If there was one thing the ongoing Colin Kaepernick unemployment saga really needed, it was a flaccid, incomprehensibly contrarian op-ed in the dear old New York Times. Boy does this one, from Colin Fleming, not disappoint:
In the abstract, David Brooks’s choice to begin today’s Times column about the assorted Trump/Russia investigations with the following isn’t necessarily a bad one.
I mean obviously the first and most important point is: Mazel tov! After a few years of harrowing personal crisis for America’s Foremost Moral Decay Diagnostician, our boy David Brooks has at last found love, and gotten married (to his 23-years-younger former research assistant)!
This week, the New York Times—a paper which has seen subscriptions soar as The Resistance seeks its media savior—hired Bret Stephens, formerly of the Wall Street Journal, as its newest opinion columnist. Allow us to offer you a broad sample of his past work.
New York Times public editor Liz Spayd wrote an exceptionally stupid column this weekend criticizing the newspaper’s sports section.
On Sunday, Frank Bruni dedicated his New York Times op-ed column to the way Donald Trump eats steak. This is not the first line of a joke.
Can you imagine telling an inequality-wracked world that we might not want to take away a billionaire’s money? Absurd. And poorly argued!
Let’s talk about fake news. Are you excited? I am! (Actually I’m not. That claim was fake news.)
It’s easy to write a story that pisses off one or two demographics. But how can you piss off every demographic simultaneously—all for different reasons? At last, the New York Times may have pinpointed how to accomplish this proud feat.
After a long, ugly, and immensely stupid presidential election, a modest plurality of a little more than half of voting-age Americans voted to make a deeply loathed avatar of the despised political establishment the next President of the United States. Unfortunately, they were improperly geographically distributed,…
Like many major news organizations, the New York Times has a policy that forbids its writers and editors from publicly endorsing any candidate. Ancient journalism folklore states that ideally one shouldn’t have opinions—doing so would anger our one true god, Objectivity—but given that this isn’t possible, it’s instead…
In a move much anticipated by members of the royal court, the Kingdom of the New York Times has elevated a prince of Family Sulzberger to a position in line for the throne.
On Saturday, as Republicans lined up to denounce Donald Trump and the pussy-grabbing candidate brooded in his tower, BuzzFeed’s editor-in-chief, Ben Smith, published a piece arguing that what was unfolding was not just a defeat for Trump’s image, but a victory for the established traditions of journalism. Smith wrote:
What number of sentences do you guess is sufficient to positively say that David Brooks has failed in the stated purpose of his New York Times column?
Everyone agrees that Gary Johnson, who is pretending to be an actual candidate for the presidency under the banner of the Libertarian Party, humiliated himself this morning by not knowing what “Aleppo” was. The New York Times immediately read his embarrassing gaffe into the record. It wrote:
People use Twitter for different reasons. Celebrities use it to self-promote, teens use it to talk about Selena Gomez, and I use it to share my own dumb thoughts with the world. New York Times tech reporter Vindu Goel, however, often uses it to interact with brands—specifically, to yell at them when he’s displeased.
So you’ve decided to get a piano! For yourself, or for, say, the piano-loving Target worker who gave up her lifelong piano access when she moved to Mississippi to live with you as your wife. I think this is a fine choice! Pianos are lovely. Let’s talk about some good and bad practices for acquiring a piano.
This week, NFL lawyers sent a letter to The New York Times demanding that the Times’s recent investigation into the league’s bogus concussion studies be retracted. It was so limp that it demanded a proper takedown. Thankfully, the Times was happy to oblige, via a response letter from their own lawyers.