But apparently, not to the New York Times.
Worth noting this, from the first NYT editorial on San Bernardino. https://t.co/nxOWRODAbf pic.twitter.com/loBJfD5UHB
— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) December 5, 2015
Mind you, they wrote “There will be post-mortems and an official search for a “motive” for this latest gun atrocity, as if something explicable had happened” back when they thought that the whole thing could be usefully blamed on the New York Times‘ domestic political opponents. …And, do you know something? When you put it that way, it doesn’t actually make the New York Times look any better.
Moe Lane
PS: Erick Erickson took the NYT’s later, yet no less wiser, editorial, literally used it as target practice, and posted the picture.
I doubt anybody would ask me, but: I consider that response to be a personal taste matter. For myself, I would have invited the NYT to take their editorial, shove it up their own ass, and then light the editorial on fire. But then, Erick is a Southern gentleman and I’m a NY/NJ wiseass.
I’d do something like what Erick did, but then I’d have to actually buy a copy of the New York Times, and I’d rather set my money on fire and let it burn than give it to the NYT.
Yeah, my thought too. Eric actually bought a copy of the NYT? Well, at least he’s got something to wrap fish in, and use as kindling to start a fire.