In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Townes Linkage | Main | Unconventional Conservatism Linkage »

May 11, 2007

Amazing chutzpah!

Friedrich von Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards,

Notice this story never mentions the role the New York Times itself played in smearing the reputation of Duke's lacrosse team. (To cite a few examples of journalistic piling on, let me recommend this, or this, or this, or this). Neither does it apologize in any way.

Apparently it was some other New York Times that was so irresponsible!



posted by Friedrich at May 11, 2007


I know. What would it cost them to say something like, "We were wrong, we should have been more careful, etc etc." Do they think they'd lose cred by doing so? I'd respect 'em more.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 11, 2007 1:23 PM

Aggregator--I mean, newspaper--Google--I mean, New York Times--filters news very liberally. I mean objectively!

Posted by: Brian Hadd on May 11, 2007 3:17 PM

The Times found two members of the lacrosse team who are the sons of a teamster and a firefighter. And they have a work ethic! The Times can get behind those kinds of guys! Good solid traditional values Amurrican type regular fellows. Just like Times reporters. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.................

Posted by: ricpic on May 11, 2007 9:05 PM

Do you notice how the story still has to clear the players of being rich, elite, privileged white boys? Even the players themselves know they have to prove such a charge is wrong. And the players themselves know to use the terminology "white boys."

Let us all spit it out with the venom and hatred we know they deserve ....."white boys."

I don't know how to emphasize how huge this is. I'm somewhat certain even privilged "white boys" should not have to face phony rape charges.

If you white boys out there don't see that you have been crowned the villain, you must all have college degrees. I am not certain that this is the beginning of second- or even 5th -- class citizenship for you. But I can say if that is the plan, this certainly is a necessary step on the way.


Posted by: sN on May 12, 2007 2:06 AM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?