NYT Outsources Editorial Space to Democratic Party

The New York Times has an editorial today complaining that the GOP's plan to snip $41 billion out of the federal non-defense spending this year amounts to "unimaginably steep reductions." This in itself is no surprise. However, check out paragraphs two and three:

A few days ago, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee began running radio ads criticizing members of the Republican Study Committee, a group of House members that wants to cut $2.5 trillion out of the budget in the next decade, including $100 billion from now through September. In case voters don't know what the actual impact of these drastic reductions would be, the ads are there to remind them:

"Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle supports a plan in Congress that would cut education by 40 percent," said one of the ads, directed against a newly elected Republican from upstate New York. "And her plan would cut science and technology research by 40 percent, too. Research and development is how we get the new products that create new jobs. How does cutting that help us compete with China and India? It doesn't make sense." Ms. Buerkle, like other subjects of ads, represents a district won by President Obama in 2008.  

I mean, why not just cut out the middleman already?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Damned corporate speechifiers.

  • Atlas Reloaded||

    ^^THIS

  • ||

    Are you at all surprised?

  • ||

    I was just mocking their pretensions of being magically different from the other business entities they wish to strip of rights.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Congressional Republicans are outlawing science and technology??? They're criminalizing research and development???

    In all fairness, it is an editorial. We don't want to make opinion journalists start employing critical analysis of their subjects, do we? What fun would reading something like that be?

  • M. Simon||

    Subcritical analysis? What is the subcritical multiplication factor?

  • MJ||

    "And her plan would cut science and technology research by 40 percent, too. Research and development is how we get the new products that create new jobs. How does cutting that help us compete with China and India? It doesn't make sense."

    And this is how the left builds up the idea that the GOP is against science. Making cuts in this type of corporate welfare is the same as being "anti-science".

  • ||

    Also note they say "cut science and technology research" not "cut government funded science and technology research". The implication of their sentence is that all science and technology research is being cut like there is no such thing as research not funded by the government.

    It is a small point. But it shows how dishonest and ignorant they are.

  • ||

    John, its part of their worldview:

    Everything for the State, Nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

    If its not a government program, it is literally invisible to them. All that privately funded R & D? Does. Not. Exist.

  • Random Dude||

    It really is part of their worldview:

    "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole."

    At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State.

  • castrodeathwatch||

    Reminds of what Castro in Cuba once said, "Within the revolution everything; outside the revolution, nothing."

  • yonemoto||

    it's a sad state of things, but it is true that almost all science and technology research is funded by the government, which is part of the reason why we have a serious PhD bubble right now.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Do we have a PhD bubble in hard sciences, or in feminist semiotics?

  • Michael Ejercito||

    And this is how the left builds up the idea that the GOP is against science. Making cuts in this type of corporate welfare is the same as being "anti-science".


    Here you have it. Liberals defending corporate welfare.

  • ||

    MNG|2.7.11 @ 4:41PM|#
    You're just peddling anecedotes.

    It's true that when it can be identified most reporters lean/register/vote Democrat. But that does not necessarily mean their coverage is slanted that way. Most journalism schools push the long held standard of striving for objectivity and fairness, it's a professional ethos with some traction.

    MNG|2.7.11 @ 4:34PM|#
    It's going to be exceedinly hard to demonstrate news coverage itself is "biased." For a conservative like you everytime they don't run with the latest Brietbart boondoggle is going to seem like the MSM "ignoring" critical news, and when they run with something you find unimportant you are going to see it as them "shaping the narrative" for the left.

    In areas where it's more visible those papers (The NYT and WAPO) try pretty hard to be balanced, more than one can say about many conservative media outlets like the WT.

  • ||

    :-)

  • ||

    I remember when joe tried to convince me that MSM leaned libertarian.

    good times.

  • M. Simon||

    Joe is a John. He has to pay for it.

  • Brett L||

    Is there anyone who doesn't think the NYT editorial page is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic party? Certainly not anyone who isn't a Democrat.

  • Gregory Smith||

    I don't get it, I thought the entire paper was dedicated to the DNC, is it possible for the ol' gray bitch to be even more progressive?

  • No Name Guy||

    41 billion is an "unimaginably steep reduction[s]."

    Ha! Just wait until everyone stops buying treasuries. THEN they'll be some steep reductions - like 40% across the board, socialist security, medicare, et al included.

  • ||

    Ha! Just wait until everyone stops buying treasuries. THEN they'll be some money printed, and steep inflation reductions - like 40% across the board, socialist security, medicare, et al included.

  • ||

    This is just more corporate cost cutting. It's cheaper to outsource their editorials to a DNC or QUANGO public affairs intern than have
    overpayed columnists and editorial board have to bone up on all those talking points.

    Cutting and pasting is hard work.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "It's cheaper to outsource their editorials to a DNC or QUANGO public affairs intern than have
    overpayed columnists and editorial board have to bone up on all those talking points."

    If that's the case, they still have a hell of a lot of fat left to cut:

    They're still paying Krugman.

  • cynical||

    If you say so. Printing the DNC's talking points for free when they could have gotten ad fees to do so seems like a wasted opportunity. Maybe not rising to the level of shareholder lawsuit, but...

