“With the thoughts you'll be thinking, you could be another Lincoln...” — The Wizard of Oz

Imaging my dismay, on Christmas Eve of all occasions, to discover that Leonard Hitchcock, the ISJ columnist in the natty red blazer, disapproves of my taste in newspapers. All my hopes are dashed. Whatever shall I do?

My only solace is that though it is at my expense, Hitchcock has grown as a writer by finding a third topic, beyond 1) religion is bad, and 2) conservatives are bad, on which to pontificate — my reading habits.

I find it amusing that the Hitchcock column that precipitated this exchange was titled ”Finding the Truth.” That's some statement coming from a guy who's spent his life talking down to people from the taxpayer supported sanctuary of academia. But the title does illustrate much of the column's deceit. Hitchcock is about as neutral of an arbiter for truth as Donald Trump is for ethical business behavior.

Hitchcock's thesis, in the latter part of the column in question, is that I canceled my subscription to the New York Times because I don't understand the difference between the news and opinion sides of their operation. There's some “untruth” for you right there. “Don't approve” and “don't understand” are not at all the same thing.

I've worked with folks on both sides of the NYT “firewall.” I've had, in fact, the discussion about news versus opinion with them. Many staffers at the Times are as concerned about this as I am, and the most difficult part of abandoning the Times was removing my support for writers I know and like. But it had to be done. If I can't change what I and many others consider to be a disastrous change in direction, I can only withdraw my support for it.

People at the Times and across the industry understand this as well. That's why the incident in question, the internal condemnation by some of not just the content, but the publication, of a column in the Times by Tom Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas, caused more than a “kerfuffle.” It caused, in fact, the resignation of the editorial page editor James Bennett, the reassignment of deputy editorial page editor Jim Dao, and widespread condemnation of the Times in editorial pages across the country.

I had to get in line to criticize all of this. That being the case, I don't think that “kerfuffle” means what Hitchcock thinks that it means. Perhaps he can find someone at the reference desk in the library to direct him to some resource to help with this.

Hitchcock picked an odd hill to defend with the Times. Aside from the fact that he's the only librarian that I know who seems to favor censorship (in the future, I'll be sure to direct everyone I know who hates “Catcher in the Rye” to Hitchcock for advice on how to make it go away), he is evidently not aware of an entire series of recent controversies involving the New York Times, bias and shoddy work.

The Times has more “kerfuffle” to deal with than just what finally prompted me to throw in the towel. Consider the attempt to rewrite history, sans historians, via "The 1619 Project," the fraud of Jayson Blair, the use by the Bush 43 administration of Judith Miller to gin up a false case for the Iraq war, the resignation of conservative columnist Bari Weiss over a hostile work environment, an admission of bias against the accused in the Duke Lacrosse scandal and the very recent Caliphate podcast controversy — which resulted in a withdrawal from Pulitzer consideration and the return of a Peabody award.

There's more, but going through the complete list would just be piling on. Suffice it to say that the NYT, despite Hitchcock's assertions to the contrary, has a history of spectacular bias and, on occasion, spectacularly shoddy work — on both sides of the “firewall.” This is unbecoming of a publication that claims to be a paper of record for an entire nation. Some of the Times reporting is very good, but some if it is not. It's the growth of category two that concerns me and many others.

I subscribe to newspapers and periodicals with editorial positions across the board. I couldn't care less if they are liberal or conservative — as long as they're informative and play it as straight as they can with hard news. The Times has demonstrated, many times, that they have difficulty with this. As Hitchcock points out, that's their prerogative. What he fails to understand is that mine is to not pay for any of it.

My favorite part of Hitchcock's defense of the Times was this pearl of wisdom: “I subscribe to the New York Times, and I am well aware that insofar as the newspaper occasionally expresses its own political opinions, that they are liberal. It’s also true that most (but not all) of the columnists who write for the paper are liberals. But neither fact proves that the Times’ news reporting is untrustworthy.”

That's really funny, because it's exactly what the people who's word view is shaped entirely by Fox News think as well. You should all get together, because you have more in common than you think.

I wonder what Hitchcock would think if the staff of the ISJ were to threaten to walk out because they took issue with the publication of his columns? A few of them are, no doubt, religious — and may well object to the near omnipresent drone of one of his favorite topics.

Not that I think there is much actual danger of this. Hitchcock's columns have a value that supersedes their pedantry. As long as they run, there exists a cure for insomnia that's 100 percent effective. Just don't read them more than once, if you plan on waking up.

Associated Press and Idaho Press Club award-winning columnist Martin Hackworth of Pocatello is a physicist, writer, consultant and retired Idaho State University faculty member who now spends his time raising children, llama farming, riding mountain bikes and motorcycles and playing guitars. His video blog, “Howlin’ at the Moon in ii-V-I,” may be found at facebook.com/HowlinattheMoonin251 and on YouTube at bit.ly/2SN745k.