Screw the Times

As Noam Chomsky has said, the New York Times does indeed produce all the news it deems as "fit to print," which conveniently fits into other agendas as well. (Even with its supposed "left bias" (I'm fairly certain I've only heard that from those who gravitate toward the right).) At one time I put a little more stock into it, even after having read and watched Chomsky's arguments against this tool that is advantageous for those interested in maintaining the status quo. I've been trying to ignore it completely, but will read a few articles here and there when I see them bookmarked on my network on Delicious. What's evident now more than ever is how much one has to slog through in order to get to the main points. In two of the different articles I just attempted reading, the whole of the paragraphs outlining the main points don't contain any actual information. No supporting arguments (or presentation of conflicting arguments for rebuttal), just cliched idioms begging you to finish the article. And the main point? Eh, sorta banal--a news product more than actual news. So yeah, nothing much different than any other "major" news source.

Edit: Despite the Times's overall quality of journalism, I really appreciate Bob Herbert's contributions. There are a couple of other good'uns in the mix too, but his pieces are ones I always look out for.