The New York Times has been around since 1851, when it was known as the “New-York Daily Times.” The paper was there to cover the Civil War and the two “Great Wars.” It witnessed the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the Great Depression that followed it, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the fall of Richard Nixon.
The Washington Post is nearly as old, having been founded in 1877.
Both of these journalistic giants have been in business long enough to know how far respect for them as “keepers of the flame” has plunged in recent years, as each of them has permitted itself to turn hyper-partisan.
But now, in the era of President Donald Trump, both papers have dropped all pretext of objectivity. Both are now allowing their writers to engage in snark. For those uninitiated, Urban Dictionary explains that snark is a neologism formed by combining “snide” and “remark.”
The Times’s snarkiness is subtle, appearing in a column by op-ed writer Charles Blow that argues that the Trump presidency should be placed “on hold” essentially until the “gathering fog of suspicion” around him can be cleared. Apart from being totally unfeasible — the Constitution contains no option for invoking a “timeout” during a presidency — the recommendation is also extraordinarily one-sided: Barack Obama was enveloped more than once during his presidency by similar fogs, yet a search of the Times’s archives yields no such article by Blow or anyone else.
But I digress. Back to the snark…