HuffPo = NYT?

I’m not suggesting here that a respectable news source is completely identical to the New York Times, but I have suggested that the good gray Times is becoming—despite Bari Weiss and a few conservative columnists—more Authoritarian Leftist. Witness the opprobrium that Weiss got from her fellow reporters on a backchannel discussion group. Part of this is due to their younger journalists, educated in Control-Left colleges, and part is a reaction to Donald Trump’s election.

Here are very similar articles from today’s NYT and today’s HuffPo (click on screenshots to see why The New Era is Dawning).

The “new era” stuff is bunk, of course; Prince Charles is next in line to be ruler, and after that Prince William. Prince Harry, who supposedly ushers in the New Era, has a snowball’s chance in hell to be king. Yes, it’s great that they had a gospel choir and a shake-’em-up American preacher at their wedding, and people got all excited that Oprah and George and Amal Clooney were there but in the end Harry and Meghan will retire to one palace or another and, I hope, do some good charity work. But a New Era in royalty? What would that constitute? And how would someone who will never be king even do that?

HuffPo:

And one reader, incensed at HuffPo’s coverage of the royalty, sent me screenshots of the site’s front page. It’s becoming a tabloid, and I won’t shed any tears when it goes away. Here’s the international breakdown of readership, and the one-month drop in viewers—part of a steady decrease:

Note how many of yesteday’s front-page articles were devoted to the royal wedding. I count 15 out of 21, or 71%. The header: celebs at the wedding (the Clooneys, of course):

64 Comments

  1. Ken Phelps
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Well I suppose it’s a new era in the sense that they will be embraced by a new generation of vacuous celebrity watchers. Other than that, not so much.

  2. Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    I had myriad better things to do than watch the whole affair, but when I heard that The Kingdom Choir performed Stand By Me, I had to watch the clip. Goosebump-inducing, and the video demonstrated the contrasting demographics of the choir vs the attendees. [Did not include link for fear of embedding too much]

  3. Frank Bath
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    As all the new ballyhoo has to be run past The Queen and her advisers it indicates a change of thinking and things will be done differently in the future. I hope so.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

      Agreed – the change of thinking has reached the top & it will stick

  4. Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    On this morning’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS”, he had a short segment on whether the Royals a worth the cost. It features a new paper, “Symbolic Unity, Dynastic Continuity, and Countervailing Power: Monarchies, Republics, and the Economy” by Mauro F Guillén. It’s behind a paywall so I haven’t read it. According to Zakaria, it finds that monarchies (not just the British one) correlate with all kinds of political and economic benefits.
    https://academic.oup.com/sf/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/sf/soy037/4992685

    • Heather Hastie
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

      I haven’t read it either, but I would have no trouble writing a post about the political and economic benefits of a constitutional monarchy.

      The US were right to establish their Republic on Enlightenment values. These days the Old European Order is no more, and countries like NZ, Australia, and Canada that have parliament and no nobility are, imo, better run politically.

      For example, a Queen or King, no matter how crazy, cannot take us (or Great Britain, or any Commonwealth country) to war. Nor can a prime minister on their own. A president can, and it’s currently a risk in the US because a bad one is in the job. And all around the world, it is presidents that are the biggest problem.

      • JackbeThimble
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

        Presidential systems are pretty ripe for abuse. You can see that in the history of Latin America. I think the bigger problem with US governance relative to Canada (don’t know enough about Australia/NZ to comment) is that the American form of federalism isn’t very well designed for a modern state. A lot of key functions like law enforcement and health care have diffused responsibility between different levels of government which leads to a massive over-proliferation of bureaucracies that all compete with each other over the same resources and missions instead of a few, tidy bureaucratic organizations that can focus more on doing their jobs.

      • Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

        “The US were right to establish their Republic on Enlightenment values.”

        It’s a shame we are abandoning some of them now.

