Another week brings another empty NY Times Kerry-bashing story. This campaign season, these front-page pieces have alternated between two themes: "Kerry is a rich elitist" and "Kerry doesn't talk enough about religion and values".
The latest is an example of the first variety. It's so larded with heavy-handed editorial commentary, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was a reprint from Rupert Murdoch's NY Post:
In an election driven in large part by the candidates' personalities, that extraordinary wealth and the air of privilege Mr. Kerry seems to carry with him have often been a stumbling block, exacerbating the perception that he is an aloof man whose elite tastes separate him from the concerns of ordinary people. ...
...Mr. Kerry's elitist reputation goes deeper than his wife's fortune, now estimated at $1 billion. Mr. Bush, despite his own family's legacy of wealth and political power, manages to come off as a simple-hearted Texan who likes to clear brush and go bass fishing in his spare time, a man whose indulgences are barbecue and nonalcoholic beer.
Mr. Kerry, by contrast, exudes a Brahmin reserve. His accent is no longer the upper-class drawl of his youth, but his soft vowels and formal diction still hint at a privileged lineage. On the campaign trail, he sometimes calls people "man,'' a habit that may grow from his 1960's youth but now sounds like a strained effort to connect with ordinary folk.
Mr. Kerry and his wife are also cursed with the kind of good taste that suggests old money. ...
...Mr. Kerry has never been able to escape the aroma of class privilege that clings to him.
Later, author Robert Worth admits that Kerry is frugal about clothing, likes to eat PBJs, and didn't even have a permanent home for many years before he married Teresa. Of course this contradicts all that "air of privilege" crap. But if you don't read to the end of this lengthy piece, you'll only see Worth's caricature of Kerry the Blueblood.
Worth also completely omits any mention of recent polls, like Newsweek's (conducted October 2) that rate Kerry as tied with Bush in likeability (63%-65%), and as "caring more about people like you" than Bush (57%-49%). But such hard data would just get in the way of his thesis.
This is typical NYT in many ways: Lead with your pre-determined spin. Omit pesky details, or bury them in the second half. And print subjective judgments as if they were objective facts:
...
the air of privilege Mr. Kerry seems to carry with him...
...the perception that he is an aloof man...
Mr. Kerry's elitist reputation...
...exudes a Brahmin reserve...
...sounds like a strained effort to connect with ordinary folk.
...cursed with the kind of good taste that suggests old money.
...the aroma of class privilege that clings to him.
Dear Times: Do you know why these "airs," "perceptions," "reputations," and "aromas" seem to cling to Kerry? It's because YOU KEEP TELLING US SO.
I suggest that we all contact NYT "public editor" Daniel Okrent about this story -- not that it will make a difference. The Times never changes, and almost never questions its own reporters' and editors' decisions. In fact, it exudes an air of privilege and aloofness... a Brahmin reserve... an elitist reputation. It's cursed with the kind of taste that suggests old money.
What's that you say? I should take a survey, or at least gather a few anecdotes or quotes, to back up my impression of the Times? I don't have to -- I'm following Times rules.
Yes, that story definitely has an aroma to it. I believe the tasteful Times would refer to it as the aroma of "a certain barnyard substance."
More commentary at The Situation Room