The NY Times pleads for adult supervision
On the topic of the budget fights, the NY Times becomes unintentionally humorous.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
On the topic of the budget fights, the NY Times becomes unintentionally humorous.
I don’t care much for the comedy, but the neurosociolinguistic construction of the piece is enough for me to write a good piece on…
1) give the name/target…
2) give the impression of almost reasonable (as its almost sane)…
3) then show a boost and make it more unreasonable to the extreme, while adding words like fanatical, and include any term that you can kitchen sink them with.
4) then show more boost, but no, you have run out of emotions and seem to the reader your subject is off the scale…
5) forget to put their outrageous and fanatically extreme position in context with the really larger and more fanatical position that they are responding to.
Sad, so sad, with Pravda an Izvestia to learn from and almost 100 years you think that the Sulzbergs could do better.
where is the cleverness? where is the real evidence of mental superiority, not political version of mad libs.
hey! anyone as bored as i and want to codify things? i will make a page that one can paste in an article and get a propaganda score..
kind of a variation of BS bingo… 🙂
you can almost imagine a self esteemed product of our school system rolling a 10 sided dice for phrase and a 9 sided dice for social damage scores.
lets see what i can find in this article:
i have been doing this for years on the train as i read articles and am board
if you pull these out, you can almost compute a “temperature” of the rhetoric by using this to measure the atomic activity of the missive.
more active particles, the higher the temperature of the oven.
i have written small progs to isolate such, and then tally… VERY interesting…
its also interesting how you can label some of them in such a way, that what is around them is irrelevent as they are like adding a flavor or a spice that means waht you can label.
a few examples:
A little adult supervision: Used in the concept of commiseration between two against an other. you either accept your a child, or your one of the adults too, linking up by putting down a third.
Bring some sense: similar neurolinguistic spice, in either you agree with the sense, or your nuts and as nonsensical. i dare you to be nonsensical.
If they got their way: The oh my god spice of the secular, the we have to stop them or else! or else what doesn’t matter, don’t you see the emergency?
gleeful abandon: i always LOVE seeing this one as the concept is total fantasy… the idea of nero playing the fiddle and loving it.. or of a demon dancing on the souls loving the pain… though i find it also funny that we seldom see the good side of the term, like teh children at a birth day party… after all, making tough choices is hard, but no one is supposed to enjoy the misery (or at least have the common decency to hide it).
Making clear: a wonderful way to tell someone what they understand is what they don’t understand and so you should let me replace your understanding with my ideas so i can say you understand. understand? 🙂
Several credible [phantoms never detailed]: this one is right out of Havelocks change agent guide for teachers… since everyone’s perception is of experience, you can control the group, by telling each member a lie as to the position of other members. when your done, if they don’t check with each other, they cave to the phantom group point that the group never actually held. using the intimacy of an article can do the same across a readership.
political volatility: this one implies the negative of itself if only… that is, if only they didn’t act, it would be peaceful.. everyone knows that peaceful is better all the time than volatile… which is why we all want to live in a graveyard… eh? [and why when it actually is so low in volatility we get cabin fever and go nutty for lack of stimulation to push against]
could result in: this one is as common as dirt… the majority who turn off their thinking do not also generate the silent but accompanying alternative… so every time they say could result in, there is a silent sentence that also says “but might not”. The world could end tomorrow (but might not). it allows you to make anything possible, even if not… tomorrow he could become a god (but might not).
studiously avoided: i like this one… it always makes me think of those stories where the main character has a watch that stops time… and so, they click, and stop time… then while time II passes, they use all that to compute distances, figure out relationships, measure out comes, maybe even build a super computer to run the figured through. why? because they are studiously avoiding bumping into someone… its a false assumptive way to declare that the person actually thought about things so you should not think about things… your not up to it.
🙂
I wish I could find humor, if unintentional, in that piece. Instead I find self-satisfied sleaze. These people helped elect a guy whose relationship to reality is almost nil, and now they have the audacity to lecture his opponents. I think I need a long hot shower.
The NYT editors have taken the typical liberal standpoint that once a spending program is in place, it must therefore be righteous and to remove said program would be a horrific and heartless blow to whoever allegedly benefits from that program. This on top of the fact that it is almost never touched upon that it is other taxpaying citizens that are paying for that program. More rare is the discussion about how the excessive spending is ruining our economy.
The same concept goes for taxation. Once someone is taxed at a certain rate, that rate becomes the new good and proper standard. Anything lower than that is a “giveaway,” as if that money now belongs to the govt and letting that person keep portion of his paycheck again is a gift from the govt.
