When I fisked Richard Cohen in the Washington Post for inexcusable distorting of history, someone in the comments pointed out a lack of editorial oversight in the fact-checking department. One of the criticisms of the MSM in general is that accuracy isn't as important to them as it should be, but as usual, the New York Times is worse. Its owners seem to have no compunction about throwing its own history into the dumpster.
As Don Luskin points out, The newspaper of record throws away its own records. The Old Grey Lady is downsizing the actual paper, by an inch and a half, which means 5% less news. But in moving to smaller office space, more than newsprint is being lost. Luskin's mole in the Times reports:
About two months ago I'm riding in the freight elevator with a few custodial gents. They're poring over an old payroll book. I ask them where they got it, and they tell me that they've been dumping shelves and shelves of them dating back to the turn of the last century (1900). The fire inspector and Tishman said "they're a hazard." I'm stumped. Didn't the NYT want ANY of them? For a historian they're the raw material of history.Does this disdain for historical records result from decades of historical relativism and "competing narratives" being taught in universities and absorbed by the intellectual pseudo-elites the Times increasingly caters to?. . . . As I was looking at the payroll books I saw a bound volume of the Times from September 1963, and a bound volume of the "Western Edition" that spanned about two years. One of the men working on the removal noted that "there were hundreds of them." (Remember it took 3 to 4 months to clean out the room.) . . . . These were the bound REFERENCE copies FOR THE RECORD. All dumped in the year 2006. I don't know if there was a complete run of the paper. I doubt it. But even 50 years of them would have been valuable.
. . . . It's a dangerous time here on W. 43rd St. We're moving into smaller digs so the emphasis is to dump, and since "everything is on the Internet," who needs this &*?!*%? I hold the Philistines controlling the Temple to blame for this disheartening wound.
Does this disdain for historical records result from decades of historical relativism and "competing narratives" being taught in universities and absorbed by the intellectual pseudo-elites the Times increasingly caters to?
No. If the story is true, then this is simply part of pretty common activity throughout human history. Most folks aren't historians or historically minded after all.
One should note that lots and lots of microfilm copies of the NYT are available all over the place, and a lot of scanning has been done in the last 5-10 years. They may have figured that with the wide availability of microfilm and electronic copies they don't need the space for regular records any more.
Tony Zbaraschuk,
Yes, that also probably helps to explain it.
Still, you'd think you could auction that stuff off for non trivial amounts of cash.