GMontag's Journal: The Manhattan South of Harlem Times

I will try to remember the more descriptive, and proper, name for the 'New York Times':

Via a post at 06:56 AM by Glenn Reynolds

VIRGINIA POSTREL
I'll just add a strategic point, the kind of thing they teach in business school. If you are going to adopt a strategy to be a national newspaper, you must add the capabilities to be a national newspaper. That doesn't mean parachuting in reporters from Manhattan to interview a few natives and report back on their peculiar habits. It means having lots of well-staffed bureaus and, if necessary, credited stringers. It also means breaking out of a worldview that considers Manhattan normal and every other place weird.

The truth is that the NYT is not a national newspaper. It is the New York Times (more accurately, The Manhattan South of Harlem Times). It assumes its readers have the prejudices of well-educated, affluent Manhattanites, and it staffs, writes, and edits accordingly. To take an apolitical example, from a national perspective, the Times business pages grossly overcover the media business. From a Manhattan perspective, that makes perfect sense.

There is nothing wrong with this strategy, but it is a different strategy from the stated one of being a national paper. The mismatch between strategy and capabilities seems to account for many of the paper's current managerial problems, including the seeming inability of editors to keep track of exactly when and where

Your sig

[The Terrorists]

I can't believe this. I just about died laughing. I served in the US navy and I can tell you the IDF is one of the most undisciplined, marauding forces I have ever seen. They make me and my grandfather, who fought in WWII, absolutely sick.

Nope.

[The Terrorists]

and that was a serious comment inviting debate.. are you in Israel/in the IDF?

Re:Nope.

[GMontag]

No.

Re:Nope.

[neocon]

<humphrey-bogart>I have friends who were in that `undiscplined, marauding force' when they single-handledly and simultaneously whipped thirteen invading armies at once. Three times.<humphrey-bogart>

Since then, we've seen them wage an incredibly disciplined campaign against terrorism, putting their own troops at great risk to minimize civilian casualties.

So, even if your comments weren't an obvious troll, my response would be something along the lines of Lincoln's response when told that

Re:Nope.

[GMontag]

Obvious is being conservative.

I have not known nor met one single US Servicemember (that I could confirm were, in fact, US Servicemembers) who has expressed The Terrorists view. Not even the Jew and Israel haters.

However, I have met plenty of posers that have used identical words.

I suspect this is not a new troll, but an old one popping by in a new brown uniform.

Not a poser.

[The Terrorists]

Would you like me to write you with an email address of a WWII vet who believes similarly? I wish you wouldn't insult me like this. There's a real person back here. I'm no troll.

News flash

[The Terrorists]

the terrorism is increasing, not decreasing, as security measures/ a wall/ curfews/ incursions etc etc etc are increasing. It's not an effective strategy. They must contend with a steady stream of suicide bombings nevertheless.

Re:News flash

[GMontag]

Yea, it's cyranoVR. Go away troll.

Who the fuck is cyranoVR?

[The Terrorists]

It's not me.

Excellent stuff!

[ces]

I'll be keeping this in mind the next time I read a story in the "Times".

I am always amazed at the attitude of certain classes of people who live in Manhattan south of Harlem, inside the Beltway, downtown Boston and Cambridge, San Francisco, or Los Angeles that views the rest of the country as being populated by a bunch of unsophisticated, uneducated rubes.