      • PeteT
        Posted May 21, 2018 at 3:46 am | Permalink

        Agree as usual. Isn’t it ironic how a country that cast off a monarchy for democratic republicanism is now struggling with a potential tyrant and the country whose monarchy was escaped from has a parliamentary system which avoids potential tyranny? Also that a country that consciously and constitutionally split church and state is so infected with religion, whereas one that invites their head of state to also be head of the state church is so relatively secular? Not that I’m necessarily holding the UK up as a beacon of secular democracy, particularly in comparison to your country.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

          It is ironic. I wonder if the religion part is human nature. In Britain, religion is associated with government, so not being religious is seen differently. At least since WWI, it’s been seen as perfectly normal to be non-religious.

          In the US, I wonder if being religious is unconsciously seen as being non-conformist and a way of separating yourself, especially at a time when your political party is about small government.

      • Posted May 21, 2018 at 5:09 am | Permalink

        It’s probably trivial to argue either direction: those much lauded North European states tend to have monarchy, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway. But as you say, there are good examples without monarchy.

        Some countries, like Germany, have representative function (president) and legislative functions (prime minister/chancellor) separated, which is similar to modern monarchy in some ways; with some advantages but also drawbacks to a lifelong “ruler”. Representation/advertising for the country is weaker, for they aren’t a brand. But more frequent chance can bring a bit of fresh air. The individuals are certainly cheaper, but since the ex-presidents get many perks and benefits, it also adds up.

        • Heather Hastie
          Posted May 21, 2018 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

          The economic benefits to Britain at least of having a royalty that works and advocates for the country, as well as the tourism benefits actually far outweigh the cost. Also, George III gave a significant amount of land to the government in return for an allowance and the government has always earned more from the land than the cost of the allowance. Other royals manage their estates and make money from them just like any other landowner. They inherited that land of course, but that’s hardly their fault.

          About 1.7 billion watched the latest royal wedding. That has enormous and ongoing economic benefits for the country, whatever anyone thinks of it personally.

  5. Michael Fisher
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    “…Here’s the international breakdown of readership, and the one-month drop in viewers—part of a steady decrease:

    The graph only goes back to December, which might be the peak month in a cycle where there’s more hits in the northern-hemi colder, darker months. Most people internet more when the great outdoors aren’t so great. Haven’t time to look for a longer period graph, cos it’s sunny out! 🙂

  6. BobTerrace
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:02 pm | Permalink

    Here to say I read this.

  7. Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t watch it, but being a sewist/seamstress I do love looking at all the fashions, and the hats /swoon

    • Posted May 20, 2018 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, I’m fascinated with the fascination for the ‘fascinators’. 🙂 Great fun.

  8. Ken Kukec
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    I’m not suggesting here that a respectable news source is completely identical to the New York Times …

    ISWYDT.

  9. Ken Kukec
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Re: Bari Weiss

    I agree with her on a lot. And from what I’ve seen of her in various interviews and panel discussions, I really like her. But I think she’s prone to the “hot take.” And she’s a bit too quick to counterattack in response to criticism, even to that which is well-intended.

    • Angel
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:52 pm | Permalink

      Did you watch her interview with Bill M.? She didn’t come as open minded regarding the Israel-Palestinian problem…..

  10. JackbeThimble
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    I have no strong feeling for or against the Royals but the social justice-y coverage of this particular royal wedding has been pretty nauseating. ‘Women of Color can break down any barrier as long a) they look like hot white women and b) ‘Break down any barrier’ is defined as ‘marry a rich and famous man’.

    • Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

      I agree. I hope those that lean toward Trump weren’t listening. LOL

  11. ladyatheist
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    CNN, MSNBC & HLN covered the wedding for hours, too.

    • Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

      Yeah and the day after another school shooting.

      Same as it ever was – “Look something shiny!”

      Maybe they can schedule another worthless and stupid event in time for the next massacre of children.

      • ladyatheist
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:47 pm | Permalink

        Reliable Sources interviewed Kellyann Conway for 20 minutes then had a panel talk about what a liar she is. They never mentioned the coverage of the wedding.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

        That’s a little bit meaningless since the wedding date was set months in advance, unlike (probably) the school shooting.

