THE New York Sun got some well-deserved praise as it ran off its final issue Tuesday. But most folks never truly understood – better yet, appreciated – its goals.
In fact, what the paper sought to do was invaluable – for the city and nation.
Start with its founder, Seth Lipsky (who hired me in 1992 at the English-language Forward and whom I consider a friend). Unlike most newsmen, Lipsky believes fervently in America’s fundamental moral rightness and political soundness.
He and his partner, Ira Stoll, were clearly concerned about the growing, pernicious influence of The New York Times and its ilk on the nation’s future.
True, The Wall Street Journal’s smart, conservative editorial page offers some balance to the Times (Lipsky had served on the Journal editorial board). But the Journal is a national paper, focusing on business news.
The Sulzberger family’s far-left behemoth reigned virtually uncontested in its realm – even as its “news,” cultural coverage and opinion pages became ever more rabid. Its focus on the city also fell short.
So Lipsky saw a market opening, as well as a need to fill some gaping holes in news coverage.
And the chasms grew even wider after 9/11, as America entered a new kind of world war against Islamic extremists and their anti-American allies. Predictably, the Times (along with much of the press) took the side of our enemies, pouncing on Washington for having the nerve to try to protect America, even divulging secret war plans.
This stemmed partly from a hatred of President Bush and Republicans, the majority in Congress then, and partly from a legitimate but over-caffeinated belief that a newspaper serves as a critic of government, pointing out flaws and foul-ups – even, in the Times’ view, if it helps our enemies.
But the paper went further, embracing the leftist axiom that national self-criticism – to the point of self-hatred – and left-wing agenda-promotion trump honest facts. Whatever the issue, America was at fault.
It’s hard to think of a single institution that’s harmed the nation’s war efforts since 9/11 more than the Times. Its non-stop distortions of the Iraq effort alone approached almost treasonous levels.
Lipsky hoped to offer reporting and opinions that could temper that trend, as well as more local – and more balanced – coverage.
His thin, scrappy broadsheet backed intervention in Iraq early. It blasted the Times in ’03 for “siding with France, Russia and China against America in the debate over war in Iraq” and for calling Bush “impatient.” It offered important local scoops, uniquely clearheaded UN coverage and a respected cultural report.
It never shied from criticizing mistakes by Democrats or Republicans, but its fundamental siding with this nation over others never wavered.
“America may sometimes err,” a recent editorial read. “But . . . its moral standing is stronger now than it has ever been.”
It’s an all-too-rare view in the newspaper world.
Alas, the paper never mustered the financial firepower needed to provide serious balance to the Times – yet it did influence other news outlets and opinion makers, achieving far more than many expected. And it gave great training to a solid crop of younger reporters along the way.
Meanwhile, the Times’ dominance has waned, as numerous news and opinion platforms have emerged – on the Web, cable TV, talk radio and elsewhere.
Clearly, the Sun’s death is a loss. It fought a noble fight on behalf of the good guys.
But the dynamic today is toward a more democratic and balanced dissemination of news and views.
Lipsky and his staff deserve enormous credit for giving that trend a healthy push.