Jewish World Review June 21, 2004 / 2 Tamuz, 5764

Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reiley
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

The worst of Times | On the day Ronald Reagan was buried, The New York Times ran a page 1 analysis of how history might evaluate his presidency that stated: "[Reagan's] conviction that words counted for more in politics than mere deeds enabled him to convince large majorities that as long as he was in charge, it would remain 'Morning in America' ... [His] brand of radical conservatism had a counterpart in Britain under Margaret Thatcher, but it achieved little success elsewhere."

Radical conservatism? Reagan was a Barry Goldwater clone? According to R.W. Apple, the Times associate editor who wrote the piece, he was indeed. And so another example of how The Times itself has become radicalized is in the books.

Somewhere along the line, The Times got out of the news business and into the nation building business. Its primary intent is no longer to provide objective information and fair-minded analysis to its readers, but to convince them to support a brave new world in the U.S. The power of The Times is being used to promote the formation of a new America, a bright, shining progressive city on a hill of steep government entitlements.

Why should you care what an individual newspaper does? Even with a circulation of more than a million, most Americans don't read The Times. But consider this: Every morning, the powerful barons and anchor people who run the network TV news operations read The Times first thing. They often take editorial direction from the paper, sometimes duplicating story selection and even point of view. All-news radio does the same thing, and The Times' wire goes out to thousands of newspapers across the country and around the world. This is one extremely powerful outfit.

The transformation of The Times from news source to ideological journal has taken years. The absurdity of labeling Reagan a far-right radical is just the latest in a long line of over-the-top reportage. Two further recent examples:

  • The Times ran 43 front-page stories in 47 days on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq. By contrast, the Chicago Tribune, certainly no conservative bastion, posted 27 front-page stories on the situation. There is no question The Times is using the scandal to hammer the Bush administration, since its front-page expositions often contain little new information.

  • Over the past few months, The Times has run 11 stories on the startup liberal radio network that is now having trouble paying its bills and is heard on fewer than 20 stations. The last time The Times tried to prop up this propaganda operation, its correspondent opined that the network had a "significant" audience. That is flatout untrue.

    Donate to JWR

    In almost every section, a Times reader is confronted with liberal ideology. Even the feature sections are skewed. Times business reporter Geraldine Fabrikant wrote an article on me a few months back and described your humble correspondent as a "conservative" four times. I guess the label was used the fourth time in case you might have missed the other three.

    In the world of The Times, Americans like Reagan who want a smaller federal government are radicals. Those who believe symbols of Judeo-Christian philosophy should be freely exhibited in public are fundamentalists. If you oppose abortion, you are anti-woman. If you're against gay marriage, you are, quite possibly, homophobic.

    As the Blues Brothers once remarked: "We're on a mission from G-d." The Times, of course, would remove G-d from that quotation. The paper is definitely on a mission, and the gloves are off. Publisher Arthur Sulzberger and his tribe want a secular nation with few judgments on personal behavior, income redistribution through taxation of the affluent and a foreign policy that seeks consensus at almost all costs.

    That's the sign of The Times today. And G-d (sorry) help you if you stand in its way.

    Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

    JWR contributor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show, "The O'Reilly Factor," and author of, most recently, "Who's Looking Out for You?" Comments by clicking here.

    Bill O'Reilly Archives


    © 2004 Creators Syndicate