I completely agree that the top European papers are leagues better than the New York Times. One reason our papers suck is that it's impossible to write well without a perspective, so the holy American institution of "objective" journalism, if not actually banning lively writing, makes it something the reporters have to smuggle in or fight for. The ideology of the Wall Street Journal is farther from me than that of the Times, but because the WSJ wears its point of view on its sleeve, it's much better written and more of a pleasure to read -- all four pages that interest me.
Another thing that hobbles us in competition with Europe is our rapid anti-intellectualism. When I go to Europe, by contrast, I feel like a cow who's wandered from Texas into India. The intellectual level of the average feuilleton is something we can only dream about publishing in a daily paper.
But I don't think the charge of provincialism sticks. It is true that European papers cover in depth many countries that the Times covers superficially, but that's because (a) we cover everything boringly, and (b) those countries are in Europe. As much as I loved sitting around in a cafe and reading the English papers or the German or French ones, I was always struck at the end how a lot of the world that I was used seeing mentioned was missing, including Latin America and Asia. French papers do better on North Africa, but that brings me to the point: all newspapers concentrate on the parts of the world their countries have interests in, either now or in the past. And since, for the US, the entire world is someplace we might potentially intervene, the Times is everywhere, superficially preparing the ground.
But to be fair its European critics, even this superficial breadth doesn't give anyone a reason to read the Times anymore since nowadays, when we want headlines and a handful of facts, most of us turn to the internet, which beats it hands down in both speed and breadth.
But to fair to us New Yorkers, I think you Europeans and out-of-towners vastly overestimate how much respect we have for the Grey Lady. Besides local news and reviews, most intellectuals I know skim the Times between the lines for one reason only: as a reliable weather vane of the US ruling class consensus. And for that, I think it's still unparalleled.
BTW, If anyone is interested in seeing the Times ripped apart bit by bit, I have a hilariously damning first person story a friend of mine wrote about working there and writing free-lance that I'd be happy to email. The New York Press published most of it as a cover story five or six years ago, but, amusingly, left off the most telling part, about how they gratuitously ruin writing style. When Brendan asked why, mainly out of curiosity, it became clear that although the editors (at that time, Sam Sifton) love to bash the Times, they also harbor secret dreams of working there.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com