Wednesday, October 19, 2005
DoDo head
Lucky me, I get the New York Times at work. So, I can plunk down my nothing a month in order to access Brooks, Tierney and Friedman.
Friedman's column was a sharp and critical look at how a delgation of Iraqis might view our politics. Some of the criticsm was unfair, particularly about the so-called "staged" videoconference last week. I also think the flippant comparison between the Armstrong Williams controversy - wherin the administration the paid him while he went on the air to defend the No Child Left Behind Act - and Saddam's use of propaganda is morally repugnant.
Actually, the closer I look at he column I realize this is a bad example to use in order to praise Friedman, because this is just about the weakest one he's produced in a long time.
And yet, it is a thousand times better than the one placed immediately below it. I normally ignore Maureen Dowd, but I couldn't help but peruse it this morning.
My God, this woman gets paid by the New York Times for her writing? This is nothing but childish puffery. Friedman's column was largely unfair, but at least he was able to string together sentences in a manner that showed he was an educated, intelligent human being. Dowd writes like a ten-year old - and I do not exaggerate. She rarely rises above the level of mere name calling, and when she's not name calling her writing style is so intellectually lazy that she thinks mere sarcasm can substitute for substantive criticism.
Look, I can accept that the New York Times is a left-leaning newspaper, but as much as I knock it, it has a well-deserved reputation. It is still a good source of information, and normally one can look to it for some measure of reasoned opinion. So how can they justify keeping this woman employed?
Friedman's column was a sharp and critical look at how a delgation of Iraqis might view our politics. Some of the criticsm was unfair, particularly about the so-called "staged" videoconference last week. I also think the flippant comparison between the Armstrong Williams controversy - wherin the administration the paid him while he went on the air to defend the No Child Left Behind Act - and Saddam's use of propaganda is morally repugnant.
Actually, the closer I look at he column I realize this is a bad example to use in order to praise Friedman, because this is just about the weakest one he's produced in a long time.
And yet, it is a thousand times better than the one placed immediately below it. I normally ignore Maureen Dowd, but I couldn't help but peruse it this morning.
My God, this woman gets paid by the New York Times for her writing? This is nothing but childish puffery. Friedman's column was largely unfair, but at least he was able to string together sentences in a manner that showed he was an educated, intelligent human being. Dowd writes like a ten-year old - and I do not exaggerate. She rarely rises above the level of mere name calling, and when she's not name calling her writing style is so intellectually lazy that she thinks mere sarcasm can substitute for substantive criticism.
Look, I can accept that the New York Times is a left-leaning newspaper, but as much as I knock it, it has a well-deserved reputation. It is still a good source of information, and normally one can look to it for some measure of reasoned opinion. So how can they justify keeping this woman employed?
# posted by Paul Zummo : 9:59 AM
