New York Times pursues intellectual diversity

They acknowledged that they lean Left.   Far Left.   They determined to hire additional conservative voices.   So they hired two “conservatives” away from the Wall Street Journal.

Of course, both of the new hires are NeverTrumps.

That is what passes for intellectual diversity at the New York Times.

I saw an interesting attack on the New York Times that complained about the new hires.   Here is Glenn Greenwald:

On CNN, the paper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, chided critics of the Stephens hiring this way: “Didn’t we learn from this past election that our goal should be to understand different views?” He claimed that “the New York Times has a history of trying to bring in different voices,” asking rhetorically: “Don’t we want to surface all ideas?”

And I was thinking that Greenwald was right.   But then I continued to read Greenwald’s post, and discovered that he was attacking the NYT for being thoroughly establishment and centrist.

Few things are more laughable than watching the incomparably homogenized New York Times op-ed page justify itself with appeals to the virtues of diversity. If your goal were to wage war on media diversity in all of its forms, and to offer the narrowest range of views possible, it would be hard to top the roster of columnists the paper has assembled: Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Nick Kristof, Paul Krugman, Roger Cohen, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Frank Bruni, David Leonhardt, Charles Blow, Gail Collins, Bret Stephens, with Bari Weiss as a contributor and editor.

Beyond the obvious demographic homogeneity, literally every one of them fits squarely within the narrow, establishment, center-right to center-left range of opinion that prevails in elite opinion-making circles. Almost all of them, if not all, supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general election, and now have politics close to that neighborhood. None is associated with or supportive of the growing populist left or the populist right; they all wallow in the vague, safe, Washington-approved middle ground, members in good standing of the newly overt neoliberal-neoconservative alliance. As long as Stephens avoided talking about climate change and Douthat steered clear of abortion, most if not would all be capable of giving a speech that would be cheered at a so-called #Resistance rally, or at an AIPAC conference.

We need to laugh long and hard at the New York Times as it enjoys its waning days of influence.


4 thoughts on “New York Times pursues intellectual diversity”

  1. Obscurity…amen to that!  Let them continue on their path, let the left go insane, let them call for impeachment, call Trump a traitor and all of US racists, let them implode.  I laugh very heartily at some of my family members, only to see them become even MORE unhinged at my dismissal of their insane “concerns”.

  2. Curt North:
    I laugh very heartily

    Be very careful to laugh at Leftist talking points and not at the family members who spout that nonsense.

    But laughing and mocking is the best approach.   If you can get them to respond to a challenge for factual basis, be prepared to call out the difference between allegations and evidence.  When they assert that the allegations come from high-ranking officials, point out that they are still just allegations, and they come from Obama holdovers, and they have been hanging around for many months without any credible substantiation, and you find them laughable; they should not inspire such emotional partisanship.


Leave a Reply