Yeah, so many people buy into this idea. It amazes me, because the evidence is overwhelmingly good news. I worte a little bit about it here.

NYT? Biased?
Losing. Faith. In. Worldview.
/sarcasm

Great sound file!

There's something else here, something even more insidious that some people don't even think about. All these statistics refer to the "classes" as making more or making less over the course of these 35 years, yadda-yadda. But in 1967 (the first year measured in those stats), my father was somewhere in the middle of all those statistics. By 2003 he wasn't caring much for which fifth of the population he was in because he was dead.

Meanwhile, in 1967 I wasn't even born yet. Last time I checked my paycheck, I was safely inside that middle third (provided you count my company's hefty benefits that I never see as cash). Seems to me that going from zygote to captialist pig is a pretty big improvement. Oh, and I'm still alive, too.

New Times slogan: All the news that's not even fit to air on CBS - in print.

Wow, I'm reading some of the comments to that piece and these people are really foaming that someone has the nerve to say that Americans are doing well. They are PISSED.

Its pretty funny.

The Slate article links to a WaPo story, not the NYT.

That chart with accompanying explanation is hilarious.

You're right, David - sorry. But honestly, is there really a difference?

I'd argue that it is a distinction with a difference. The WaPo is trying out for the currently vacant title of paper of record. I think they should be specifically called out on this. They are not as bad as the NYT yet, and it is hoped that real-time fiskings like this will keep (make?) them honest.

Tangentially, the NYT can't be called anything other than the "so-called paper of record" or "the-agency-formerly-known-as the paper of record". In an environmentally conscious effort to save pixels, I propose that it be called TAFKA paper of record.