        Besides, royal weddings only occur at lengthy intervals, school shootings happen all the time. There’ll be another one along in a few days.

        There was also, if you noticed, a serious air crash in Cuba which killed 100 people. But that rated even less coverage (even though they had video) than a few talking heads of the school shooting.

        But we did get quite a bit of coverage of the lava flow in Hawaii which has killed nobody(?) but which makes for dramatic video.

        I do agree the criteria newsrooms have for selecting what’s ‘newsworthy’ is very skewed.

        cr

        • Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

          Where are you guys going with this? I could get behind more wedding and fewer shootings. LOL

  12. Ken Kukec
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    Price [sic] Harry, who supposedly ushers in the New Era, has a snowball’s chance in hell to be king.

    Guess that’s because there’s no longer much chance of one’s older brother abdicating to marry an American divorcée, as Edward VIII did — and, if there were, young ‘arry’s in the same boat anyway.

    • Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      Alfred the Great had 3 older brothers as I remember, but he made it to king. Of course, there were vikings around then and that contributed.

    • Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

      Marrying Americans and marrying divorcées is no longer a problem. Prince Charles is married to a divorcée, in fact, he is one and Prince Harry just married an American.

      The only real problem left is catholics and I think we’d change the law rather than stop a Royal from marrying a catholic now.

  13. FB
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

    The left is missing a great opportunity to rise awareness of the problem of privilege. Is it possible to be more privileged that Prince Harry, especially now that he’s married to Meghan Markle? Is Meghan’s beauty unearned?

    • Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

      Markle is privileged too. She did not come form a poor family and there is nothing more privileged than wealth.

      But I know how this works – since she isn’t completely white, she gets a pass on this “privilege” thing.

      • Gabrielle
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

        I don’t understand your comment.

        Markle dosn’t come from a wealthy family, not by a long shot. According to the NYT article, her father is a retired Hollywood lighting director who declared bankruptcy years ago and who now lives alone in Mexico. Her mother works as a yoga instructor.

        • Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

          Wealth is relative. According to Wikipedia “In 2017, her total net worth was estimated at $5 million.”

          Here’s the point; I’m as whitey white as white people could get, my father was a high school teacher who made, well, a teacher’s salary and I put myself through school and became a research scientist who is paid enough to keep a roof over my head but little more, I can’t afford to pay for my kids college (fortunately they’re working hard and paying their own way) and I will not be able to retire.

          I’ve been told to check my privilege.

          • infiniteimprobabilit
            Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

            Yeah but apparently that $5m is her own earnings, not inherited.

            She was lucky enough to inherit good looks and smart enough to parlay that into a modest fortune. Better than the average person can manage.

            cr

      • FB
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:49 pm | Permalink

        Of course she is, she possesses the greatest of all privileges: beauty. And she’s smart and nice too. All unearned, in my opinion.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted May 20, 2018 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

          “Nice,” is earned, I think — or at least as “earned” as anything can be in a deterministic universe.

          • FB
            Posted May 20, 2018 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

            I agree: in a deterministic universe, “I” “think” “she” “earned” it. “Good for her.”

  14. Melanie
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    I have no interest (other than the hats!) and no desire to read the article but now I’m curious. “A wedding dress made for a person, not a princess.” Huh??

    • Gabrielle
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

      I believe this is in reference to Princess Diana’s wedding dress from 1981, which was rather elaborate and somewhat ostentatious, with a long heavy train, a full skirt and puffy sleeves. Sort of a fantasy princess gown, like something from a Hollywood movie. IIRC, the gown had an impact on bridal fashions for a while.

      Megan Markle’s gown was quite simple. It would certainly be easier to copy, and less expensive to do so, for an average person.

      A friend explained to me that the embroidery on Markle’s veil represented flowers from different Commonwealth nations.

  15. Steve Pollard
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t watch it (the rugby was on) but the question of whether it might have any wider or more lasting significance has been thrashed out in the UK media for weeks.

