellectuals. The personality of NYT is one of a newspaper written for college educated, and most importantly, *wealthy* people. The advertising is a clear indicator of the target market. As such, they are timid when it comes to criticism of corporate America. The NYT often seems to report on social problems such as the health care crisis and inequities in school funding as if they are some head-scratching problems that couldn't possibly be solved by a little economic justice. Having so much money that you don't know what to do with it is good, and the rest of us little people in fly-over land can go fuck ourselves. Hey, I subscribe to it--its still the best "national" paper for the United States.