NY Times Gins Up the Faithful

NY Times Gins Up the Faithful October 16, 2012

Eeeeek!  The mouth-breathing religious wahoos are just about to establish a Handmaid’s Tale theocracy on our shores!  It’ll be like Iran with Hee Haw reruns and Precious Moments statuary and Thomas Kincaid prints and contemporary Christian Music.  If you want a vision of the future, imagine Benedict XVI’s tasteful red shoes stamping on a human face – forever.

That’s more or less the tenor of the NY Times today as it gets the secular faithful Pumped Up to cheer Obama on to a comeback in the debate.  Is it even remotely in touch with reality?  Does the US stand on the brink of criminalizing abortion?  About as much as  it stands on the brink of atheist komminiss Obama establishing Sharia as the law of the land.

Moral: It is not the function of cheerleaders, whether in football or politics, to hold reasoned discourse about reality.  It is their function to gin up panic about The Enemy and adulation for the Home Team as our Savior from the approaching horde of Visigoths who are Them.  The NY Times abandons all pretense of interest in reality in order to cheerlead.  By the measure of a news organization, its performance is embarrassing.  By the measure of a cheerleader it does its appointed task quite well–just so long as you don’t think and just respond viscerally to the words, “SCARY RELIGIOUS PEOPLE!  OOGA BOOGA!  BE AFRAID!!”

By the way, I suspect Obama will benefit from the Gomer Pyle Axiom of High and Low Expectations tonight.  The GPAOHALE states that when you expect nothing (as you might when Gomer Pyle sings) then when he bursts forth in a voice of moderate tone and talent he is greeted as a new Caruso, but if Romney is anything less than superlative after his crushing win last time, it will be described as failure.  We’ll see.  Meanwhile the NY Times is not taking any chances and whipping up hysteria about Roe, just in case.

"A fitting post on this day."

Sorting Out the Covington Narratives
"I think it's mainly a fact-finding mission and critique of the media. He never says ..."

The March for Trump
"If you think my comment was angry, that says more about you than about me."

The March for Trump
"I forgot another key point of interpretation: a whole lot of import has been placed ..."

Sorting Out the Covington Narratives

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Tim in Cleveland

    “The result would turn back the clock to the days before Roe v. Wade when abortion was legal only in some states, but not in others.”

    The NYT conveniently leaves out the fact that on November 4th at 2:00 AM, Obama will turn back the clock an entire hour… literally! (at least it will be on Obama’s watch… there’s some kind of pun in there). Media bias at it’s most bias-y.

  • From a realistic perspective, Obama will either win, or it will be a draw. Unless Obama shows up and starts throwing chairs at old ladies, and as long as he even breathes, it will be declared a triumphant turn around. All Romney can do is avoid saying something stupid. Even if he bats 100%, the media will focus on everything Obama did to improve. So yeah, having set the bar so low for those who were apparently shocked to see Obama as he has been for the last couple years, there is nowhere to go but up, and that’s how the stories will run tomorrow.

  • FW Ken

    Its an editorial: cheerleading is acceptable, although reasoned discourse is an option. The problem with the NYT is when the cheerleading bleeds over into hard news sections.

  • What, praytell, is wrong with HeeHaw? Junior Samples was a comedic genius with no equal.

  • Andy, Bad Person

    All I could read from that article is “BLAH BLAH Obama is losing the women vote BLAH BLAH we’d better do something to help him BLAH BLAH theocracy BLAH BLAH your bodies!”

  • Ted Seeber

    HeeHaw reruns? i must have missed EWTN adding that to the schedule next to Life Is Worth Living….

  • I love the _1984_ reference. 🙂

  • Patrick

    “The NY Times abandons all pretense of interest in reality in order to cheerlead. By the measure of a news organization, its performance is embarrassing.”

    This is from the Op-Ed page. It is an “Op” expressed as an “Ed”. I’m not sure I agree with it; but surely this is the correct place to put “cheerlead” pieces.

    This is good cheerleading, though. Fear-mongering is precisely what campaigns *do* in the waning days. Anyone who *likes* one of the candidates is already voting for one of them; the rest of the people need to be given the “Well-you-can’t-let-*those*-people-win” closing argument. To the extent that there is such a thing as “reasoned discourse”, it isn’t appropriate during the waning days of a political campaign, surely.

    • Mark Shea

      Even Op eds are supposed to bear some tenuous relationship to reality. “THEY ARE JUST ABOUT TO OVERTURN ROE!!!!!” is as delusional as if the oped writer was shrieking that they had spiders crawling all over them.