  • ||

    Those dems must be pretty thankful by now for that Citizens United decision. This is truly free speech, by which I mean the dems didn't have to pay for it.

  • hmm||

    Tread Jack

    Ray "stop driving it" Lahood delivers verdict on Toyota accelerator bullshit. Ya, if I was Toyota I'd be suing his for defamation and the damage to my brand so hard his great great grand kids would be in potato sacks. Then again the administration would just retaliate with tariffs.

  • ||

    Yeah, we might have gotten a little ahead of ourselves on this one. In retrospect, going with the assumption that Toyota was trying to kill its customers should have raised a red flag or two. But we're not mind readers, how could we know our mind reading was wrong?

  • ||

    Life imitates Thank You For Smoking. Is this Reason's new talking point or something?

    There are plenty of cases where killing a small percentage of your customers is less costly than fixing the problem that kills them.

  • ||

    I mean, why not just cut out the middleman already?

    The sad thing is that the NYT just ran an ad for a client and did not get payed one cent for it.

    The internet may not be their biggest threat. It may simply be their own stupidity.

  • ||

    I guess that's why some Dems were floating trial baloos about bailing out newspapers last year. The only thing better than free advertising is free advertising that somebody else pays for.

  • ||

    "baloons" not "baloos"

  • ||

    "balloons" - %@#$@#$ shouldn't try to spell before having coffee

  • ||

    It is times like these that i miss Joe...

    If only for the fun of abusing him when he tries to defend this.

  • ||

    Nice dog-bites-man story.

  • Paul||

    The left/Democratic bias always seems to be a spasm that we see from many mainstream media outlets, usually just after a conservative swing in Congress.

    NPR went through the same thing back in 94.

  • Joe R.||

    I'm surprised no one is talking about the Frank Rich column from the other day. It was an advertisement as well. It further claimed that refusal to raise the debt limit would be the cause of default. Yeah, that's why we're broke. Our credit limit isn't high enough!

  • JD the elder||

    You know, it sometimes seems to me that the NY Times has been wrong on just about every major issue of substance for the last 150 years or so. They thought the Civil War would last about a month, they argued that rockets couldn't possibly be used to go into space, they thought that cocaine made Negroes into bulletproof madmen (and continue to support the Drug War), they loved the idea of interning Japanese-Americans...OK, I guess they liked the civil rights movement, so I guess they're not always wrong.

  • Jonas||

    They did have an editorial stance that the minimum wage should be abolished for a long time, to their credit.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    You know, it sometimes seems to me that the NY Times has been wrong on just about every major issue of substance for the last 150 years or so. They thought the Civil War would last about a month, they argued that rockets couldn't possibly be used to go into space, they thought that cocaine made Negroes into bulletproof madmen (and continue to support the Drug War), they loved the idea of interning Japanese-Americans...OK, I guess they liked the civil rights movement, so I guess they're not always wrong.


    One must wonder why the Times has any influence in Connecticut and New Jersey, let alone the rest of the nation.

  • ||

    Who cares about this. What I'm more angry about is why Republicans believe a $41 billion reduction is anything other than a drop in the bucket. $41 billion / $3.7 trillion is barely 1%. That won't even cover a fraction of the increase in government spending under Obama. That won't even cover the amount they plan to waste on the military-industrial complex. The Tea Party needs to be marching against their Republican congresspeople if they are serious.

  • M. Simon||

    That won't even cover the amount they plan to waste on the military-industrial complex.

    Think of the money waste on insurance. A total waste unless you need it. And in this case the waste on insurance actually reduces the need to call on the insurance.

    Just remember the politics from 1920 to 1941 when America was isolationist. How did that work out?

  • Mikey||

    $41 billion / $3.7 trillion is barely 1%.

    Actually, it's barely 0.001%.

    It's like lowering the price of an LCD TV from $1000 to $999 and then making a big deal about how much you're saving.

  • Brendon Carr||

    It's actually a little more than 0.01% -- don't cheat the Democrats of the credit for their courage to oppose such draconian cuts.

  • ||

    It is the Democrat Party, not the "Democratic Party." There is nothing less democratic than the Democrat Party.

  • ||

    Meh. You're sort of right, I suppose. (Though why protect the sanctity of democracy, anyway? Democracy sucks.) But at this point, the whole "Democrat Party" thing really isn't worth fighting for, man. That phrase is usually a sign of a dismissable argument, in the vein of stuff like "Rethuglicans" and "Hitlery Clinton." When you see it, you know you can safely skip the rest.

  • ||

    Surprise,surprise. The NYT is pushing a leftist agenda. Wow. This hasn't been news since Stalin.

  • ||

    I thank the NYT for bringing this to my attention. I shall certainly contribute to Cong. Buerkle's re-election campaign if asked.

    Unintended consequences, NYT?

  • Jeri||

    "Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle supports a plan in Congress that would cut education by 40 percent"

    Cut education by 40?! OMG!!! What will I do with Little Johnny on those two days that will be cut from his schoolweek?!

  • ||

    Threadjack: Genius.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement