William Safire

The passing of William Safire reminds us all how insignificant the New York Times has become. Safire was a giant of a columnist. He was a conservative at a liberal newspaper. He was a reasonable man in the world of journalism where reason now has taken a back seat to partisanship. He was someone who loved the English language and who could turn a phrase with the best speechwriters of his day. Safire will be missed, and his accomplishments should be recognized. One last thing of importance here, hwever, is not personal to Safire. Rather, it is that he was just one of many Times columnists who carried on an intelligent commentary on the issues of the day.

Today, the Times no longer has intelligent columnists. Rather it has people like Maureen Dowd whose goal seems to be finding new ways to insult people. MoDo is no deep thinker; her columns could as easily appear in People magazine. Then there is Frank Rich. Perhaps the best way to describe Rich is to point out that for years he was a theater critic. He views almost every issue by determining how it fits within his storyline, his worldview. To Rich, national issues are theater, not items which actually affect the lives of millions. David Brooks is now the Times token conservative (although nearly every conservative in America would contest that description). In truth, Brooks is the Times warped view of what a conservative should be. Actually, Brooks is just not as far left as his fellow columnists. And these are the better columnists at the Times. The others do not even merit a mention here.

The strange truth is that the columnists at the New York Post are now more interesting, more imaginative and more informed than those at the Times. for someone who lived through an era when the Post almost failed (repeatedly) and the Times was the last word on most issues, it amazes me still to see how badly the current management has tarnished the Times quality and reputation. This icon of journalism should adopt a new and more accurate motto: "All the news that fits the prejudices of the current editor". My guess is that unless something drastic happens, the Times will not be around to see another editor. In a startling turnaround, the Times will fail and the Post will endure.

It is sad that