June 2, 2011

"In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion. If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth."

The true believer is Jill Abramson, the new executive editor of the New York Times, replacing Bill Keller (who replaced).

Let's analyze the analogy. A newspaper is like religion, believed in, and taken, unquestioningly, as true. Then what happens when you are in charge of it?

1. You have a deep moral obligation to insure that it is absolutely true, to respect the faith that others put in it and to preserve and grow the community of believers because of your dedication to truth, or...

2. You are embedded in the faith, carrying on the commitment to the idea that it is the truth and impressing that faith that it is the truth on readers, so that they keep looking to you as the mouthpiece of truth and don't go wandering off looking for some other viewpoints.

It could be #1 or #2 or both or neither.

70 comments:

Bob said...

And you burn all heretics.

Rich B said...

So the Times was her family's golden calf? Sounds like idolatry; clear violation of Commandments 1 & 2 (See Exodus 20, Jill).

edutcher said...

What she's saying is so much marketing twaddle. The Gray Lady is a dying beast and people are just trying to wring the last sou out of it.

I don't doubt Ms Abrahamson is, as a good little Lefty, one who would rather read the Fishwrap of Record than the Bible, but anyone who believes she will fulfill both, much less either, of Ann's conditions will be sorely disappointed.

chickenlittle said...

Bob siad:
And you burn all heretics.

That's called an "auto-da-Tina-fé"

gerry said...

If a newspaper subsituted for for religion in her upbringing, especially the New York Times, the analogy is meaningless. The truth cannot be divorced from ethics and morality, which regulate personal behavior.

Walter Duranty is evidence of the truth to be found in the NYT.

traditionalguy said...

Before the Internet Reformation that brought so much truth to light, its readers had to believe that the NYT was trustworthy...there were no other sources. Today nobody respects the NYT anymore. It is a slightly better written Pravda full of every untruth fit to print.

Henry said...

Let's analyze the analogy. A newspaper is like religion, believed in, and taken, unquestioningly, as true. Then what happens when you are in charge of it?

You sell indulgences.

MadisonMan said...

Whistling in the dark as the Paper of Record plunges into abyss.

Kirk Parker said...

Wow. In an ideal world--heck, even a somewhat better one--people would be embarrassed to admit something like this.

Trooper York said...

They have to fool themselves because they aren't fooling us anymore.

Trooper York said...

More people see an episode of the "Real Housewives" than read the Times in a month.

It's time has come and gone.

Original Mike said...

""In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion. If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth.""

My first reaction upon reading this was pity.

Pogo said...

"If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth."

So Jill Abrahamson is a credulous fool, and always has been.

David R. Graham said...

The Times writer quotes her intending lower case t for truth. Had they quoted her intending upper case T for Truth, then her statement would constitute blasphemy pretty clear and simple. In lower case, it is an unremarkable statement, though brow-raising if only for its ambiguity: lower or upper case t, which, does the Times writer know the difference, etc., why say something so immediately cheeky?

Interesting multiple use of the word partner in the article. So much of language from so many people is meant to be put-off-ish, to indicate, "You do not belong to our orbit, you foreigner, stay away, go, hang your head in impotent sorrow and desolation."

If the Times is the lady's religion, there's nothing wrong with that. It holds her together, That's what religions do. OK, that's what she wants. Who is in a position, or even should be, to urge or compel her to do otherwise?

BJK said...

She meant to say, "taken for Gospel," as that is the way a human being would actually say it.

Presumably she self-edited to avoid the appearance of promoting a religion over others, a decision which makes her both a bad editor and perfect for the NYT.

Carol_Herman said...

Lost interest long ago.

And, as someone who used to subscribe to the NYTimes. And, I also remember how on Saturday nights, along Broadway, you could see stacks and stacks of "sections" being tossed together for Sunday's sales. Meaning lots of New Yorkers, stopping for bagels at Zabar's, also lugged these papers home ...

Means that there were once subscribers. The paper didn't change!

We all did.

Michael said...

Well, it is made clear that she was an "investigative reporter." I take that to mean a reporter assigned to finding Republican lies or wrongdoings. A regular reporter investigates nothing, I suppose, just reports. It would be good to know the difference between these sub-specialties in the news business.

AllenS said...

Did she really say that, or did someone hack into her Twitter account? It can happen. Or, so I've been led to believe.

Original Mike said...

"Before the Internet Reformation that brought so much truth to light, its readers had to believe that the NYT was trustworthy...there were no other sources."

What opened my eyes wasn't the internet, but C-Span. Watch a speech for myself, then read the NYT reporting of said event. I caught them actually lying; not spinning but out and out pants-on-fire lying, on more than one occasion.

David R. Graham said...

