« Where David Card Is | Main | Evites »
December 07, 2006
Why Isn't There A Liberal New York Post?
I mean it. This sort of thing is quite awesome. I don't agree with what The Post is seeking to advance, but it's an undeniably buzz-generating and attention-grabbing approach to the news, and in that respect, it's quite powerful.
December 7, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Why Isn't There A Liberal New York Post?
There is one...its supposedly called the New York Times
Posted by: lib4 | Dec 7, 2006 1:41:55 PM
No, it's The Daily Snooze... er The Daily News, which, like many liberals, is too tasteful to muck around in gossip as good as Page Six and too cheap to pay for a Liz Smith, or even an Andrea Peyser. The Times is, well, classy if you want to be nice about it and staid if you don't. Could there be a liberal New York Post? I don't think so, but there could be a more populist, workers of the world unite type Post which in the end would be much more dangerous...
Posted by: weboy | Dec 7, 2006 1:53:49 PM
See America, Air.
Posted by: Stephen | Dec 7, 2006 1:55:54 PM
"The Daily News" is liberal?
Posted by: KL | Dec 7, 2006 2:02:13 PM
There are all sorts of superficial, cheap, and just plain wrong tactics liberals could adopt that would be "undeniably buzz-generating and attention-grabbing." But an important part of contributing to public discourse is, you know, actually contributing to public discourse. Stuff like that doesn't. Liberals don't lose anything worth lamenting by failing to emulate playground antics.
Posted by: Ashish George | Dec 7, 2006 2:06:48 PM
Ezra, the NY Post loses Murdoch between $40-50 million a year. When you find a liberal willing and able to lose that much dough, call me.
Posted by: JMG | Dec 7, 2006 2:10:09 PM
I think some people like the "game" of politics, more than the substance sometimes.
Posted by: DRR | Dec 7, 2006 2:17:43 PM
"Why Isn't There A Liberal New York Post?"
After reading liberal websites for a while now, I know the answer to that one. It's because liberals are nuanced, intelligent people who don't pander to the worst instincts of the American people.
Posted by: ostap | Dec 7, 2006 2:24:15 PM
Um, HELLO??
The New York Post was the liberal New York Post. Started by Alexander Hamilton, it was the best newspaper in America when the Times's was an arrivistes' rag. Sadly, we sold it out of the family in the 1970s, and now it caters to Long Island bond salesmen.
Posted by: Marshall | Dec 7, 2006 3:11:44 PM
The Village Voice is all liberals in NYC are going to get.
Check out their current cover:
http://www.villagevoice.com/home/index.php?page=toc
Subtle!
Posted by: A_B | Dec 7, 2006 3:14:41 PM
That's a good point about the Voice, AB. Also, the New Yorker often runs pretty political covers (recently, bush in the china shop and a statue of an elephant being pulled down a la Saddam.) The problem, apparently, is that when liberals are running a magazine or newspaper they can't help but actually do investigative reporting and serious analysis. And I'm not joking when I say that that's a shame; it is a small demographic who will look at more than the cartoons in the New Yorker.
Posted by: Sam L. | Dec 7, 2006 3:23:52 PM
The NYT is liberal.
Speaking of the NYT, did anyone see Neal Cavuto explain to Paul Krugman why he is a liar? It was great. Krugman got all wild-eyed, eyes darting back and forth while he tried to explain why his lies aren't lies and so on.
You see, Krugman called the economy under Clinton great using certain statistics as criteria. When those same statistics are applied to the current economy, this economy is even better, yet Krugman says this economy is bad. His only explanation is that the current economy doesn't "feel" great to the average Joe. Although if you ask the average Joe how he is doing, he thinks he is doing fine, but his neighbor must not be doing to good, because the news says the economy isn't all that great.
Where would the average Joe get that impression, with people like Krugman saying the economy is bad and all? Although compared to the same statistics used to celebrate the Clinton economy, Bush's economy is just as good if not better.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 7, 2006 3:53:06 PM
"Why Isn't There A Liberal New York Post?"
There is no liberal sugardaddy willing to spend 25 million a year for a vanity toy.
Posted by: DonB | Dec 7, 2006 4:22:14 PM
"Bush's economy is just as good if not better."
How? Poverty rate has gone up under Bush. The record surplus has turned into record deficit.
I guess for Bush Cultists facts don't matter.
Posted by: DonB | Dec 7, 2006 4:24:04 PM
There's always The Onion. The stories are made-up, but they're truer than what you read in the Post.
Posted by: Mitch | Dec 7, 2006 4:26:24 PM
"Poverty rate has gone up under Bush."
In 1996, the Clinton budget allotted $191 billion for poverty entitlements. That was 12.2 percent of the budget. The Bush 2006 budget allots $368 billion for poverty entitlements, 14.6 percent of the entire budget.
The poverty rate is lower than during the Clinton admin. Bush spends a larger percent of the budget on the poor than Clinton did. I guess that means Bush cares more about the poor than Clinton.
You ever notice how conservatives by far spend more of their own money donating to charity than liberals do?
"The record surplus has turned into record deficit."
Ever hear of 9/11?
I guess the liberals consider 9/11 a minor, law enforcement event.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 7, 2006 4:37:59 PM
Dear Captain Toke:
I am in awe. Even for you, this is an impressive bit of conscious and deliberate continuing ignorance.
Do you even bother to READ the stuff that Ezra writes, in your rush to troll up the comments sections? The term "median income" doesn't ring a bell?
And you're *seriously* going to use 9/11 to excuse all the bad that has happened in the past 6 years? The question of administrative competence has never crossed your mind?
BTW, from the on-line clips of that meeting between Cavuto and Krugman, I see Cavuto very skillfully using the power of implication to lie like a rug, and Krugman just about ready to throttle him for sweeping pretty much all the real-world evidence under the rug. But I suppose when you live in Bush-world, it's all about scoring points, and facts don't matter. Eyes darting wildly, indeed.
Thank god you represent a shrinking minority of fanatical True Believers.
Love and Kisses
OB
Posted by: OB | Dec 7, 2006 5:26:23 PM
"BTW, from the on-line clips of that meeting between Cavuto and Krugman,"
That is why it is so easy to prove you clowns wrong. I watched it live, unedited. You guys get your info filtered, cut and edited by the likes of Media Matters, etc.
"And you're *seriously* going to use 9/11 to excuse all the bad that has happened in the past 6 years?"
We are at war and the economy is as good if not better than the 90s in spite of 9/11. And Bush still spends a higher percentage of the budget on the poor. Boy, Clinton must have really not cared about the poor. All that surplus money and he spends less of the Budget on the poor than a wartime president.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 7, 2006 5:43:11 PM
Guys, I think he's named Toke for a reason. I advise ignoring him.
Posted by: Marshall | Dec 7, 2006 6:01:31 PM
But I suppose when you live in Bush-world, it's all about scoring points, and facts don't matter.
Hey now, go easy on Toke, don't you know how hard arguing is when you can't just make shit up?
Posted by: Fledermaus | Dec 7, 2006 7:21:11 PM
I've gotten to where I recognize Cap'n Jokes style so I can skip his bullshit comments. Of course he doesn't read the post, why should he? He just makes shit up all of the time.
Posted by: merlallen | Dec 8, 2006 6:07:18 AM
Is that how you guys deal with reality? I cite a former Carter associate(a middle east history professor none the less) who says Carter's book on the middle east is bullshit, and you wackos claim I am making stuff up? Do you clowns realize how detached from reality you appear.
If an objective person happened to read this thread, they would see that I post a quote from a middle east history professor and friend of Carter(and probably a liberal) saying Carter's book is bullshit, a quote that is easily validated and you morons start claiming I am making shit up.
Please, cite any evidence you have I am making stuff up.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 8, 2006 9:55:59 AM
Previous comment on wrong thread. Still, cite the evidence I am making stuff up.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 8, 2006 9:58:17 AM
Toke,
Your hero the liberal university professor can back up his claims with specifics or shut up. That's really the gist of the comments here, which you have of course ignored.
Unlike recent behavior from much of the conservative movement, if Carter is proven to have lied in his book, you will see him dropped like a hot potato.
As for your economy nonsense, so much has been published, and in so many places, that refutes you it's not even necessary to do it again. You're stuck arguing that the sky is green and 2+2=19.
Posted by: Stephen | Dec 8, 2006 10:04:29 AM
"if Carter is proven to have lied in his book, you will see him dropped like a hot potato."
Like William Jefferson (D) LA? or that Molohan fellow (D)OH? Both crooks and still haven't resigned or been forced out by the Democratic leadership.
"As for your economy nonsense, so much has been published, and in so many places, that refutes you it's not even necessary to do it again."
If it is so easy, refute it. Let's see this info. I am sure you have it at your fingertips.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Dec 8, 2006 7:37:27 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
