The New York Times: What’s Not to Love?

nytimes-logo.jpgMaybe it’s because The New York Times declares itself to be the “paper of record” (and then hires Bill Kristol) that we are all so quick to point out its shortcomings. Or maybe it was the fact they tried to get us to pay for their opinion. Or maybe it was that whole WMD thing. No doubt, everyone has their own reason. Over at VF Daily, a number of men folk are hashing out why it’s just so darn easy to “hate” the Times (and by “hate” we really mean kvetch, because, newspapers being what they are, it’s hard to hate something you’re this dependent on, or even be more than mildly annoyed actually). Some thoughts:

Jonah Golberg: “The Times is the coxswain, the one setting the pace for the entire culture. Sociologically, it just matters more. Ideologically, it drives me fucking bonkers.”

Michael Wolff: “Almost in inverse proportion to its own survivability, The New York Times becomes more and more holier-than-thou…You’ve lost your way journalistically, you’ve lost your way from a business standpoint, you’ve lost your way from an authoritative standpoint, and yet you are still so holier-than-thou.”

Jack Shafer
: People love to hate their newspaper for the same reason they love to hate their relatives.”

Alex Pareene: “The Times is responsible for me having a job, basically.”

David Carr: “The reflexive, baked-in desire to constantly take apart the Times is, I think, the hobgoblin of underemployed and understimulated minds.” Snap!