New York Times Reporters Not Impressed With Editorials

This is reassuring because I always wondered what the smart journalists thought of the yahoo-derp-gibberish spewed by the New York Times editorial. It can't be this was appreciated by writers who weren't drinking the Obama-statist-progressive kool-aid.

The editorials are so sophomoric it attracts sophomoric comments.

I honestly can't tell the difference between Slate, The Daily Beast, Huffington and NYT. It's fine for the other three to be that way, but I reckon the NYT would have more dignity and sophistication than to roll over for big government, stale ideas and outright silliness like it has.


"(Andrew) Rosenthal was described as a petty tyrant, and lazy in his supervision of an opinion staff that is widely seen outside the newsroom as the voice of the Left-wing establishment.
But many saved their most pointed criticism for foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman, noting that his writing in recent years has been widely parodied and ridiculed.

 

"As for the columnists, Friedman is the worst. He hasn’t had an original thought in 20 years; he’s an embarrassment. He’s perceived as an idiot who has been wrong about every major issue for 20 years, from favoring the invasion of Iraq to the notion that green energy is the most important topic in the world even as the financial markets were imploding," said a former Times writer described as having "gone on to great success elsewhere."

"Then there’s Maureen Dowd, who has been writing the same column since George H. W. Bush was president.”
 
Right about now, many conservatives are probably nodding their heads."

Not just conservatives. Just anyone with an objective brain. 

I would have added Krugman to the mix. His shocking adherence to stimulus and anything attached to spending is baffling. It's the same argument over and over and over and over and over.