The New York Times, one of the most reliable sources of leftist talking points on the planet, is experiencing hard times (no pun intended). They’re not exactly circling the drain. But layoffs, as a liberal friend of mine and regular Times reader concedes, have become “a quarterly ritual.” The staff at the Gray Lady is so reduced the Times has announced it will vacate the top eight floors of its Manhattan headquarters. Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. says he hopes this move will “generate significant rental income.”
Well, if you can’t turn a buck retailing news and ad space, may as well try being a landlord. (The Times has been pretty tough on New York landlords over the years. I wonder if they’ll play by their own rules. Nah. Silly question. Forget I asked.)
I saw the news on all those empty cubicles at the Times building after having read this a.m.’s Times at my local library. (A case can be made that those cubicles still occupied by Times reporters are also empty. But that’s for another day.) In today’s lead editorial the Times goes after the Donald for his choice for ambassador to Israel, one David Friedman. Friedman, the Times moans, holds “extremist views” that are “radically at odds with American policy” toward Israel.
Friedman’s views have gotten wide coverage, and Americanos can decide for themselves whether they’re extreme or not. But the other remarkable statement leads me to wonder if the Deep Thinkers on the Times editorial board are aware that after January 20 next, America’s policy toward Israel will be determined by Donald Trump, or if they’re just ignoring this.
When reading the NYT editorial page it is often difficult, as it is in this instance, to sort the cynical from the merely ignorant.
Not satisfied with the “at odds with American policy” knee-slapper (translation: “at odds with what the NYT wants our policy to be”), the editorial goes on to say that Friedman’s approach is “not within the views of most Americans.” This is almost breath-taking, considering where it appears. It’s hard to find anything that is less consistent “with the views of most Americans” than the New York Times editorial page.
