Originally Posted by harkin
The New York Times still doesn't get it, they arent just losing paid readers because of the internet, they also lost a huge percentage of the country by changing from a first-class (albeit liberal-tilting) daily into a propaganda machine for the democratic party, statism and socialism. I go through an airport 2-4 times a week and buying the Times, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Esquire, The Atlantic, Foreign Affairs used to be routine. Now it's just the Wall St Journal, Foreign Affairs and maybe The Economist.
This could be explained by the Times, etc. getting more liberal, but it could equally well be explained by you becoming more conservative. I'd bet that your own views shifting contributed to at least some of the relative ideological movement, especially considering the sort of cocooning you describe. (I'm partly making this point because it's something I've noticed happening in my own views. Political drift can be rather self-reinforcing.)
"Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults"
That's not Glenn Beck, that's Times Ombudsman Daniel Okrent
You condemn the Limbaughs, Becks and Hewitts while you can't even fathom that the Times is the reverse side of the coin, yes, they have gotten that bad. Much better writing perhaps but still disingenuous shills.
As Megan McCardle says, you should get out more.
I think you may undermine your own point a bit here. Using the Times Ombudsman does give a certain amount of authority to the criticism, but at a meta level, it also illustrates the fact that the Times is willing to publish criticisms of itself and in fact has a position devoted to it. That seems slightly un-propagandish to me.
BTW, it's McArdle with one "c." That trips me up sometimes too. The mnemonic I use is the it's the "A" that's capitalized.