Tuesday, September 13, 2011

The Jill Abramson-Era New York Times ("The Years Of Shame") -- The Westboro Baptist Church of the Left

The "Jill Abramson Era" of the New York Times has already been ineradicably marked and irrevocably ruined by the publication of the shameful Paul Krugman piece, "The Years Of Shame," on the morning of September 11, 2011, the 10th anniversary of the attacks on New York City, Washington and Pennsylvania. 

           By their coldness, crudeness and cruelty, Krugman, Abramson and the Times have shown themselves to be the Westboro Baptist Church of the Left. 

     A short, sad, stupid transit to Journalism Perdition. Or, as we might have said when Jill and I were kids (I knew Jill then; she used to be nice), "Fascist Journalism Perdition." 

    (But we wouldn't have said "perdition” then; just "Fascist Fascist Fascist . . .", having no idea what the word actually meant and implied about power, its mechanics and uses, but filled with energy and righteousness.)

If Jeffrey Dahmer "committed journalism," his name would be Paul Krugman.  Jill Abramson, his enabler and supporter, would be his "moll" -- a dead-end job if there ever was one. 


  1. I'm sorry. Aren't you going to reprint or link? I haven't read anything by Paul Krugman in some time and would very much like to see what you're referring to.

  2. Good morning and thanks for your note. I would not wish to reprint the piece, but here is a link:


    You can see, obviously, how I feel about it and I think it's fair to say that it has attracted an almost universally negative response. I think the article emerges from a very sick, cruel and, frankly, not terribly bright mind. One Krugman critic remarked, after he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics a couple of years ago, that it was the first time the prize had been awarded posthumously. What that writer -- an economist, I believe, meant was the Krugman's work about 20 or so years ago or more was of a higher quality and had much more value than his current work. I'm not an economist or even terribly fluent in the semi-fine points of the subject, but I think the linked article speaks for itself in terms of Krugman's, Abramson's and The Times' character and judgement. Curtis

  3. You may or may not be aware that Paul Krugman is an opinion columnist at The Times and as such does not fall under the jurisdiction of the executive editor.

  4. Dear Anonymous, Thank you for your reply. I am aware of that. However, in view of the way the Times has consistently blurred the traditional news/editorial distinction over the years to the point where it has become meaningless in the context of the paper (i.e., the paper’s consistent editorial voice is equally apparent in news articles and so-called “news analysis” as it is on the editorial page) , and the way it markets itself (I don’t think readers regarding this as "Jill Abramson Era" is anything the Times would find surprising), I think your point amounts to a distinction without a meaningful difference and that my reaction and conclusion are wholly justified. Publication of the Krugman piece on the morning of 9/11, when families were preparing to mourn again the tragic and horrific loss of loved ones, and everyone else was mourning along with them, demonstrates in the clearest possible way that the Times has lost its way to an extent it is difficult to conceive or believe and constitutes a truly depressing and permanent summation of the Jill Abramson Era. Based on this publication decision, I don’t believe any further attention needs to be paid to the paper, especially if you’re concerned by highly relevant, unfolding stories like the Solyndra bankruptcy. I very much appreciate you writing to me, but it would be so much nicer if you would identify yourself in your correspondence. Please visit again. I try to keep my posts varied, as you may already have seen. Curtis