Why Isn't the Times a-Changin'?

..

But I always thought, perhaps naively, that the Times was not going after just the wealthy, that they might have a commitment to people at the lower end of the wealth scale. Then I encountered the February 11 edition.

An entire section devoted to wealth, which as we know is clustered in one percent of the hands of the American public. What I wondered, of course, was if maybe the Times - the bastion of journalistic balance -- was going to introduce a section called "Poverty.' After all, it is estimated that 1 in 6 Americans, 46 million people, now live in poverty -- 15 percent of the population. That's a pretty big audience.http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ Of course, Saks would not be much interested, so the Sulzbergers could not be expected to pursue this line of reporting.

In fact, this is an old story at the Times, which has long been criticized for focusing its local news coverage on the mighty and rich of Manhattan, while ignoring the poorest sections of the Bronx and Brooklyn. A murder in swanky Westchester County to the north will make headlines; a death in Brownsville will likely not get a mention.

But the "wealth" section is even more revolting. A headline on the cover declares that there is a growing inequality within the 1 percent. I thought the story - and the shame -- was the inequality between the filthy rich and the rest of the society. I am now to be worried that a poor millionaire is not keeping up with the other millionaires?

...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4804215