Sicko Indeed! You Just Can't Trust the New YorkTimes
Filed under: France
The New York Times becomes more disturbingly unhinged with every passing day. You would think that the recent change of power in the U.S. Congress, a wet dream for the Times for ages now, would at least help them pause and take a breath, but no such luck.
Take, for instance, A. O. Scott's recent review of Michael Moore's latest opus documentary, Sicko. The review begins like this:
It has become a journalistic cliche and therefore an inevitable part of the prerelease discussion of "Sicko" to refer to Michael Moore as a controversial, polarizing figure. While that description is not necessarily wrong, it strikes me as self-fulfilling (since the controversy usually originates in media reports on how controversial Mr. Moore is) and trivial. Any filmmaker, politically outspoken or not, whose work is worth discussing will be argued about. But in Mr. Moore's case the arguments are more often about him than about the subjects of his movies.
It appears not to have occurred to the moonbats at the Times that exactly this same thing could be said about U.S. President George Bush -- but the Times never says it.
The review then goes on to discuss the charming qualities of Moore's "valentine" to the nation of France "where the government will send someone to a new mother's house to do laundry and make carrot soup." Both the Times and Moore are enamoured of the French socialist healthcare system, but neither one of them cares to notice the country's recent presidential elections, well documented here on this blog. In those elections, the landslide winner prevailed by recognizing that French socialism was ruining the country, and that the French needed to modify it in the American direction.
Can you imagine what the Times would have said about a film called "Sicko" directed by Rush Limbaugh and saying about the French what Moore says about America? Apparently, the dichotomy is to be explained by the fact that, in the Times view, it is OK to tell ridiciulous lies (Scott -- what kind of person chooses to refer to himself as "A.O."? -- prefers the phrase "may be overstated") as long as you are doing it for the right reason, but a moral outrage to do it for the wrong reason. And they wonder why their revenues are down!
Meanwhile, it seems, the Times would like to redefine the term "democracy." As the Times would have it, the term will no longer mean giving the people what they want, but rather giving them what wise folks like the Times and Mr. Moore know they need. You know, the way Napoleon did for France.
It's quite true, of course, that if such loathesome drivel as the New York Times constitutes the nation's "paper of record," then we are indeed a "sick" society. And perhaps the solution for us does lie in copying France -- in that country, the New York Times does not exist and, come to think of it, Michael Moore isn't French either, now is he?
UPDATE: Back on May 21st, Publius Pundit reported on the upsurge in torture tactics by the crazed dictatorship in Iran, with numerous photos. Today, the Times finally ran the story with the same photograph, on page one of its website, as if they were telling the world a breaking story. Better late then never, we guess. So much for the "paper of record."It's easy to find examples like this, in every aspect of the Times' "coverage." For instance, on June 24th the Times ran a travel piece on Bali and mentioned its famous restaurant Naughty Nuri's without saying a word about its chief claim to fame, a special Martini that is well-documented in the blogosphere. Instead, the Times hyped a microbrew. It's almost as if the Times is willing the blogosphere out of existence. Its so-called guide to the Russia blogosphere is utterly pathetic, listing only one Russia blog, and it's been a dead link for many months now. The blog's live link hasn't been posted to for more than six months.
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
reddit