Bloggers like you are a huge part of their “problem”. Because y’all provide the priceless services of fact-checking and long-term memory. The NYT and the WaPo both simply ignore what went before, they pretend that the contradictions and outright fabrications committed by the chattering classes on a regular basis never happened. That’s why so many of the Broder’s and Kurtz’s hate y’all. You tell the world that these guys not only got it wrong, but they simply repeated someone else’s talking points.

And, Instaputz and Powerline are that stupid.

You disagree?

To the contrary, Frankie. This is precisely what InstaCracker is arguing. He is asserting that if papers such as the WaPo and NYTimes were ‘less liberal’ and toed a more conservative line–they’d be raking in the profits.

Well, the Moonie Times have been around for a quarter of a century and they’ve yet to have a single year in the black.

Of course, InstaCracker and hs cracker friends misread the real reason why newspapers are seeing declining profits. And it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative viewpoints.

So there is no information as to why the Washington Times is not turning a profit.

It is not logical to leap from “liberal papers don’t make a profit” to “conservative papers do make a profit”.

Finally, in view of the fact that the blog posts refer, not to “liberal news”, but to “politicized news”, then Oliver and Power Line/ Instapundit have all explained it.

Well, Frankie, InstaCracker and his fellow hacks believe the reason newspapers like the WaPo and NYTimes are seeing declining profits is because they’re too liberal. Well, if that’s the case, why isn’t the Moonie Times–a rightwing paper–turning a profit?

3rd possibility is a cognative disconnect. They may not acknowledge that “NYT as tool of the enemy of America” and “NYT as popular, legitimate source of information” are both concepts in their heads, and that they actually relate to each other. Theres a part in Sam Arrogant Assbag Harris’ book where he describes one he had too, the summer after 9/11 he had business in France, and since they have a large Muslim population over there he thought it would be best to avoid the part of Paris that contained the U.S. Embassy, and yet in his search for a good hotel room, not only does he end up booking in the hotel directly across the street from the US embassy, but asks for the room with a good view of it because he thought it would make good scenery. “Embassy as hazard” and “Embassy as lovely tourist spot” both existed in his head but didnt even connect until a phone call with a friend later that night. Of course, for this corrolary to apply, it would require that the InstaPower crowd are capable of self-realisation and introspection.

“Heh, indeed.”(tm)

* When you call me by mt namem I will call you by yours.

Wash Post:

The paper is something of a journalistic curiosity — a money-losing, church-subsidized newspaper with an editorial policy of “puncturing politically correct pomposity,” said Pruden. The Times eschews what Pruden calls “victim stories,” which he defines as articles about “people who were mistreated or think they were mistreated.” His advice to them: “Get a life,” which could well be the paper’s motto.

The Times has never climbed out of the red or earned substantial income from advertising; it is supported by a subsidy from its owner, News World Communications, a private company wholly owned by Moon’s Unification Church.

Still more:

The Unification Church has bankrolled huge losses at the Times, which several sources estimated have totaled more than $1 billion over the past 22 years. The paper’s losses are running about $20 million annually, one source said; another source offered a slightly higher estimate. Insiders said that Japanese backers of the church had been especially unhappy with the Times’s huge losses and with its right-wing positions on global political issues.

What would make somebody rich? A Fox-like USA Today – McPaper.

I’m not sure what you mean by “political leanings,” but I don’t believe it means that the NYT is “the enemy”, and it might not mean the same thing as “the politicization of the news”.

I know you have a real thing against Power Line and InstaPundit, but this was too great a stretch.

Jadegold: Can’t you ever provide a source for your outrageous assertions?

When I first read this post, I assumed Reynolds had also come to the same conclusion as you and that he either wasn’t clear or you just didn’t read the post well enough. This assumption comes from his book, which explains very well, in my opinion, the woes of old media. However, after clicking on the link you provide, I now see that my assumption was wrong which is just sad. I’m not going to lie, I’m a fan of Mr. Reynolds as well as a fan of you, but it really is sad when it appears that he can’t even learn from his own book.