Gender feminists have long claimed that women can do anything as well
as, or better than men. Recent incidents at the New York Times prove how
true that statement is.
On May 11 the Times published a front-page exposé on Jayson Blair, the
former NYT reporter who disgraced himself by fabricating and plagarizing
his articles. The article lamented that Blair's actions represent "a low
point in the 152-year history of the newspaper."
That statement would prove to be premature.
Because in recent weeks, Ms. Maureen Dowd, columnist at the Times, has
outdone the many accomplishments of Mr. Blair.
Despite his many failings, Mr. Blair was never accused of maliciously
misquoting a source. The same cannot be said for Ms. Dowd.
On May 14, Dowd wrote a
column
criticizing President Bush's efforts to
stop Al Qaeda terrorists. This is how Dowd
reported the President's May 5 speech: "That group of terrorists who
attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated...They're not
a problem anymore."
But Dowd conveniently left out a key phrase in the
President's
comments. Dowd's
intentional omission made the President appear delusional and
nonsensical.
But Dowd refused to learn from her mistake.
On July 9, Dowd ran a column titled,
"Incredible
Shrinking Y". The column was
triggered by the recent finding in the journal Nature that the male Y
chromosome has many more active genes than previously thought, and that
the Y has an extraordinary ability to repair itself.
In that column, Dowd explained that men are in an "evolutionary shame
spiral." She predicted that nature is going to "return to its original,
feminine state, and men would fade from view." Dowd ended her column
with the dismissive comment, "Better to be an X chromosome than an
ex-chromosome."
Male-bashing is a well-honed pastime at the New York Times, so
anti-male comments in that paper generally pass without a raised
eyebrow. But many people thought Dowd's column crossed the line. On July
11, the Times ran
four
letters from irate readers.
One writer complained that Dowd's article "dehumanizes billions of
people." Noma Petroff of Maine asked, "What would her response be to a
similarly sexist generalization about women?" And one couple from Ohio
noted, "While we can only hope that Ms. Dowd wrote the piece as a farce,
we do not find it helpful. The war between the sexes has no victor."
Clearly, the well-meaning attempt to bring diversity to the pages of
the New York Times has backfired. This diversity campaign has undermined
traditional journalistic ethics of accuracy, fairness, and objectivity.
Now, NYT columnists callously stigmatize gender groups and gleefully
predict their social and biological demise.
Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., of Jewish heritage, surely knows
something about the implications of stereotyping and dehumanizing large
segments of the population.
In a column
I wrote two months ago, I warned, "Mr. Sulzberger, the
problems at your newspaper run much deeper than Jayson Blair."
Sadly, that prediction has now come true.
So while Blair acted with a lack of professionalism, Maureen Dowd
operates in a complete moral vacuum.
And while Mr. Blair had no particular ideology that motivated his
actions, Dowd flaunts her ideological agenda.
One can only hope that Ms. Dowd is reined in before she further
damages the good name and reputation of The New York Times. Because
contempt does not make for enlightened editorial policy.
