This was so obvious in 2016. It is more obvious in 2017. It is a major problem in especially “liberal” worlds. The New York Times presents itself as the arbiter of ethics in public life. As holding those who might wield power in our society to standards. And many of our intelligenstia accept this. It lands on the doorstep of liberals throughout the U.S. and is treated like a bible for the well educated human who wants to see society progress. And yet the New York Times seems to be completely incapable of any type of constructive self-reflection. It is an institution that is obtuse and treats itself as completely unaccountable. There has been no reflection on the role they played in Donald Trump’s election (with Haberman, Peters and Thrush giving the Javert treatment to Hillary Clinton’s emails — but instead of throwing themselves into the sewer they get fat contracts with MSNBC and CNN). There was little reflection about how the paper helped lead us into Iraq. There were so many instances. The New York Times is above the social laws that it creates.
Nowhere is this more apparent than with Glenn Thrush. Almost every other media figure who did what Thrush did was fired or forced to resign in disgrace. But they were not working for the New York Times so they were subject to social condemnation. Al Franken resigned from the Senate for doing much, much less (where was the editorial in the New York Times defending Franken I wonder — I mean from Basquet). And yet Thrush survives and will probably prosper. And after a good amount of time there is a good chance that the careers of the women who came forward will be in tatters.
I have come to the conclusion that the New York Times will never change. They are too good for those they lecture. Maybe it is time for us to start re-thinking the role of the New York Times. Oh, I know many people on this list have said they have stopped reading the NYT because of things like this. And then like totebagger junkies we pick it up the next day to see how we’re supposed to think.