New York Times and the times they are a changing

I grew up on the Washington Post and the Evening Star . In the old days (1960’s) I lived inside the now beltway and believed most of what was reported. The only question was in the Drew Pearson and his neophyte Jack Anderson reports. I understood even then muckraking. I also believed in Time Magazine…Newsweek was an also ran. Before this period I read all four of the then Los Angeles newspapers.

I carried this news thirst and my upbringing to Georgia Tech during my engineer training. My main sources of info there were based on my earlier experiences… Time Magazine and Aviation Week. I ignored the local Atlanta papers as being inferior as to world news.

I was spoiled, naïve, or all. I trusted the news that I read as accurate during my GaTech demanding schooling. Later when I was assigned to USMC enlisted recruiting in Kentucky, did I come to understand what a privileged life I had come up through. Mostly I mean that I was taken aback that only 1 in 3 people were mentally, morally, and physically qualified to even be a Marine private from Kentucky. My news filters began to change some.

The first hint that news might not be accurate was a White Paper (from our State Department D.C. types). It was published in Time Magazine and all about our effort in Vietnam (before I went to GaTech) . I read it religiously, and finally thought something is not just right. Since I was draft age ready, I was very sincere about my readings since I was directly affected. And any of today’s spoiled objections to war usually lack my then perspective of knowing “ I will serve or be drafted”.

All this leads me to the New York Times today.

My understanding is that it is run by a person who inherited his position. I also understand that the old New York Times was at one time the number one newspaper in the USA based on distribution numbers. I also understand the present New York Times is down to number three, and most importantly, further on the way down. I also understand the present leadership publishes editorial opinions as news on the front page.

If I were to guess, which I will, many of the employees from other superb sections of the newspaper are bailing out due to frustration with the paper’s leadership. And I will guess the Board of Directors will eventually step in to preserve the shareholders equity. Boards today aren’t what they used to be.

And all I want is the news. I can read others’ opinions when I feel like it, which is often.

I think many of us today are voting with our feet as to our news sources. Those reporters who have been taught, hired and paid to do their opinion bit are dinosaurs to me. “Fake but true” and “docudramas” seem to be gaining traction and becoming professional norms. Only time will tell if that is correct. I hope not.

I do offer questions, more than ideas, about American media and the New York Times as you read and think.

Like in a Hillary Clinton analogy, is there was some vast left wing conspiracy to do political and agenda reporting?

Is the 24/7 news cycle on TV skewing the whole profession to do timely investigative reporting with two sources?

If old fashioned investigative reporting can’t make money, is it time for government funded and controlled news?

Can main media company giants be subject to the Sherman AntiTrust Act? …As if sometimes acting in the restraint of trade?

Has the education system that teaches journalism as a profession missed the point that reporters should know something about that which they report? The idea is to ask the correct question, and know when something is BS or smells wrong. It helps to know things like the difference between a Major and a Major General when doing Iraq reporting, as a simple example.

Is American media just one more symptom of the dumbing down of America?

Or as Thomas Sowell wonders, is it somehow that many journalists, or those that they appeal to, believe that they are so iron-clad right that no one could even mistakenly disagree with them without being bought and paid for by their bad guys?

Is our whole educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities, increasingly turning out people who have never heard enough conflicting arguments to develop the skills and discipline required to produce a coherent analysis, based on logic and evidence. (Sowell mostly).

Do the implications of having so many people so incapable of confronting opposing arguments with anything besides ad hominem responses matter? Are these implications in fact the Achilles heel of this generation of our society and of Western civilization? (Sowell mostly).

I believe in history that the pendulum does swing back and forth; and right now the pendulum is swinging away from the New York Times and media like it. Only time will tell. I am hopeful for the future. And my news filters will remain ever vigilant.