Just a few years ago The New York Times was on its last legs, printing Judy Miller’s re-mouthing of Cheney’s lies, holding back the wiretapping story until after the 2004 election, and generally spouting a lot of rubbish about health care.
Somehow the leadership there looked to THCB for inspiration.
Exhibit A. The NY Times swoops in and hires THCB alum Sarah Arnquist, whose article on shit in swimming pools is the 4th most emailed story in the Health section as of today.
Exhibit B. A few years back there was series of absolutely effing stupid articles in which various NY Times journalists, contributors and columnists said some unbelievably asinine things about the health care system—these included:
- that we got decent value for the money we spent on health care
- that spending said money was a conscious choice of the American people,
- that we could afford it, and
- that we should expect to spend even more and be happy about it
And so THCB went on a series of rants about a series of those dumb columns, culminating in one I called New York Times, dogs, pustilent sores, licking of.
On THCB this started a wide-ranging argument focusing on whether it was good for dogs to lick their sores.
I eventually proved conclusively that it wasn’t. I found this out because our dog Charley got a cut on his leg in a dog fight (no, not the Michael Vick type). He kept on licking it, and it got worse. I eventually wrapped his wound in duct tape (the greatest of all inventions!) which meant he couldn’t lick it, and it got better. Not, however, before my friend James Mathews from Sage had a good laugh about it when I brought Charley mit duct tape bandage to a meeting.
But over at The NY Times, a different conclusion was being drawn. Somehow they decided that they should stop talking bollocks. (Note: it’s possible that Peter Orszag shouting at them might have had something to do with this too)
Pretty soon Leonhardt was changing his tune, and calling Shannon Brownlee’s Overtreated book of the year—coincidentally just a few weeks after this long interview with Shannon on THCB. And now Leonhardt has gone completely sane, explaining that there’s no relationship between what we spend on health care and what we get and that all the talk about rationing is political bullshit.
Fabulous. I love a convert.
But this does leave me with one question. My sources (well The Daily Show) tall me that the NY Times is in a spot of financial bother. Apparently it’s losing money despite having annual revenue in excess of $2 billion.
Assuming that its health coverage is 17% of its total coverage, that means it’s spending over $340 million a year covering health care and can’t turn a profit.
Here’s my suggestion. The NY Times should fire all its health care reporters and Leonhardt, and redirect all its health traffic to THCB. After all, it’s just printing what we said a few years ago anyway. We’ll hire back Sarah Arnquist, tell next year’s news today, and we’ll do it for less than half of the $340 million the NY Times is spending now. Heck maybe even only a third. And they can keep the savings which will solve all their financial problems.
Janet, you know where to find us!
Categories: Matthew Holt