NYT's Bill Keller: You'd Have to Be a Conspiracy Theorist Not to Believe the New York Times
Bill Keller, the soon-to-be-former executive editor for the New York Times, writes a front-of-the-magazine column for the Times Sunday magazine. This week he had a relatively balanced take on conspiracy theories left and right, including a whopper from leftist feminist Naomi Wolf, in "Let Me Take Off My Tinfoil Hat For a Moment...to discuss why otherwise-smart people fall for crackpot conspiracy theories."
But Keller equating "global warming is a hoax" to genuinely crackpot theories reaffirms the paper's preconceived opinion on the matter: Global warming is real and dangerous, and anyone who believes otherwise is a shill or dupe. And since when does rational, non-conspiratorial thinking require believing everything the Times has to say, as Keller also implied?
Humans live along a continuum from doubt to faith. Wander far enough in the direction of faith and you reach the land of Nostradamus and of the Rapture (recently postponed). Wander too far in the other direction, past cynicism, through misanthropy, and you get to more or less the same zone of credulity: Osama bin Laden isn’t dead, President Obama isn’t American, global warming is a hoax.
....
The birther controversy might be written off as a fever of racial bigotry and right-wing paranoia. But the [Dominique Strauss-Kahn alleged rape] case was a useful reminder that evidently rational people, educated and skeptical, liberal or conservative, can fall for beliefs that seem far-fetched at best. Think of Gore Vidal nursing the idea that 9/11 was part of a Bush administration plot to justify oil-field conquest. Or consider that Vidal’s nemesis on the right, the late William F. Buckley Jr., was once enticed by a theory that F.D.R. was complicit in Pearl Harbor. Oliver Stone, Michael Moore and Norman Mailer have all dabbled in dark intrigues, too.
And then there is Naomi Wolf, the author and feminist, who detected ominous "geopolitics by blackmail" in the coincidence that three antagonists of the establishment -- Eliot Spitzer, Julian Assange and Strauss-Kahn -- were sidelined by sex charges. ....
Suspicion hardens into full-blown conviction when people lose faith in authorities, says [Peter] Knight, who edited "Conspiracy Nation: The Politics of Paranoia in Postwar America." The present day, he told me, when Internet access has sparked a proliferation of competing, self-appointed authorities, is a particularly fertile time for conspiracy theorists, who might ask: "‘Why would you believe The New York Times? Why do they have a monopoly on truth? Surely Twitter and WikiLeaks are just as trustworthy.’ "
Knight added, "As soon as you lose faith that the mainstream media are telling the truth, anything is believable."
So anyone who doesn’t implicitly trust an "authority" like the Times is a conspiracy theorist? Over the years Times Watch has documented ample reasons why one can’t always take the paper’s proclamations at face value: Jayson Blair's fake reporting, the paper's disgracefully misleading coverage of the Duke lacrosse "rape," Sen. John McCain’s "affair," the unsubstantiated claim that Tea Party members shouted racial slurs, and Martha Coakley’s 2010 U.S. Senate win in Massachusetts, to name a few.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
The NYTs is claiming
Submitted by rbosque on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 6:12pm.
The NYTs is claiming infallibility? I find this hilarious considering how liberals always harp on how no one can know the truth especially in terms of religion. But of course anything the NYTs proclaims is "holy" and anathema to those foolish unbelievers....
NYT
Submitted by jessieH on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 9:25pm.
" No, you have to be a moron to believe the NYT.
Hubris Brings a Reckoning
Submitted by Tenebrous on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 9:27pm.
NYT, meet Tower of Babel. Buh-bye.
Visions and Principles blog
You all should gird
Submitted by jdhawk on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 11:25pm.
You all should gird yourselves for the onslught of idiots as we move toward a big pow-wow over the direction of the Kyoto Protocol.
Meanwhile, during the recent G8 meeting, Russia, Canada, and Japan told the other powers to go stuff their Kyoto Protocol because they aren't signing. duhbama agreed with them. He isn't signing either.
So, Keller, the politicians of four of the G8 said pound sand. They must all be in the "zone of crudilty." You moron . . . .
They can't let go of AGW
Submitted by deadeyedan on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 1:22am.
And special thanks to them for making global warming one of their main pillars. This will allow so many of their others to topple all the more easily when the next few winters arrive.
The only trouble is that, in shades of primary season 2008, their being no challenge to Obandit means the demonrats can stack the Republican primaries with enough votes for a McCain-like RINO to emerge victorious.
ClimateGate - the revelation that the pseudo-scientists of East Anglia University know just as much about the atmosphere as Harvard law professors know about the Constitution - deadeyedan
The climate denial mob's
Submitted by Giygas on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 5:09pm.
The climate denial mob's obsession with climategate clearly shows that they have long run out of scientific arguments, and have degraded to willful ignorance and hatred of objective truth. How much longer will you cherish climategate as an attempt to protect your dearly worldview? Climategate has been dissected and redissected by many of the following independent inquiries:
"February 2010. the Pennsylvania State University released an Inquiry Report that investigated any 'Climategate' emails involving Dr Michael Mann, a Professor of Penn State's Department of Meteorology. They found that "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data". On "Mike's Nature trick", they concluded "The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field." http://theprojectonclimatescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Finding...
March 2010. UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community".
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmb...
April 2010. University of East Anglia set up an international Scientific Assessment Panel, in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh. The Report of the International Panel assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit".
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/SAP
June 2010. Pennsylvania State University published their Final Investigation Report, determining "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann".
July 2010. University of East Anglia published the Independent Climate Change Email Review report. They examined the emails to assess whether manipulation or suppression of data occurred and concluded that "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt".
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
September 2010. UK Government responded to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report, chaired by Sir Muir Russell. On the issue of releasing data, they found "In the instance of the CRU, the scientists were not legally allowed to give out the data". On the issue of attempting to corrupt the peer-review process, they found "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers".
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf
"In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data"."
These videos linked below explain climategate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz8Ve6KE-Us&feature=channel_video_title
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw&feature=channel_video_title