ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Worst of The Times

| Friday, Jan. 13, 2017, 8:57 p.m.

Now that I no longer do a weekly TV show, I have more time to read my local paper. Sadly, that's The New York Times.

The Times actually does some good reporting, but the paper's political and economic coverage is filled with deceit. Take a look at a few days just last week.

Thursday: The front page: “NAFTA's promise is falling short, Mexicans agree.”

Wow, The Times now embraces Donald Trump's position on trade? Economists estimate that 14 million jobs depend upon NAFTA, but people everywhere often oppose trade because the smaller number of jobs lost is more visible than gradual gains.

What evidence of NAFTA's failings does The Times offer? Oddly, the article says “the workforce has grown.” Ah, hello? Job growth is good.

Jose Luis Rico “earns well under $10,000 a year.” Not much by American standards, but good for Latin America, and the reporter mentions that Rico got “a handful of raises.” Have you gotten “a handful of raises”?

Despite NAFTA, the “gap between the nation's rich and poor persists.” Duh. Trade doesn't eliminate wealth gaps — it may increase the gap because the cleverest traders get rich. But since the poor gain jobs and wealth, too, so what?

Friday: A front-page story smears David and Charles Koch. First, the reporter labels them “the ultraconservative billionaire brothers.” Ultra? Why ultra? Why conservative even?

The Kochs favor liberal immigration rules, gay marriage, legal drugs, ending racial discrimination in criminal sentencing, fighting in fewer foreign wars and getting rid of government bailouts and favors for businesses, including their own. David Koch supports higher taxes to reduce the deficit. Which of those things is conservative?

Maybe The Times calls the Kochs “ultraconservative” because a political group they support points out, “Policies that subsidize electric vehicles and solar panels for the wealthy raise energy prices” and gas and oil are cheaper for everyone.

The reporter claims the “Kochs have long worked to quash ... renewable energy sources like wind and solar.” But they haven't! They try to quash subsidies for renewables. Big difference. Doesn't The Times know the difference?

Saturday: The Times quotes left-wing New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo saying it “defies common sense” to have a nuclear power plant near New York City. Green activists oppose the plant and Cuomo now says it will close.

But where will New Yorkers get power? The “options include hydropower from Quebec and power from wind farms.”

Great. But what will we do when the wind doesn't blow? At least the reporter admits that “New York City could be burdened with higher energy prices.” Could be? Will be!

Sunday: “Trump denies climate change, these kids die.” That's the headline on a Nicholas Kristof column about drought in southern Africa. Apparently, there were no dry spells before “man-made global warming.”

In truth, starvation has decreased dramatically thanks to fossil fuels. Starvation now is caused by corrupt governments, not climate change.

If there's a way to blame capitalism even as it improves the world, The Times will find it.

John Stossel is the author of “No They Can't! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me