If you have "no place to go," come here!

Times admits bias!

From an online interview with Times Assistant Managing Editor Gerald Marzorati, answering one Ms. Farkas, who asks what the target audience is for T, the Time's luxe yet strangely airless and dull semi-gloss magazine for those who can afford $1000 suitcases--and those who aspire to, and even those who aspire to aspire to:

A. Dear Ms. Farkas -- I have received a number of thoughtful letters similar to yours, from readers puzzled by -- or, frankly, contemptuous of -– our new style and luxury magazine, T, so indulge me a bit as I try to answer your question by answering what I sense is the underlying question (and perhaps the underlying question to or about editors like me on the minds of many, many of the Times’ readers). Your's is ultimately a question (again, like so many posed by readers) about bias –- in this case, a bias toward the rich and their shopping habits. And my answer is that while I do not think the paper, in its news section, is biased toward liberals, or biased in favor of (or against!) Israel, I do think, in cultural matters –- of which fashion and, more broadly, style, is one expression -- we are biased (in terms of space devoted to coverage, photography and so on) toward the rich. And the reason we are is that The Times, though not to my mind a simply liberal paper or a pro- or anti-Israeli paper, is an urbane, cosmopolitan paper edited from the world capital of urbanity and cosmopolitanism, Manhattan, which means we are biased in favor of change, possibility, mobility, individual liberty and going to bed late –- oh, and the rich, who are rather concentrated among us. So, philosophically, guilty as charged.

But don't worry. It's only cultural. And besides, the rich are godly. Otherwise they wouldn't be rich. So you wingers can untwist your knickers now.

No votes yet