Comments on: Horoscope-ed page

By: dsquared

dsquared — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:50:52 +0000

It is traditional at this point for me to remark that astrology meets all the Popperian criteria for being a science; in particular, it makes twelve testable predictions every day, which is more than you’ll get from climatologists. I don’t know why I like that joke so much that I recycle every time there is the slightest pretext, but I do.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 01:32:14 +0000

Kevin, I think you’re right about the intent, but I would have thought the appropriate way to do something if this kind (if you’re so minded) is to run a tongue-in-cheek piece from one of your staff or regular commentators, not to bring in someone who seriously believes in this stuff.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 23:40:44 +0000

Yeah, I’ll agree that there aren’t any better papers in the US, at least at certain things. But I was comparing it with what it might be rather than with the others. Also with papers in other countries. Well one other country.

By: Jon H

Jon H — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 22:06:32 +0000

Maybe they’re following the lead of CNBC. CNBC occasionally checks in with a financial advisor who bases his planning on astrology.

By: DJW

DJW — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:06:26 +0000

Well, if you ignore the op-ed pages, I think the Post and the WSJ do a better job with day-to-day news (not that the NYT op-ed page, with three regulars worse that Freidman, is giving us much there). And the WSJ does a much more thorough job of reporting on SCOTUS decisions. But I’m inclined to agree with jroth that through some combination of reputation and merit (heavy on the former) it must be considered the de facto paper of record, to the extent that term has any meaning. Which, come to think of it, isn’t much. One point of confusion, though: I always thought “grey lady” referred to the NYT Sunday Magazine, not the paper as a whole. Am I completely off base?

By: Kevin Drum

Kevin Drum — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 18:04:14 +0000

My take is that this is a subtle dig at standard issue campaign reporting. Basically, it’s so absurd most of the time that you might just as well read a horoscope instead…..

By: JRoth

JRoth — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:28:46 +0000

Ophelia- I'll put my rants againt the Times up against anyone's, but "Journal of Record" is something that one must concede, because, frankly, who else competes on that field? Who else publishes every word of the State of the Union and the opposition response? What other paper in the States can be relied upon for cricket & rugby scores (and, at the end of the year, the champions of virtually every sport imaginable, worldwide)? What other paper gets convicted innocents sprung from prison 1500 miles away? The Times does many things poorly, and never admits its mistakes (Wen Ho Lee is still owed an apology, and Jeff Gerth still has a job). It protects the Convential Wisdom with a fierceness second only to the Washington Post's. Its politics are by turns overwrought and pusillanimous. And yet the simple, unarguable fact is that both on reputation and on merit, the Times is unequalled (in terms of breadth and comprehensiveness) as a source of news and reportage in this country.

By: Theophylact

Theophylact — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 16:35:06 +0000

One of the things I always liked about the Times was that it didn’t have an astrology column. It also didn’t have a political cartoon or a comics page. Can I hope, now that it’s taken the first step, it might take the next two? Seriously, though, reading the op-ed piece shows the problem with astrology: it’s all post facto. There isn’t a single thing there about any of the candidates’ characters or styles that couldn’t have been garnered from reading the coverage of them so far. No need to check the star charts, just the pundits.

By: David W.

David W. — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:37:55 +0000

The Onion does this sort of thing much better, because they aren’t as coy about their satire.

By: Maccabee

Maccabee — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:36:42 +0000

problem is, they didn’t pick a winner

By: des

des — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:31:46 +0000

Of course the really serious problem with the NYT is that it doesn’t have cartoons. In the past this has only contributed to the aura of humourless self-importance it projects, but putting jokes in the op-ed section is the opposite of an improvement. On the other hand, I am delighted to learn from the ghost of a flea that US high school science classes could leave one open-minded on the question of whether an account of the movement of nearby celestial bodies from the point of view of ptolemic astronomy is likely to allow accurate predictions of the future. Maybe the alleged administrations alleged fiscal policy is based on transmutation of lead into gold, also.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:21:38 +0000

Yeah, what Raj said. What journal of record? Just because it says it is? It’s a newspaper like any other newspaper; nobody anointed it. And it has an insanely inflated view of its own excellence and importance, both. It could be a hell of a lot better than it is – could and should, especially if it’s going to go around calling itself a journal of record – claiming it contains all the news that’s fit to print. What a joke!

By: WillieStyle

WillieStyle — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:34:09 +0000

Dude, John Edwards and I were born on the same day (26 years apart). We, like, have the same sign AND he’s my favourite Dem. This is, like, blowing my mind man. And Dude, all the Dem Horoscopes exactly match the conventional wisdom, sound-bite representations spewed by the punditocracy. Who said astrology isn’t a science.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:49:11 +0000

I’ll take quasi-patronizing joke for 100. Running Ms. Sullivan’s column generates several different “buzzworthy” reactions from the NYT readership: annoyance, amusement, smug superiority and genuine interest. As there’s nothing to say about it, everyone can say something. Besides, Erin Sullivan’s prophesies are probably at least as accurate as David Brooks’.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:31:06 +0000

Hmmm. Horoscopes for the Democratic candidates, but none for the President. One might think that his horoscope would be the most important, if one believed in astrology. Now, if I were a suspicious person, living in a world where the NYT found that no lie was unfit to print about a Democratic president, I just might think that this is a way of diminishing the Democratic candidates.