Dean Baquet, the newly anointed executive editor of the New York Times, is off to a shaky start. Since the controversial ousting of Baquet’s “pushy” predecessor Jill Abramson, the paper of record has committed some embarrassing errors. Just look at today’s front page:
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:
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:
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 Times‘ appalling 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:
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.
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.