Monday :: Jul 31, 2006

New York Times Refuses to Review Lapdogs


by paradox

Currently the liberal community is torn by the fate of the New York Times, victims of vicious personal attacks from wingnuttia, yet enabler to Bush and Republicans. Publisher of Krugman, Rich and Herbert, the paper also slums every day with Brooks, Friedman, and Tierney. Gail Collins makes sure the editorials are generally superb, while the paper insists on employing chump political journalist hacks like Gerth, Seelye and Bumiller, wallowing daily in the disgusting American journalism ethos of obsequious, nauseating sycophancy to Bush.

Tipping the scales so that lately that those infuriating, abhorrent, insensate assholes who published Judith Miller get no sympathy whatsoever is the fact they still have refused to review the superb Lapdogs by Eric Boehlert. There is no mystery why this is so, even though the New York Times ridiculously prides itself on being the national publisher of cultural/political review: it makes them look like the servile, obnoxious, kneepad chump journalists they are.

Besides being well-written, insightful and interesting, Lapdogs is at its core masterful research, sourcing and footnoting. Nothing, not one fact, quote or circumstance is ever left to speculation—everything is irrefutable in sparkling, concise documentation.

Lapdogs is, of course, is a smashing indictment to the horrible incompetent US journalism corps, corporate war whores who have inflicted incalculable damage to our democracy. Many in the liberal community emphatically state this is the country’s most urgent problem to fix, our dysfunctional failed journalism that still has 50% of the populace misinformed that Saddam had wmd. While the priorty of problems to fix is open for debate, just the fact it exists at all warrants very serious consideration and thorough examination of any work that researches and discusses it, such as Lapdogs.

For the New York Times to ignore Lapdogs is unforgivable, just another stinking, putrid, pus-oozing gash on the reputation of the paper and the health of the democracy they’ve inflicted on us and themselves the last 15 years.

How the tender, fearful kiss-ass souls of the paper will recoil at that text, incredulous anyone could attack or criticize them while freaks publish home addresses of reporters and the publisher on the internet, calling them traitors and hoping they’re hanged.

Hopelessly bogged down in a searing, pernicious war that may truly blow up the middle east any day, gas at $3 a gallon, debt in the trillions, total world fury and condemnation, tens of thousands dead from lies, endless environmental outrages and a constitution in utter shreds any tiny, infinitesimal iota of sympathy is instantly obliterated for these idiots at the New York Times who have helped hurt us so much.

Condemnation, of course, is never eternal. Everyone wishes that redemption, true redemption of honesty, progressive change and forgiveness, could be granted upon anyone. Of course. Who among us has not grievously erred, been extremely embarrassed yet had the honesty and fortitude to own up to it? Such is the life of humans, an extremely young species prone to massive amounts of mistakes.

In the end it is extremely sad to see the New York Times delude itself and cause great harm to the journalism profession and the country by not reviewing Lapdogs. After all those years of publishing daily, all the degrees, awards, and great stories broken, all of it just left to wither in a warring, flaming hell of lying politics they still help fuel every day. The humans at the paper deserve better; this self-immolation of integrity, career and profession by fellow humans and great writers is difficult to watch.

paradox :: 6:18 AM :: Comments (5) :: TrackBack (0) :: Digg It!