I have a theory (which is hardly original) that the owners of the NYTimes have never gotten over their multi-generational case of Imposter Syndrome. They have always wanted to be the news organ for the right people, the best people, while never quite feeling sure that those much-admired Best People consider the Timesmen as “top drawer” fellow plutocrats. When the paper goes badly off the rails — as when it soft-pedaled Hitler’s crimes and applauded American isolationists well after WWII was inevitable — it’s because the owners paying its reporters mistake the loudest bigots in Wall Street and Washington DC for the most important people.
So IMO, David Roberts makes an excellent point:
7. If NYT printed the *actual, real-life* sentiments of today's conservative masses, it would print a bunch of paranoid, Fox-generated fairy tales and belligerent expressions of xenophobia, misogyny, racism, and proud, anti-intellectual ignorance.
— David Roberts (@drvox) March 11, 2018
9. The NYT's commitment to "intellectual diversity" doesn't go THAT far — not far enough to expose its readers to that reality. It is too invested in America's own Noble Savage myth, the idea that conservative Heartland Americans are more authentic & in touch w/ simple virtues.
— David Roberts (@drvox) March 11, 2018
10. So NYT needs "a voice from the right," but not a voice from the ACTUAL right (which is oriented around white resentment, not any discernible governing philosophy). They need a voice from the Conservatism of the Mind, the noble, principles-base conservatism they imagine.
— David Roberts (@drvox) March 11, 2018
12. It is no coincidence that these guys – Gerson, Douthat, Brooks, Stephens – have little voice or influence inside actual conservatism, or that they're all anti-Trump (unlike 95+% of Republicans). They are anomalies, idiosyncrasies, not representative of anything broader.
— David Roberts (@drvox) March 11, 2018