I detested the NY Times since before it was cool

Among my earliest complaints was about their editor, Jodi Wilgoren (now Rudoren), who was always waffling over ‘both sides’ in the creation/evolution debate. Those complaints are so old, back 20 years and more, that they were posted when this blog was just a little personal endeavor posted on an old Macintosh in my lab, and you can’t get to them anymore. Wilgoren infuriated me with comments like this one, after she’d dedicated a huge amount of time ‘reporting’ creationist claims about the Grand Canyon.

I don’t consider myself a creationist. I don’t have any interest in sharing my personal views on how the canyon was carved, mostly because I’ve spent almost no time pondering my personal views — it takes all my energy as a reporter and writer to understand and explain my subjects’ views fairly and thoroughly.

So what was she doing writing science articles for the NYT, if she’d never thought about the science?

Anyway, I was reminded of that by this recent comic.

This has always been the way of the NYT. All through the Bush years, the Iraq War, every political issue, the New York Times always been the banner carrier for the passive voice and both-siderism. It’s just the worst.

Wilgoren/Rudoren is now the editor of The Forward, where she has won awards from, among others, the Religious News Association, which is no surprise. It is not clear if she has yet started thinking.


  1. Matt G says

    Thinking requires time, effort, and a certain degree of self-awareness and humility. Feeling that you’re right about something without much effort is so much more satisfying, and your ego gets a nice petting session.

  2. says

    NYT has also been unforgivably compliant in suppressing stories about the hijinks of the national security state. For example, they suppressed the story about warrantless wiretapping and Abu Ghraib torture because “didnt want to affect election” – as though suppressing it didn’t also affect elections. NYT is way to close to the DoD and the White House.

  3. Akira MacKenzie says

    Shorter Jodi:

    “Like, science is, like, so totally totally hard and, like, some junk.”

  4. says

    As bad as one commenter on Hemant’s site coming in to start some unfounded, fear mongering debate about the US heading for some civil war and of Project 2025 becoming in effect when that Stupid idiot Dump gets the WH again. Never mind him dying from dementia and is on the actual road to prison for numerous crimes and the GOPeePee is collapsing left and right. I didn’t like what he posted on the site so I reported two of them. He didn’t like what I wrote down at one point and made a big spiel about it, telling me to grow up, how I was being in denial of what’s going on in politics these days, etc., etc.

    Of coarse the site allows anyone right winged or whatnot to come over and debate with the usual group, but I’m not the type of person that have a lot of patience wasting hours debating over politics and religion on that site so….

    Here’s the individual making what I believe to be unfounded, fear mongering claims. You can debate with him if you wish. https://open.substack.com/pub/friendlyatheist/p/more-americans-are-ditching-religion?r=12v4rs&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=52654419

  5. pood says

    It wasn’t a science article. It was a piece about a sociological phenomenon, YECs leading Grand Canyon tours. It even plainly stated in the article that science does not accept a young earth. Would it be better if people did not know that YECs were trying to undermine science? The article appeared as a feature story on the front page, not in the science section, and the lead story that day — the A head, as it’s called — was about an important scientific discovery. The Times has long devoted an entire special section to science, including once an in-depth discussion of DNA and biology and evolution that went on for about 12 pages. I personally edited many front-page stories on climate change while working there. The Times does not print headlines like, “Hundreds dead after bombs fall from sky.” It generally never uses passive voice in headlines. The Times is currently under assault by right-wingers like Jerry Coyne for its accurate coverage of Israeli war crimes in Gaza, though of course the paper does not call them “war crimes” in straight news articles, but lets the readers make up their own minds. None of this is to say that the Times is without flaw — it has many — but the things you are complaining about are not among them.

  6. lotharloo says


    Did you lose your way somehow? Can’t figure out what is the relevance of your post.

  7. John Morales says


    Owosso Harpist, relax. No biggie. Maybe repost it on the infinite thread.

    pood, informative comment. Thanks.

  8. Hemidactylus says

    @5 @7
    The linked commentary on Hemant’s post didn’t seem to be relevant to what he was talking about either…the religiously unaffiliated or “nones” which is an annoying topic in itself IMO. Hemant did point to anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric as a reason for leaving organized religion which is a plus for the leavers, but overall the unaffiliated “nones” group is a privative hodgepodge and not a very useful category. Atheists tend to point toward it as a sort of “winning” from time to time.

    Atheists/agnostics are better defined IMO though still a bit variegated. “Nones” take Robert Putnam’s disengagement to the point of praying alone instead of bowling alone as they seem to still be in the theist camp.

    See: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/religious-nones-in-america-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/

    Nones can’t be bothered with church, college, or voting. Atheists are more civically engaged and educated. Nones aren’t an identity politics. Atheists are especially regarding church-state issues. Nones could be a largely liberally minded group but if they don’t vote their political views don’t amount to squat. I’d prefer nonbelievers stop being included under that porous umbrella.

    The comments I saw as linked on Mehta’s post kinda derailed on the Project 2025 thing, which in itself is a concerning topic given our careening toward authoritarianism in the US. Think tanks like Heritage are blueprinting it for Trump 2.0. Don’t expect the Nones to save us. I’d put more faith in Swifties as a bloc.

    @6 pood
    Yeah when I saw PZ’s OP I thought of faux leftists like Coyne bashing the NYT from the right over Israel as a topic. It’s become MEMRI central at WEIT. Very Israel biased and polemically over the top.

    I tend to not read much if any of NYT stuff as it’s mostly paywalled. Capitalism!

Leave a Reply