    On one level, clearly not, because Harry is never going to be King. But, whatever one may say about the royal family, they have been brought up in the ideal of public service; and both William and Harry have, on the whole, taken it seriously (unlike some of the rest of them). Bringing an outsider into the family who is intelligent, committed to public service herself, unafraid to speak her mind, and nearly as mixed-race as the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor is bound to refresh it in all sorts of ways.

    And I have to add that, given the alternatives of an elected or appointed President and a hereditary but powerless constitutional monarch, most UK citizens, including this old cynical atheistic lefty, would go for the monarch every time.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

      You speak for me too (even the old cynical atheistic lefty bit 🙂

      cr

  16. Christopher
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

    Didn’t read, watch, or listen to anything surrounding the wedding, tried to avoid it when possible (it wasn’t possible!!!) but heard something on NPR about this preacher dude banging on about slavery during the wedding. Why? Because, apparently Markel is black. I’ve heard lots of liberal bother over the fact that there would be a POC marrying into the royal family, as if this should matter at all. Frankly, it should still be about love (now that royals aren’t married for political alliances) not slavery that ended well over 150 years ago, but the race-obsessed left can’t let even one drop of non-euro blood escape their notice. They can’t let a POC be just a person, anymore than the right can. I suppose this means that if I ever get married again, I will have to have someone give a speech about the Cherokee Trail of Tears, the Holocaust, or the Irish potato Famine. Or maybe my wedding could just be about love…

    • Posted May 20, 2018 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

      +1

    • FB
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

      Well, the “preacher dude” was a Christian bishop, and he was banging on about slavery because it was what Jesus and Saint Paul used to do 2000 years ago. It’s called “speaking truth to power”, dude. You wouldn’t expect a Christian bishop preaching at St George’s Chapel to say “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.”

      • Christopher
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

        No, I wouldn’t expect a “give all your wealth to the poor” rant from many big time preachers, but I also wouldn’t expect a slavery lecture at a wedding, especially since the nation in which said wedding it is being held abolished slavery, without a civil war, two decades before the US did. Save the truth to power stuff for the Sunday pulpit.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

        Only so many times a weddin’ preacher can bang on with 1 Corinthians 13:4-7, I suppose.

      • FB
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

        I was kidding. We don’t know what Jesus thought about slavery. But he was clear about wealth.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

          Damn Nazarene redistribution, he was. 🙂

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:05 pm | Permalink

      “Because, apparently Markel is black.”

      Yeah that startled me too. The first time I saw pics of Meghan with Harry it never, ever occurred to me that she was anything but ‘white’ with a Hollywood tan. If anyone had said to me ‘she’s mixed race’ I might have guessed Latina. But ‘black’? – nah, she doesn’t look black to me at all. Serena Williams is black, Oprah is black, Michelle Obama is black.

      I hasten to add, not that it matters to me in the slightest either way. And, to give credit to the royals, it doesn’t seem to matter to them either.

      I agree some of the liberal media are making too much of it (and a few complete nutcases on the right who have apparently generated hate mail). She’s good-looking, intelligent, carries herself well (as you would have seen had you watched the wedding 😉 – what more could you ask for?

      cr

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

        As an aside, I’ve just remembered the 2010 Doctor Who episode ‘The Beast Below’, set in the 29th century, which featured Sophie Okonedo as Queen Elizabeth X. We still have a little way to go…

        cr

      • Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:16 pm | Permalink

        She looked a lot more black when she was young. See https://goo.gl/images/WaJ4YB. Perhaps she had some work done. Not that I care one way or another.

        She does seem like a truly smart and nice lady based on believable reports. The above picture was from when she wrote a letter to Procter and Gamble to (successfully) get them to change one of their commercials to be more supportive of women.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

          She’s had no ‘work’ done. Meghan started to straighten her hair while in senior year at HS. When the Hollywood thing happened she started to use extensions & still does – much of her hair isn’t actually hers – that glossy, heavy long hair is treated [extra weight, extra gloss, extra slippage] extensions which ‘fall’ across the shoulder & down the back far better than ones own real hair.

