The New York Sun versus yours truly. The paper may be disappointed to learn that from where I sit, it still stings more when a New York Times op-ed columnist goes after you.
« Health Care Plans for All | Main | For Love of War »
Annals of Denunciation
17 Oct 2007 02:14 pm
Comments (13)
Note the intentional misunderstanding in order to accuse you of anti-Semitism.
As much as we disagree with NY Sun, you have to admit that was a crackerjack editorial (Ira Stoll?)
The dems should ditc the NY Times association - Garance may like them, but they are filled with lightweight liberals like Gail Collinis and Dowd etc who love to dump on Democrats - by spreading highly toxic, often misleading - culture war memes cooked up by GOP politicos.
Garance - should look aside from the NY Times demo - and think about all the garbage that Jeff Gerth and Kit Seeley and Dowd et all spew about Hillary.
Hillary would probably prefer to read (and disagree with) the NY Sun anyway.
Your point was valid but you should have had the courage of your convictions and dispensed with the coded language.
Why the overdone delicacy? To to hell with the NY Sun.
I was wondering about the intentional misunderstanding aspect. But I suspect that the New York Sun sees these issues as Israel vs. people who stand in the way of Israel. So the idea that concern for arabs is high in enough in their thoughts to realize that they are the ethnics about whom the paranoia is raised, may never have crossed their minds.
Sting? I didn't think badges of pride were supposed to sting.
I thought the Sun editorial's section on Sun-vs-Times, basically about their relative circulations, was highly disingenuous; according to a Nation article earlier this year:
As a business venture the Sun is not exactly flourishing. On its front page the paper proclaims: "150,000 of New York City's Most Influential Readers Every Day." But according to its latest audit, the Sun is selling 13,211 hard copies a day and giving away more than 85,000. (By contrast, the Daily News sells about 700,000 copies a day.)
This does rather raise the question of whether anyone but bloggers and neocons actually reads the Sun.
I took "pandering to ethnic paranoia in New York City" to refer Giuliani taking advantage of racial tensions in New York City during his mayoral campaigns and while mayor, so I'm not sure what jp is talking about with "coded language."
Do they write "in respect of Mayor Giuliani" rather than "with respect to Mayor Giuliani" as a deliberate stylistic affectation because they're trying to sound like first-generation Italian-Americans in 1947? Or are they just illiterate bozos?
I took "pandering to ethnic paranoia in New York City" to refer Giuliani taking advantage of racial tensions in New York City during his mayoral campaigns and while mayor, so I'm not sure what jp is talking about with "coded language."
If Matthew meant "racial tensions", why did he write "ethnic paranoia"?
I agree that it is coded language. I guess I'm not in on the code, though.
Taking advantage of racial tensions are the primary way in which Giuliani pandered to ethnic paranoia in the years 1992-2001.
Also, Josh wrote it, Matt quoted it.
There is also the moronic claim that the reduction of the Times' Manhattan paper circulation is a repudiation of liberalism - rather than, say, the fact that people read it on the Web now rather than getting it stolen off their front stoop.
Sun EIC Seth Lipsky is being too modest in this editorial. Back in the '90s, he led the effort to cannonize Achmed Chalabi as Iraqi freedom fighter (back when Lipsky was editing The Forward).
It was this Lipsky cheerleading which no doubt forced the Liberal (back in the day) New York Times to play catch up with Judith Miller.
Comments closed October 31, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Are you serious that either of these denunciations "sting"? I would have thought you would be happy to be attracting attention -- probably happier about the Times denunciation because it attracts more attention.
Posted by peep | October 17, 2007 2:37 PM