This NYT piece is a perfect example of what we are up against. Millions still consider the NYT to be the flag ship of journalism. Its influence within the MSM is enormous. 🙁
The Republicans are going to be demagogued relentlessly by the media and the Democrats (if there is a distinction between the two) for doing the “right” thing from now until 2012. I really hope the public does not abandon them as they get pounded by the Democrat Media Complex for instituting the spending reforms we desperately need.
expat: the humor (for me, anyway) is in seeing the transparency of the self-satisfied sleaze, and the fact that they think it’s not apparent. They think they are soooo much smarter than everyone else.
Downsizing is always accompanied by cries of anguish and accusations that the people in leadership roles don’t know what they are doing, and that they are greedy heartless knaves. Unfortunately we must collectively go through the five stages of grief when dealing with the reality of needs to be done.
neo,
that’s not funny that’s scary. a lot of westerners think the people in other regimes believe their paper and dont know whats going on, but they do, even if by other means.
It was that one knew one had to act as if it was truthful and align ones statements with it to a degree.
What we dont realize is that even if they would like to let us know that they know from other sources, there is no way they can show it without also showing the regime which forbids them to know.
the paper doesn’t care if its apparent or not
there is a certain kind of veracity gained by unyielding a position, since their aim is not to inform, but to influence (or as they say in their commercial if you pay attention, tell you what to think). refusing to back down on any position or image is enough for quite a few people to confuse faked conviction (in maintaining a image of a position).
[Just as we are not as dumb as they make us out to be, they are not as dumb as we may think they are]
if you haven’t noticed this news paper manages to always be around despite some interesting finances over the years since they sat down with the Carnegie, and others.
Adolph Ochs
At the age of 19, he borrowed $250 to purchase a controlling interest in The Chattanooga Times, becoming its publisher.
In 1896, at the age of 38, he again borrowed money to purchase The New York Times, a money-losing newspaper that had a wide range of competitors in New York City. He formed the New York Times Co., placed the paper on a strong financial foundation, and became the majority stockholder
In 1904, he hired Carr Van Anda as his managing editor. Their focus on objective news reporting, in a time when newspapers were openly and highly partisan, and a well-timed price decrease (from 3¢ per issue to 1¢) led to its rescue from near oblivion. The paper’s readership increased from 9,000 at the time of his purchase to 780,000 by the 1920s.
On August 18, 1921, the 25th anniversary of reorganization, the staff of The New York Times numbered 1,885. It was classed as an independent Democratic publication, and consistently opposed William Jennings Bryan in his presidential campaigns. By its fairness in the presentation of news, editorial moderation and ample foreign service, it secured a high place in American journalism, becoming widely read and influential throughout the United States
Artfldgr: I mean “funny” in a very bleak, cynical way. Not really funny ha-ha.
Imagine how embarrassed the fish must feel by their NYT raiment.
In 1901, Ochs became proprietor and editor of the Philadelphia Times, later merged in the Philadelphia Public Ledger, of which he was sole owner from 1902-12, when he sold it to Cyrus H. K. Curtis.
everything falls into place when he marries Effie…
In 1884, Ochs married Effie Wise, the daughter of Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise of Cincinnati, who was the leading exponent of Reform Judaism in America and the founder of Hebrew Union College.
basically he becomes a progressive…
but it was Rockefeller that really changed things.. because then they became members in his progressive CFR organization.
still to this day,and back to that time, the people that control what you see buy and have a lot of influence over you (even get you to wear your underwear outside your clothing, and call it fashion), are CFR members.
it was James Reston who pointed out how what appears in the NY Times, then appears everywhere else. as if they all took their cues from the times as to what opinions to put forth.
Reston won the Pulitzer Prize twice. The first was in 1945, for his coverage of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, particularly an exclusive series that detailed how the delegates planned to set up the United Nations. Decades later, he revealed that his source was a former New York Times copy boy who was a member of the Chinese delegation
Reston is interesting to the extreme..
and since we have popper quotes, here is some reston ones… (since i bet most never heard of him or have forgotten him).
All politics are based on the indifference of the majority. Reston
Europe has a press that stresses opinions; America a press, radio, and television that emphasize news. Reston
[that’s changed, with socialism came opinions over news… that change was made by changing who delivered the news and the kind of banter went from boring facts, to entertaining opinion, where whose was now most important?]
back to the times..
It is a fact that most editors and newsmen on the staffs of Life, Look, Time, Newsweek, etc., and most editors, reporters, and commentators at NBC, CBS, and ABC take their news and editorial cues from the New York Times. . Technically, it is a great newspaper; but it reports much of the news in conformity with its editorial policies. Alice Widener
so whats in the times is the cue to what others write. there are other papers that now have taken up some of that slack like huff po, but that may change. you can see things move from one place, to secondary places, to then certain bloggers, down the line.
Harding Bancroft, Executive Vice President
James Reston, Vice President and columnist
A. M. Rosenthal, managing editor
Seymour Topping, assistant managing editor
Max Frankel, Sunday editor
Harrison Salisbury, associate editor
C. L. Sulzberger, columnist
David Halberstam, columnist
ALL aligned to the same ideas as CFR members back then (you can look up who are the members from the times now).
the times, like TIME magazine, has been famous for promoting left positions around the world for a long time. as been written before, they are anti-anti-communist, etc
which if you went back to read old articles from the time periods from the archives not books that select them, you can see lots of things that we never really looked back much on.
read what they thought of stalin… or even hitler. Herbert L. Matthews writings on castro are interesting…
its not the only paper of ‘influence’ with odd history…
dig a bit and you can find stories much more interesting than blue people living in roussouian harmony utopia, with matter that doesn’t exist, and a fake environment that naturally pretends that life before was oh so liberal… (without things like centipedes, poisonous snakes, box jellyfish,starvation, cannibalism, parasites, and the list goes on)
Before “Anna” we had “Bently”
all kinds of interesting things and most are free…
I mean “funny” in a very bleak, cynical way. Not really funny ha-ha.
in the words of emmily latella.
oh.. nevermind…
I actually laughed quite hard. They can’t cut the entitlements because thats where the “big Money” lies. Or The republicans are cutting necessary programs with “gleeful” abandon….picture Mike Meyers as Dr. Evil. This is funny stuff.
Neo says, “They think they are soooo much smarter than everyone else.”
That is a succinct definition of a progressive that is custom made for Merriam-Webster.
Republican-proposal to ‘right our fiscal ship’ throws more workers overboard
02/09/11 – Economic Policy Institute by Rebecca Thiess
This is the “Several credible economists” cited by the Times article.
=== ===
The new GOP budget proposes cutting non-security discretionary spending by $81 billion relative to the president’s $478 billion request for 2011. Non-security discretionary cuts of this magnitude would likely result in job losses of just over 800,000.
=== ===
Wait while I climb back in to my chair. OK.
So, cutting $81 B will likely cause 800,000 lost jobs, about $100,000 per job. Note the sophisticated analysis behind numbers like this. Divide any cut in spending by 100,000 and announce the number of lost jobs because of it.
Flip this argument. If we raise taxes by say $500 B and spend it all, we would create 5 million jobs. Or, increase spending by $1,000 B ($1 trillion) to create 10 million jobs. Hey, the stimulus package spent $1 trillion, and didn’t produce nearly that effect.
According to this logic, the only thing preventing us from having full employement, or even more, is that we aren’t taxing enough. Raise taxes by $2 trillion (double all tax collections) and we will have a 20 million job boom.
Team Obama really believes this, along with the NYTimes and their Economic Policy Institute. Be very afraid.
In their analysys, when you take money from “the rich” (merely the people who plan and organize the production of wealth by putting people to organized work), and give it to government planners, you create a bunch of jobs. But, every dollar spent by government must be taxed or borrowed out of the economy, or printed out of thin air. Value is merely redistributed from one group of people to another, or taken through inflation. No new sustainable production or employment is created.
Why Stimulus Plans Fail
The NYT has been hard-left for decades. There’s a straight line from Walter Duranty through their impassioned defense of Alger Hiss to this op-ed. They’ve pretty much hewed to the Party line at least since the 1930s.
They’re just a little more brazen about it now, and/or a little more inept about hiding it. This raises once again the question we discussed before, why is the mask dropping now?
The New York Times made their reputation with the Titanic disaster in 1912. A young wireless operator, David Sarnoff, listened to the radio traffic on the Atlantic that night and correctly deduced that the ship had sunk with great loss of life. He notified a friend who worked for the Times and the paper ran with that story.
Most of the other newspapers on both sides of the ocean were parroting official White Star Line sources and reported that the ship had been damaged but taken in tow to Nova Scotia with all passengers safe.
The Times has been coasting on that ever since.
An aside: Wireless telegraphy in 1912 was analogous to computers in the 1980s. It was mostly very young men who were wireless geeks.
Hmm. So wireless operators in 1912 were a little like modern bloggers. They relied on reports from actual participants rather than official sources.
With any luck, NYT will go insolvent before USA does.
Is this the first time the NYT has expressed concern for “national security”?
Pingback:Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » Well, so much for “adult conversations”…
Is this the first time the NYT has expressed concern for “national security”?
Oh, they’ve long been concerned that we had it. This is the first time they expressed concern that we might not have it.