          She’s insisted for years that her makeup artist let some of the freckles through & mags aren’t allowed to airbrush them

          Her main thing is the old bronze highlighter

          She has great facial bones – can’t go wrong with those!

          • Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

            She’s certainly a beauty. I remember her the few times I watched “Suits” when it first came out.

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:22 pm | Permalink

        “what more could you ask for?

        cr”

        More hats. The fashions on display [excluding Oprah] were très élegant

        The two standouts were:

        Amal Clooney’s goldenrod Stella McCartney dress & fascinator

        Bekham’s morning suit:

        “a Dior Homme charcoal grey super 130’s wool twill morning coat and pants, a light grey super 150’s wool twill double-breasted waistcoat, a white 200/2 Egyptian cotton poplin shirt, a grey silk satin tie, a grey silk satin pocket square and derbies in black calfskin leather”

      • Christopher
        Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

        That reminds me, and I’d forgotten to ask it, but has there been much pushback from the racist far right? I can imagine that Harry shacking up with an American would be seen as quite enough of a betrayal by some of the UKIPpers, BNPenis for brains or EDLosers, so having a (even if only slightly) non-white person mixing with the precious royal blood…! Since I don’t read the tabloid press I’ve not heard anything about it, but I imagine some of those St. George flag wearing jackwads would be fuming.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

          infinite is on the other side of the globe so I doubt he’d know. 🙂

          Meghan Markle was race texted by the UKIP pretend political party leader’s girlfriend back in January – UKIP promptly dropped her as it was a ratings disaster for them.

          The British press from the gutter on upwards adore her & thus so do the peeps

          The racists in Britland are obsessed with the ‘murderous Jews’ [on the left] & Islamic extremists [left & right] & ‘thems who are takin’ our jobs’ [feckless unemployables]. Meghan doesn’t play into any narrative that these people can weaponise.

          As an example – the disgraceful commentary about Michelle Obama’s supposed resemblance to various primate species which has played well for years among ignorant US racists doesn’t play well in the UK, Despite what the press say we are far more tolerant on race than the USA. Some silly US politician wannabe retweeted a pic of Meghan’s face on a caveman body – got a heavy backlash in the UK for that.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted May 20, 2018 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

          Also the ‘racist far right’ in the UK [Tommy Robinson for example] are going gaga about net inward migration numbers in the main & the ‘fake immigrants’, but this obsession isn’t purely from the whites – some of Tommy’s hooligan mates aren’t sons of Albion. Tommy would have loved to have been invited to the wedding!

  17. Graham Head
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    The real test of how much the royals have advanced would come if prince George turned out to be gay. But that is a long way away.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted May 20, 2018 at 4:23 pm | Permalink

      I say old chap, steady on – being ‘gay’ is for commoners. Among the Royal family they’re known as aristocratic. Prince Charles is aristocratic & Prince Edward is very, very aristocratic.

  18. James Walker
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

    The table shows a drop in percentages, which means that the relative proportion of readers from each of those countries is going down, not necessarily the number of readers. That means that other countries must be increasing their proportion of readers.

  19. JonLynnHarvey
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

    In some contexts, royalty means the extended family of a reigning monarch. At other times, it is the immediate family. Prince Harry already has the title “Prince” for heaven’s sake. So I would say, he IS royalty.

    • rickflick
      Posted May 21, 2018 at 12:00 am | Permalink

      In some contexts, royalty means money paid to a patentee for the use of a patent. Prince Harry gets it free.

  20. rickflick
    Posted May 20, 2018 at 11:57 pm | Permalink

    I’d hate like hell to be a “celeb”. Except for the money…

  21. Dominic
    Posted May 21, 2018 at 6:19 am | Permalink

    they invite celebrities – then what is the betting they complain about media intrusion?

    pathetic.


%d bloggers like this: