I noticed Rod Dreher cancelled his subscription to the New York Times today. He finally got the message the Times has been sending him for twenty years, which is, drop dead. Some of us learn faster than others I suppose. Yet he is still capable of writing…"NPR is hopelessly liberal in its biases, but it’s also a great news organization, one from which I learn every single day. I get the idea that NPR doesn’t really understand people like me (social and religious conservatives), or care to learn much. But — and this is a key difference between NPR and the NYT — I also don’t think NPR hates us and would like to see us go away."
Is Dreher really this dense? Can he be this dense? I'm beginning to feel sorry for him. But it's a sorrow mixed with contempt. To have limped along with the Times for twenty years and only just now get the message is a sign of stupidity or weakness or both. The idea that he thinks all the lefties, lesbians and others at NPR have anything but the same contempt for him as the Times is Candide on wheels!
BTW, I long ago stopped commenting on his blog. Not because I disagree with him, though I do. It's because he started actually editing them. That, and because he cowardly refused to respond to me on this very issue of National Public Radio. He wrote some nonsense based on bogus numbers put out by NPR to the effect that NPR had a substantial conservative listenership These numbers seem off to me, I took the time to research the actual numbers. He failed to post my research or reply in any way. I concluded at that point that he was a self serving lightweight and not worth my efforts.
It's noteworthy that he still "learns" things every day from NPR. Is it beyond him to see that the things he "learns" might just be selected to provide him with a skewed angle on events? How much of what he learns is actually true. Inquiring minds might want to know, but not his. Personally I rarely hear reporting on NPR that is not a collection of "facts" designed to advance the interests of one side or the other. NPR get's its facts wrong a lot. Readers can confirm this by remembering the last time NPR reported a story about which they had some expert knowledge. How accurate were they?
So what if anything is Dreher willing to do to prevent this "Dimmitude" he worries about for his progeny? As the chaplain of the church of fine-tuned niceness at TAC, I suppose his answer is, nothing at all. Dreher wants Christianity without Christian defenders. He wants the church of St Francis without the church of St Louis the crusader. He can't stand Clovis, but wants St. Martin of Tours shrine saved by magic.
And that is why I find him so repulsive.