And if she's in charge of the religion that is the Times -- well, not quite but nearly -- who's to say she can't be or shouldn't be? She helps define the religion, nothing exceptional about that. Others have done so ahead of her time. She's tasked with drawing devotees or at least attendees. Fine. She makes the product that attracts them or not, gets them opening their wallets. She's hardly the first to regard a business as a religion and derive no little happiness from the act. There are as many religions as their are minds.

Coketown said...

Dang Jill. You already got the job. You can stop lickin' boots.

Wait a minute. Thomas (Friedman), Paul (Krugman)...the apostles! It's true! Hallelujah! In the beginning was the TIMES!

Get over yourself, Jill.

Old Dad said...

The death spiral now under politically correct leadership.

Splat

Chip S. said...

Maybe she's laying the groundwork for the Times to claim tax-exempt status as a religious organization.

deborah said...

Maureen Magdalene.

TMink said...

If she could get the times to tell the truth, it would matter again. Tall order though.

Trey

Rich B said...

Carol-

You reminded me of what a pleasure it used to be to read the Sunday Times. You could buy it in Manhattan on Saturday night, or around midnight in the nearby suburbs, so you could pick it up when you were coming back from a restaurant or a concert.

It's been at least 5 or 10 years since I've bought the Sunday Times.

Richard Dolan said...

"In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion. If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth."

If the NYT was a "substitute" for religion, the household in which she grew up was poorly informed about the subject and she has remained uninformed since moving on from that household. Probably because she spent too much time reading the NYT.

The "absolute truth" meme is interesting, too, in that it suggests her idea of "religion" is either fundamentalist biblical inerrancy (NYT plus too many viewings of Inherit the Wind) or a misunderstanding of the idea of papal infallibility (for starters, it would never apply to any subject that the NYT might be interested in).

Quayle said...

The new captain of the titanic doesn't believe in icebergs.

The real question is whether she'll believe the Times' CFO's numbers as religion - as gospel truth.

ark said...

Ensure, not insure. Do not use slipshod grammar when you discuss the New York Times.

DADvocate said...

We've been saying liberalism is a religion for a long time. Here's proof.

Will Abrahamson be like the Pope and considered infallable on all religious (political) issues or is that still Obama's role?

Sixty Grit said...

Iceberg, Goldberg, whatever...

Maguro said...

I wonder if Jill Abrahamson knows who Walter Duranty was.

Peter said...

"1. You have a deep moral obligation to insure that it is absolutely true…

2. You are embedded in the faith..."

3. You ARE the faith. "Mon Dieu, c'est Moi!" Or if you're not quite God, you're at a major god in the Times pantheon.

Chip S. said...

I heard that a puff of white smoke was released from the Times building prior to the announcement.

Quayle said...

The American left come to full ripening and now rotting.

The comments under the Times' story is full of rejoicing and triumphalism over a woman - a woman! - taking the helm.

That's all that matters to this bunch.

Unnoticed and irrelevant is the fact that the Times is a horse-and-buggy business in an entirely new age, and that the capital asset pool is being pissed away.

One NYT's commenter hoped that Keller's layoff binges would be reversed by Ms. Abrahamson.

Can you believe such myopic idiocy?

rhhardin said...

Send her a penis photo and ask for a job.

NYTNewYorker said...

So, Pinch and Keller, who have driven the NYT to its knees, put a woman behind the wheel just before it crashes and burns.

Pinch: Feels good though, eh Bill?

Keller: Sure does Pinch, it surely does.

"Feeling Good" is what liberalism is all about.

PatCA said...

By invoking religion, she confirms what the VRWC says, that liberalism is a substitute for religion.

Which makes her the Pope?

I wonder why they did it before the premiere of this sad, sad movie.

Original Mike said...

"I wonder why they did it before the premiere of this sad, sad movie."

Wow. I hope Althouse watches this movie so we don't have to.

Methadras said...

Leftards and their idiotic beliefs. Their smug arrogance on display.

Paddy O said...

Or use your control of the religion to shape the truth to bolster your own authority and power.

WV: kkbooty ??

Quayle said...

I wonder why they did it before the premiere of this sad, sad movie.

I saw the trailer for this at the Angelika the other day. It contained snippets of a feisty bunch of New York Times buggy salesmen vigorously telling how their horse drawn carriage is going to kick the crap out of the gas engine Ford.

Too funny for words.

Almost as funny as the preceeding advertisement for MSNBC where [what's her face] is standing in front of the Hoover Damn extolling the virtues of big collective government projects, and how we should still dream big and use big government to get us there.

It apparently totally escaped the leftists at MSNBC that there is no way in hell that the Hoover Damn could be built today with the current federal regulations and green leftist court challenges.

These folks aren't very smart, are they.

BJM said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trooper York said...

How does she feel about the Mexican dude who ownes the joint?

