A Times Editorial Page shift?

This is more of a sense than anything else, but I sense a shift in the New York Times Opinion section. It seems less liberal. Knee-jerk centrist sometimes?

Andrew Rosenthal became the section's editor last year, and I'm wondering if that is the cause for this apparent shift (at least to me). Rosenthal obviously made his impact when he signed up William Kristol as one of the op-ed columnists. Kristol is one of the most conservative pundits out there, but also I think not one of the smartest. Fair enough to try to balance an opinion page with alternative views, but the Times could have done much better than Kristol. I can't think of better ones off the top of my head, but there has to be some conservative thinkers out there better than Kristol.

Earlier last week, we had an op-ed from John Bolten and John Yoo. Say what you want about Bolten, but how does a discredited lawyer like Yoo get space in a national newspaper? Yoo is the guy who authored the Justice Department torture memos.

And from time to time, we get op-eds from a group of Iraq promoters, Richard Perle being one of them, as sort of an update on where things are at in Iraq. These people were entirely wrong about the war and what it would do for Iraq, us, and the world. Yet they are still recognized in a national forum for their opinions.

I also wonder if the editorial shift has affected which and when letters get published. The letters on Israel and Gaza seemed to be overly even while the online comments for the editorial and Friedman's column on the subject were more weighted against Israel. My letter obviously wasn't published. Haven't had one published in awhile.

Better, sort of

On the same day as my last post, the Times does indeed have some good op-eds.

What You Don't Know About Gaza by Rashid Khalidi provides some facts and a perspective from the Palestinian side.

Fighting to Preserve a Myth by Gideon Lichfield strongly questions Israel's militaristic strategy and calls for more a politically-minded approach.

So it's not all bad, but I don't think balanced reporting. Or should one call it proportionately accurate reporting and editorializing?

Finally, some letters on Friday regarding Israel and Gaza. A day or two late. Titling them as "Finger Pointing Over Israel and Gaza" seems like a trivial way of describing the debate. The debate and the violence are hardly trivial.

New York Times: A disappointment

Just when I think I may start subscribing for the full week, the NY Times becomes very disappointing with its coverage of the conflict in Gaza. Today's front page has a photo of Israeli soldiers taking a break and an article about Ehud Barak's rising political stature as a result of Israel's bombing and invasion of Gaza. Then there is a little note at the bottom referring to an article regarding the bombing of a UN school in Gaza where numerous children and other civilians were killed.

Just where is the Times's morals in this? The bloodshed of Palestinians at the hands of Israel warrants much more attention than an Israeli politician's prospects or some Israeli soldiers at rest (or the loss of a few fallen Israeli soldiers written about inside). The Palestinian strife was buried in today's paper.

And no letters published about the conflict/invasion in the opinion section yet. Two days ago, the editorial board had a very lame editorial about what it calls Israel's "incursion" into Gaza. Plus, Thomas Friedman yesterday had a ridiculous op-ed that focused on the geopolitics of the conflict, allowing him to ignore the suffering of the Palestinians and as usual throw blame at the Arabs. I did read though some excellent online reader comments disagreeing with each.

Over the days of the conflict I've noticed in the ongoing articles an effort here and there to somehow equate the suffering of each side.

I could not read today's paper.

Letter to the NY Times: Israel-Gaza and Obama

Though it most likely won't be published, my letter to the NY Times today. I also sent a copy of it to http://change.gov, Barack Obama's President-Elect (and probably continuing) site.

To the Editor:

In regards to the conflict in Gaza, President-Elect Barack Obama's silence is deafening. Mr. Obama is willing to talk about the economic crisis but not about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This is not leadership. This is not change. Mr. Obama should be strongly urging an immediate end to the violence. This bludgeoning of Gaza and its people by Israel is a greatly disproportionate response to the Hamas rockets and can not be tolerated. The longer that Mr. Obama remains quiet, the lesser pressure there is for real diplomacy, and the greater the view that he along with President Bush is tolerant of Israel's brutal treatment of Palestinians.

Get the Sunday Times?

Today's New York Times had a slew of good articles and opinions today. It kept me reading on the couch for hours. I subscribe Monday through Saturday. Sunday is generally too much paper for me to trudge through (and Saturday is a slow news day). But of course, it can have good feature articles, and after today I'm reconsidering. Here's a rundown on today's interesting reads:

An extensive article on Bruce Ivins, the military microbiology researcher who was the FBI's chief suspect in the anthrax investigation before Ivins committed suicide.

An article on the beginning of Israel's invasion of Gaza. This whole bombing and now invasion has been brutal and disproportionate. Of course, the Bush-led US stands by doing nothing and basically condones Israel's actions. And the rest of the world is basically impotent to do anything. The result of it all will just be more anger at Israel and America, and probably more terrorism.

An analysis of what is it that Israel's trying to do.

Frank Rich's op-ed on Bush's narcissism.

A long op-ed on how Wall Street got into its mess by Michael Lewis and David Einhorn.

An interesting article on the Irish economy's rise and fall.

And I was just too worn out to read another article on today's financial mess, but this was probably a good one, by Joe Nocera.

Report on the bogus $73 an hour auto worker pay claim

NY Times has a breakdown on Big 3 auto worker (aka UAW auto worker) pay compared to pay for non-union American auto workers employed by Japanese auto companies. $73 an hour as the median pay is not an accurate claim of course, but there may have to be some pay concessions by Big 3 auto workers to help the Big 3 stay in business.

Be an UberNerd

Just saving a place to read The Compleat UberNerd, a 13-part blog post on the mortgage industry. It was written by the blogger Tanta who just recently passed away due to cancer.