Even the New York Times …

... hated Obama's foreign policy speech
AP

Whenever President Obama does something that is universally panned, such as his foreign policy speech/commencement address at West Point on Wednesday, he can typically count on the New York Times editorial board to have his back. Not this time.

“The address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left,” the Times’ editors wrote. “This was far from Mr. Obama’s big moment.”

The board did its best to highlight the good parts of the speech—“Mr. Obama did make a strong case on the use of force”—before unloading on the rest:

Elite Liberals Need to Check Their Privilege

Screen Shot 2014-05-16 at 4.54.05 PM

There are many great privileges that come with being a member of the liberal elite. Elite liberals, however, would rather not acknowledge these privileges, especially when they doing so would expose them as massive hypocrites. But eventually, they get exposed.

Here’s a list of some of the elite liberal privileges that could use a good checking:

NYT Pays Lady-Editors 85 Cents for Every Dollar Dude-Editors Made

Wikimedia Commons

Mr. Continetti has a fantastic column up today noting that the New York Times newsroom is run by folks with the maturity level of the characters on Saved by the Bell. You should read the whole thing. I just want to briefly follow up on my own post from yesterday on the New York Timesappalling hypocrisy when it comes to the gender wage gap.

Following revelations that the Times may have fired their first female executive editor because she asked for pay equality, the newspaper reacted in a manner most spastic. (Gawker has a pretty good rundown of the various stories they told about how much Jill Abramson was paid compared to her male predecessor.) The Times repeatedly contradicted the reporting of the New Yorker‘s Ken Auletta, saying that Abramson and Bill Keller earned a “comparable” level of compensation.

Auletta last night revealed some specific numbers. And my, are they damning:

The Bonfire of the Inanities

Column: The New York Times Devours Itself
Jill Abramson / Twitter

Reading the New York Times’ report on the defenestration of the paper’s executive editor, Jill Abramson, and the coronation, at a hastily arranged meeting Wednesday, of her replacement Dean Baquet, I could not escape the feeling that the Soviet press must have covered the comings and goings of Politburo members in much the same way.

Reid: New York Times Shows Need for Pay Equality Legislation

Senate Democrats pay female staffers less than male staffers
AP

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) took the New York Times’ firing of executive editor Jill Abramson to the Senate floor on Thursday as an example for why congress needs to pass new pay discrimination legislation. He could have just used the examples set by his fellow Senate Democrats.

NY Times: 1 in Every 100 U.S. Servicemen are Transgendered

New York Times building

Having won its battles on gays in the military and women in combat, and despite being engaged in heavy fighting in its attempt to rid the military of sexual assault, the New York Times editorial page opened another front on the military this morning, calling on the Department of Defense to allow transgendered individuals to serve openly. In its piece, the Times made the surprising claim that approximately 15,000 “now serving” in the military are closeted transgenders.

The New York Times Was for Wage Equality Before It Was Against It

Wikimedia Commons

In case you didn’t hear—and if you live outside of the media bubble, there’s really no reason you should have—the New York Times fired its executive editor, Jill Abramson. For us in the bubble, this was amusing enough; many tattoo removal jokes were made yesterday, I can tell you. But the schadenfreude didn’t reach full roar until the New Yorker‘s Ken Auletta uncovered this juicy little nugget:

Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect. Sulzberger is known to believe that the Times, as a financially beleaguered newspaper, needed to retreat on some of its generous pay and pension benefits; Abramson, who spent much of her career at the Wall Street Journal, had been at the Times for far fewer years than Keller, which accounted for some of the pension disparity. Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times, said that Jill Abramson’s total compensation as executive editor “was directly comparable to Bill Keller’s”—though it was not actually the same. I was also told by another friend of Abramson’s that the pay gap with Keller was only closed after she complained.

The New York Times—the flagship rag of the liberal media, the shining beacon on the hill for all other publications to emulate—was paying a woman less than a man to do the same job.

Oligarchy in the Twenty-First Century

Column: Think rich conservatives rule the world? Think again.
Sean Eldridge mingles with a local commoner. (Facebook)

“To see what is in front of one’s nose,” George Orwell famously wrote, “needs a constant struggle.” In front of my nose as I write this is a copy of last Sunday’s New York Times. I have opened it to the business section. Below the fold is one of many Times articles on Thomas Piketty, the French economist and author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which argues that America has entered a second Gilded Age of vast inequality, inherited fortunes, and oligarchic politics, where the shape of public discourse and public policy is determined by a wealthy few.