No, we aren't making this up: Earlier today, we discussed the so-called "dullard journalism" currently being popularized by the New York Times.
Principally, experts use that term to refer to a type of journalism which avoids facts and information in favor of novelized storylines—supersimplified renderings which may even border on fable and fairy tale.
Why is American health care spending so astoundingly high? Within the school of "dullard journalism," a question like that will never be answered, and the reason is simple:
In the world of "dullard journalism," the basic statistics defining that problem will never be reported!
Increasingly, the Times is becoming famous for its adoption of this Hamptons-based school, sometimes known as "the new anti-journalism." Basic data are never reported concerning even the most basic topics. Preconceived novelizations prevail.
How dumb can "dullard journalism" become? What effect can it have on a newspaper's readers?
You're asking important questions! This morning, on the Times' "reimagined" page A3, this feature appeared (print editions only):
The ConversationKey point! What follows isn't meant as a reflection on the couple in question. That said, consider this:
FOUR OF THE MOST READ, DISCUSSED AND SHARED POSTS FROM ACROSS NYTIMES.COM
4. It Was Obvious from Day 1
This Vows column told the story of Ariel Shepherd-Oppenheim and Eliza Ladensohn, who were married Oct. 26 in California. The first time someone asked them how long they had been together, it was the very first day they met.
Consider everything which was reported over the weekend "from across NYTimes.com." Then, try to imagine how this item could possibly be one of "the most read, discussed and shared posts" from across the vast sweep of national and world events.
In truth, we find it hard to believe that the item in question actually was one of the most read, discussed and shared posts. We'll assume that someone within the New York Times structure selected this item as some sort of branding exercise.
For what it's worth, this item was the only "fluff" item included in today's "most read" listing. By way of contrast, the third item looked like this:
3. How FedEx Cut Its Tax Bill to $0This article appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times. Assuming the reporting is accurate, it concerns a very serious topic—the decades-long attempts to rig the system in favor of American oligarchs.
In the 2017 fiscal year, FedEx owed more than $1.5 billion in taxes, an effective tax rate of 24 percent. The next year, it owed nothing, thanks to the Trump administration's signature tax cut—and had not made good on its promises to invest in new equipment and other assets, this Times article found.
What are the chances that this report will ever be discussed on "liberal cable?" In our view, it's much more likely that cable will continue with its standard diet of easy-listenin' topics—Trump Trump Trump, impeachment impeachment, polls polls polls polls polls.
Second, average citizens, red and blue voters alike, are undermined by this kind of rigging. Why can't liberals and Democratic pols use such topics as a way to build red/blue political coalitions?
This question will never be discussed at any time in any forum. With the modern liberal world, we're trained to avoid and loathe The Others, full-satisfying-stop.
That tribal training is another part of "dullard journalism." According to future experts, the practice of this style of journalism was very good for short-term profits, but helped bring on Mister Trump's War.
Just for the record: Below, you see an excerpt from one of the "most read, discussed and shared posts from across NYTimes.com:"
VARIAN (11/15/19): A few nights later, at Ms. Ladensohn’s suggestion, they met for drinks at Palihouse in West Hollywood. Ms. Shepherd-Oppenheim, just 23 at the time, was impressed by the hotel’s stylish lounge and rooftop view of Hollywood Hills. Ms. Ladensohn took notice of Ms. Shepherd-Oppenheim’s drink order.For ourselves, we don't believe that actually was one of the most-discussed posts. Remarkably, someone within the New York Times doesn't see what a slander they're performing against the newspaper's readers.
“I was ordering a vodka club soda, but Ariel was ordering all these really fun drinks off the cocktail menu,” Ms. Ladensohn said. “I remember thinking this is cool, she’s adventurous.”
Our upper-end culture is hopelessly daft. Future experts sometimes refer to this culture as "the dumbnification of everything."
A modern society can't function this way. At the Hamptons-based New York Times, people aren't able to see this.