Over at Mediaite, Andrew Kirell tears into The New York Times' Tamar Lewin for calling the Cato Institute "ultraconservative."
Here's what Lewin wrote at the Cato Institute's hiring of Chinese dissident Xia Yeliang:
The political labels of Professor Xia and the Cato Institute, in Washington, are strikingly different. Professor Xia got into trouble in China for being too liberal, while the institute is known as libertarian or — less to its liking — ultraconservative. But the professor and Cato officials say they have the same focus.
As Kirell notes,
No one in their right mind would consider Cato "ultraconservative," especially when a cursory glance at their policy recommendations shows support for same-sex marriage, legalized marijuana, reduced military spending, non-interventionist foreign policy, and relaxed immigration restrictions….
Kirell writes that Lewin is either confused or being underhanded. Either way, it's shoddy stuff that should be turned against the Times itself for fun:
Some say the New York Times is run by a pack of space aliens; some say Fox News is firmly in President Obama's camp; some say the Boston Marathon bombing was a false flag planted by the Illuminati. See how fun it can be?
Take it from this libertarian who's been called everything from a "fascist with a bong" to a "pinko commie Obama shill," libertarians can be touchy about ideological labeling and misrepresentation of their views. But that really doesn't excuse such hilarious confusion from a newspaper that dedicates itself to living in the nuance.
Exit question: Who do you think the Adolf Hitler of illegitimate comparisons in today's mediascape?