Berenson is taking the same naive approach to journalistic “objectivity” as Taibbi.
= = = = = START BERENSON:
Yet the New York Times is now on the verge of endorsing government censorship, or at least saying that it shouldn’t be dismissed, that its value is a “thorny question.”
Does the Times even remember what business it is in? Its guiding principle is that governments and companies DO NOT DETERMINE WHAT IT WRITES …
= = = = = END BERENSON.
There’s one subtle difference. Unlike Taibbi, Berenson has empathy. He recognizes that insiders and outsiders don’t see the same world.
= = = = = START BERENSON:
Again, for those of you who don’t like the New York Times, who have never liked it, this hypocrisy may come as no surprise. Bear with me, folks. It’s a surprise to me.
= = = = = END BERENSON.
From the outside I never saw the Times as objective. I started reading it in the 80s when I lived in Pennsylvania. It was more or less local there, available in convenience stores and vending boxes. At that time I was a SOLIDLY LOYAL DEMOCRAT. I could see that the Times agreed with me about most things, and I appreciated the agreement. BUT: I had no illusion that the Times was “objective”. When a publication agrees with my partisan views, whether I’m R or D at the time, it’s NOT OBJECTIVE by fucking definition.
I would never imagine that the Times employees believed they were “objective”. That would be just plain dumb, like a Ford employee thinking he was building generic universal cars that could be substituted bolt-by-bolt for Chevies or Plymouths or VWs.
Ford workers know they’re making Fords. Times workers know they’re making Democrats. Or they should.
Polistra's Mill 