Incompetence watch: Grossly incompetent all the way down!

MONDAY, JULY 18, 2016

Who but the New York Times does this:
The foppishness of the New York Times is its defining characteristic. For roughly a million groaning examples, see yesterday's Sunday edition.

(We'll suggest you start with this. Trust us—it's worse than you'll see. Embarrassing facts have gone AWOL.)

After we marvel at the foppishness, we move to the famous newspaper's endless incompetence. Consider the bungled graphic which accompanies Charles Blow's new column today.

The column itself is empty enough. Blow's graphic is groaningly bungled.

"How Voters See Trump," the graphic's headline says. It proceeds to offer three sets of responses from last week's NYT/CBS poll.

The second entry says what follows. Who but the New York Times does this?
"Do you think Donald Trump is honest and trustworthy, or not?"
Honest and Trustworthy: 62
Not Honest and Trustworthy: 32
Earlier, at the coffee joint, we stared at those data in our hard-copy Times. Obviously, something seemed to be wrong with that presentation.

We took a wild guess! Some stumblebum at the New York Times had presented responses from Republican voters, not from voters overall. (Rather clearly, the first part of Blow's graphic recorded responses from all voters to a different question concerning Trump.)

Sure enough—that's what happened! In the first data set presented by Blow, he recorded the responses from all voters. In that second response, he's giving responses from Republican voters. There is no notice that a switch has occurred.

How does a major newspaper make such a groaning mistake? We're not sure, but the New York Times does so all the time.

This latest gong-show occurred in a high-profile location, on the paper's hard-copy op-ed page. But so what? As we type, it's 9 A.M., and the hapless newspaper still hasn't corrected this obvious howler.

Completing the hat trick, Blow's graphic includes a set of responses to a third question about Trump. There too, it seems fairly clear that Blow has presented responses by Republican voters, not by all voters. But it's hard to say for sure, because the link the Times provides to this poll's results doesn't report that this third question was ever asked at all. New York Times readers, go figure!

Blow's graphic involves two groaning mistakes. Meanwhile, it's 9 A. M. Do you know where the children are—the feckless, silly, foppish souls who compose the New York Times?


  1. FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2016

    Coming tomorrow: Our final post on Comey the God will be coming tomorrow.

    1. Perhaps you are so disappointed that you leave this blog forever, never to return...

    2. Here it is 11:19 a.m. and the hapless blog readers still stand by their man.

    3. Asking you to leave is not standing by Somerby.

      I am going to try to burst your bubble: You are not the anti-Bob. You are just simply annoying. You do not make anyone rethink what Somerby has said because you do not engage in the subjects on the table.

      You are a troll.

  2. At some point this kind of breast-beating becomes child abuse, in my opinion. I wouldn't call this foppishness. I would call it neuroticism with a touch of narcissism. History is, after all, about assigning blame and feeling guilt (at a safe remove from our own everyday actions, the ones we are actually responsible for).

    1. I wouldn't cally yours commentary. I would call it pretentiousness with a touch of insanity.

  3. I'm going to check out these links just as soon as I recover from the image of Crazy Bob at the coffee joint, shouting obscenities at the tattered copy of the Sunday Times no one else ever gets a chance at, furiously scribbling notes on discarded napkins.

    I wonder how long ago the other patrons learned to stop looking.

    1. " I wonder how long ago the other patrons learned to stop looking."

      I wonder if it doesn't correlate with your comment history.

    2. Jeeves,

      You already looked at those links, found out that they supported what Somerby was discussing, threw your hands up, and went to your old stand-by. Ad hominem.