<p>Woody, I’ve been listening to the right wing propaganda machine describe anything that doesn’t parrot the orthodox Limbaugh party line as being “liberal” for years. I’ve come to realize that the rhetorical device of choice for the right wing is simple repetition. Repeat something often enough and people accept it uncritically. I’ve seen enough examples of things within my own area of knowledge where complete falsehoods are accepted as “true” by people with no personal knowledge of the subject simply because they’ve been repeated over and over. Attitudes and beliefs have been and continue to be formed and shaped - not by clever arguments or deceptive techniques - but simply by repeating lies over and over again. </p>
<p>I repeat: The Times pushed the phony WMD story for months. Where’s the “left” in that? If the “NYT supporters” you refer to actually think the Times is “liberal” that’s only because “liberal” has been redefined to mean anything less loony that the rantings of Sun Moon and Rupert Murdoch.</p>
<p>NYT is the organ of capital interests, “free trade” (except when they don’t like it), and “free lunches”, and quasi-one party democracy. It would be the paper of the right in most of Europe and Latin America(except where Rupert holds sway.)</p>
Well…no. Neither the president, nor the NYT “pushed the phony WMD story.” It was reported as true, and pursued as policy, because our own intelligence services, those of all our major allies, the UN, and the previous administration all believed it to be true.</p>
<p>But you raise a good point, Kluge, about your sudden epiphany:
That is indeed what has happened to you, and others, who fall for the Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, James Carville, Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, and other looney leftist dreck. Follow your own advice…free your mind.</p>
<p>Driver, the real “left” never bought the WMD propaganda; I certainly didn’t buy Colin Powell’s spiel. Hans Blix kept saying they weren’t there, and he was there. Sorry, going along with the WMD line was a present to Bush. And it proves how center the times is.</p>
<p>The NYT belongs to the money people; only in the US would it be considered left, since we’re so much farther to the right than most of our allies.</p>
<p>Garland, I never accused the NYT of representing the “real left.” I think they represent the dilettante left. I simply object to their clinging to their estimable heritage as “the paper of record,” although that grasp is slipping at last, and none too soon.</p>
<p>Dilletante right, maybe, if there is such a thing, though I doubt it. They represent the REAL right, where the money is. And they ARE the paper of record for the corporatist interests that make it so, and have only become more so with time.</p>
<p>I have seen the "Times in one of a Rockerfeller’s hotel room, and on a side table at the Spainish Embassy, It is very accepted. I think you have this paper confused with the Berkeley Barb, or the old village voice.</p>
<p>Driver,
I admire you for posting your opinions even though you often hold a minority view as far a CC posters are concerned (in political discussions). You are, however, not alone.</p>
<p>If NYT was as far left and liberal then why would Judith Miller be working there? She was the champion of WMD cause and a mouth-piece for Plame outing.</p>
<p>I think the title of your post is just as misleading as the NYT. I mean, your title presupposes that the NYT was actually trustworthy at one time… :)</p>
<p>What I find interesting is people who think that Rush Limbaugh and the New York Times are meant to be on the same plane. They are not - and Limbaugh would be the first to admit that he is not a journalist, but rather a radio talk show host who doesn’t pretend to be anything other than a conservative. The New York Times, however, claims to be the gold standard of journalism. The fact that some believe that when they read the New York Times that they are reading unbiased journalism is what constitutes the Time’s biggest threat to the truth. Anyone listening to Limbaugh knows where he is coming from and can apply the appropriate filters; not so with the Times.</p>
<p>FF,
You make a good point as far is it goes. However, another essential point, missed by most of the loyal NYT legion is that Limbaugh, FOXNews, conservative talk radio in general, and their newest incarnation–the conservative blogosphere–exist and thrive precisely because of the mistrust that the so-called mainstream media outlets have so deservedly earned. Those of us who don’t nod thoughtfully in agreement as we read the NYT while sipping our lattes and twirling our Birkenstocks around on our big toes–needed an outlet for our annoyance at the smug echo-chamber world in which these folks lived…not unlike the situation that predominates here on CC. :)<br>
Rush was the first to do (on radio) what the bloggers now do so well on the internet…expose the demonstrable fact that the MSM emperor has no clothes. As Peggy Noonan said, he deserves to be celebrated for that.</p>
<p>I think they exist because there are so many people who do not believe the truth and want to justify owning three homes while other working Americans go homeless. If a major business leader gets three newspapers, one of them is the NYTimes.</p>
<p>If anyone ever needed an insight into how people can take the cartoonish maunderings of Rush Limbaugh seriously, a few minutes contemplating Driver’s last post will reveal a lot about the techniques that were used to create the mindset of the Limbaugh “dittoheads.”</p>