David Carr, the media columnist for the New York Times, has written a scathing column that ran in the Kansas City Star today attacking the San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper.
    What exactly is wrong with the U-T newspaper? According to Carr, it has an agenda.
    Carr bemoans the fact the newspaper has a conservative slant, which includes “front-page editorials and wraparound sections to promote political allies who share [the paper's] agenda.
    “There is a growing worry that the falling value and failing business models of many American newspapers could lead to a situation where moneyed interests buy papers and use them to prosecute a political and commercial agenda,” wrote Carr in the lede for his column.
    John Lynch, chief executive of the U-T, didn’t seem to disagree with Carr’s assessment.
   “We make no apologies,” Lynch told Carr. “We are very consistent — pro-conservative, pro-business, pro-military.”
    Carr blasts the Union-Tribune for being “anti-big government, anti-tax and anti-gay marriage. And he’s in favor of a remade San Diego centered around a new downtown waterfront stadium and arena.”
    In other words, Carr seems to be upset that the Union-Tribune’s “agenda” is not the “agenda” followed by most “mainstream” newspapers in the country, which are likely to push a pro-abortion, anti-business, anti-military, pro big government, etc. agenda.
    He seems to be saying newspaper agendas are bad, but only if they don’t follow the agenda of the New York Times and the vast majority of newspapers in the U.S. If they follow his agenda then they are good.
   One would be hard-pressed to find a column that seems to show how dramatically traditional newspapers believe their agenda is the one true one. Any agenda that does not follow their agenda is wrong.
    Carr bemoans the fact that the U-T is owned by a San Diego developer who seems to push his own business interests, but ignores the fact that most newspapers today in the country are owned by billion dollar corporations such as McClatchy Company, parent of the Star, which certainly have their own vested interests.
   The arrogance of Carr’s column is astounding—and shocking.