Trooper York said...

You know the one who bought into it so they won't write nasty stuff about him.

Jim said...

You are God and your word is law.

Blue@9 said...

What happens to cardinals when they become pope and realize that god isn't speaking directly through them?

Whoa, whoa, guys. Guys. This shit is bogus. God's supposed to speak directly to me, but I haven't heard a goddamn peep from the big guy.

BJM said...

Sorry, should read before commenting...however I still don't give a shit.

As Original Mike said, CSPAN was the beginning of the end for newspapers, news periodicals and the big three networks. Cable TV's insatiable 24x7 news maw, talk radio and the interwebs finished them off as citizens began to report news in real time and talk to each other without the media filter. They cannot compete in an environment where they do not control the narrative or set the agenda.

pct said...

Maybe she will be like Pius IX and deal with the erosion of her authority as best she can.

BJM said...

In my house growing up the only time I heard my father swear was when he read the newspaper.

mccullough said...

Smart move. The Times needed to make these changes now to get its Obama re-election operations in place in time.

ic said...

I thought only rednecks, hillbillies, and the unsophisticates believe with blind faith.

David said...

Absurd. Pathetic.

Even more so because she believes this stuff.

The first role of a leader is to have a clear eyed, dispassionate appreciation of where you are.

The NYT isn't where she thinks it is, so how can she get it to where she wants it to go (if she has anything in mind.)

ricpic said...

When I was a child I spoke as a child, I understood as a child and when I became an adult I still spoke as a child, I still understood as a child and my response to the infuriating words that contradicted my childhood and forever mentors the New York Times and NPR was STFU!

Fen said...

A nicer way of saying her mother raised her to be an intellectual whore.

I wonder if she has the first clue about the attitude of commenters here.

PatCA said...

This post coincides nicely with the chapter I'm reading now in Mamet's book, about how liberalism is a religion.

XLNT book.

Criminy, it moved up from about 40K to 66 in rankings in the last two days!

Peter Hoh said...

You know that thing that Palin does that drives the left nuts while earning the support of her fans?

I think Abrahamson might have figured out how to do something similar.

YoungHegelian said...

****NEWSFLASH****

According to National Review OnLine

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/268732/scrub-dub-dub-jay-nordlinger

the offending lines have been expunged from the NYT article.

Sure as shit, when I followed the link the quotation in question has been disappeared.

Those ball-less, Stalinist, bastards!

David R. Graham said...

"Maybe she's laying the groundwork for the Times to claim tax-exempt status as a religious organization."

Everybody should because everybody has/is their own religion. Cloward-Priven to an end they never imagined. Or, what government bureaucrat or attorney wants to say what is and what is not a religion? None of them has standing to make a an unimpeachable determination. Ergo, everyone can claim tax exemption as a religion. And should.

@Richard Dolan: brilliant, thank you!

William said...

There was a time when I read the NYT every day--religiously one might say. I still click on the occasional article or column, but it's not a staple of life like it used to be. The paper costs too much, its biases are blatantly obvious, and there's more and better info to be had on the internet.....Still I mourn its passing. If all informed people read the Times, then we were literally on the same page.

J said...

This lady and her family should be shipped to a gulag.

The NYT covered up and white-washed Stalin killing millions because he was their Leftist hero.

The blind devotion of twits like this is sickening.

AllenS said...

You have this in quotes:

"In my house growing up, The Times substituted for religion. If The Times said it, it was the absolute truth."

I read the article this morning, and that quote is nowhere to be found.

Marshal said...

"Maybe she's laying the groundwork for the Times to claim tax-exempt status as a religious organization."

Doubtful. Organizations which lose money don't worry greatly about taxes.

Dan said...

I love all these morons who are so obviously obsessed with the Times declaring how irrelevant and dead it is.

AllenS said...

Dan said...
I love all these morons who are so obviously obsessed with the Times declaring how irrelevant and dead it is.

Dan, are you saying that the Times declared how irrelevant and dead it is? Or, was that just a poorly constructed sentence?

How do you feel about the Times erasing a key part of the story?

Peter Hoh said...

Dan seems to think that punctuation is irrelevant.

AllenS said...

Peter,

Click on Dan's profile. Too funny, especially considering this thread. Haha.

Fen said...

The paper costs too much, its biases are blatantly obvious, and there's more and better info to be had on the internet

When I was younger, I would read 3 papers a day - WaPo, WSJ, Dallas Morning News.

But I stopped around the Clinton Impeachment. I was paying ~ $5 a day for information that I had already seen on the net, TWO DAYS prior.

Penny said...

One little girl's dream had finally come true. She was trying to share her personal joy with the grown ups.

Not long thereafter, she realized that in our world today, there's no time to talk about little girl dreams any more. No one seems to care.

"EDIT"

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.