So strong is the New York Times' insistence on pushing its political agendas, which has turned it into more of a house organ for the left-wing of the Democratic Party than an objective purveyor of news, that it has never hesitated to give its non-news writers free rein to include political digs in articles pertaining to unrelated fields.
Thus, book critic Michiko Kakutani never fails to score a few conservative-bashing points whenever she can work them into one of her reviews. Erstwhile entertainment critic Frank Rich managed to parlay his ultra-left -- and irrelevant -- nastiness into a full-time post writing regular op-eds.
Not to be outdone, TV reviewer Alessandra Stanley raises her usual liberal snarkiness to new heights today in her column attacking Fred Dalton Thompson as a prospective presidential candidate. Beyond tearing down Thompson himself, Stanley chooses to denigrate the character he plays on telelvision, in a coyly catty way falsely writing that, "Women may harbor doubts about his character's character. Arthur has a weakness for the young, tall, gorgeous prosecutors in his office and for mentoring them through their cases."
Regular viewers of Law & Order will, of course, instantly notice that the comment is bizarrely untrue.
Moving on from there in her desperate attempt to demean the conservative Thompson, Stanley warns of fictional trouble, no doubt her own wishful thinking, from the innocent fictional behavior of the character he plays:
"Once candidates declare, their pasts are scoured for personal, often embarrassing details. Mr. Thompson has not only his own bachelor days in Washington; voters may also hold him accountable for Arthur's past.
"That stately, Southern gentleman has a few peccadilloes of his own. On one episode, he confided to Jack that he once dressed up in a clown suit to serenade a girl who loved opera with snatches from Pagliacci. 'She laughed, then she slammed the door in my face,' Arthur says ruefully. 'My point is, guys do goofy things for girls whether they want them to or not.'"
And Stanley's point is more than obvious.
Share