The Implosion of the New York Times

[Jack Hays]

IOW you want to ignore writers who exist to write the proven facts about politics and base all of their opinionated commentary on legitimate evidence from professional sources. I will not waste time doing homework on people whose careers focus on humor and lies instead of actual reporting.

As I said, Andrew Sullivan is a fine and respected journalist/columnist, and has been for many years. Your ignorance of his work and reputation undermines your own credibility.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

As I said, Andrew Sullivan is a fine and respected journalist/columnist, and has been for many years. Your ignorance of his work and reputation undermines your own credibility.

I am waiting for you to prove the magazine he works for never publishes stupid lies and opinions that are based on fiction.

 

[Jack Hays]

I am waiting for you to prove the magazine he works for never publishes stupid lies and opinions that are based on fiction.

Sullivan has never worked for The Spectator.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Sullivan has never worked for The Spectator.

The OP link was to an article in The Spectator. So obviously he currently does.

 

[Jack Hays]

The OP link was to an article in The Spectator. So obviously he currently does.

Nope. The Spectator, like most periodicals, publishes work by independent authors.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Nope. The Spectator, like most periodicals, publishes work by independent authors.

Which is exactly why everything in it must be taken with a grain of salt. That is all they are - writers who get paid for having their work published. They do not have political science, sociology, history, and government degrees from four-year colleges. They can write a lot of nonsense that is not reporting anything and call it journalism.

Most periodicals are good at publishing work by real experts in their respective subjects. Unlike them The Spectator intentionally publishes jokes and lies, according to its own About Us webpage, instead of limiting itself to reporting proven facts.

 

[Jack Hays]

Which is exactly why everything in it must be taken with a grain of salt. That is all they are - writers who get paid for having their work published. They do not have political science, sociology, history, and government degrees from four-year colleges. They can write a lot of nonsense that is not reporting anything and call it journalism.

Most periodicals are good at publishing work by real experts in their respective subjects. Unlike them The Spectator intentionally publishes jokes and lies, according to its own About Us webpage, instead of limiting itself to reporting proven facts.

Goodbye. Andrew Sullivan's name alone refutes all that nonsense.

 

[LouC]

Day 118 of the NYT implosion.

 

[NewfieMom]

I noticed there was a piece in "The New York Times" this morning by Andrew Sullivan. It was a review of a recent book about conservatism. Apparently the review will appear in the print version of "The New York Times" on Sunday, January 3 in its Book Review section.

Andrew Sullivan on the War Within Conservatism and Why It Matters to All of Us (Published 2020)

Edmund Fawcett’s “Conservatism” is a sweeping history that reaches deep into the past but with startling relevance for the present.

www.nytimes.com