JournalismnNew Times’nTimely DemisenISeiv Times died not long ago. andnwe have little reason to mourn it. It wasna sequel to the ’60s journalism of socialnconscience tor instant sale, and its endnreads like the dispersal of the acid fumesnthat beclouded the American mind fornmore than a decade. The ’70s provednnot to be exactly the new times whichnNew Times had expected. The marketntor pseudointellectual toxins has apparentlvndied out. there seems to be anscant demand for the “investigative”nbromides of journalists who supplantednreasoning with sniffing and specializednin killing the objective correlation betweennthought, fact, truth and theirncultural images. In its day. New Timesnwas uniformly against the hard-hat andnfor the snail darter, it hated the CIAnand adored the ERA —an obtuse, loyalnstorm trooper of modish sagacitv. Likenevery Manhattan bigot, any independencenfrom liberal platitudes had to benstamped out in the name of vigilantnanti-imperialist, anticorporate ethos.nDuring its existence. New Times onlvnonce came up with a quasi-commendablenenterprise: it documented LarrvnFlynt’s physical and moral hideousness.nbut drew no conclusion from its ownnfindings.nNeiv Times exited as it lived —mendaciouslyntwisting social phenomena andnforging a misrepresentation. Its finalnissue was entitled “Decadence—ThenPeople’s Choice.” and it featured prevaricativenarticles to prove that Americanhas become decadent because itsnpeople wished it so.nIt is difficult to point out a singlenculprit in what happened to Americanduring the last 15 years: the guilty andnthe victims drown together in a din ofnaccusations and explanations. However,nto us, at the Rockford College Institute,nthe opinion-making industry looks likena prime villain.nEver increasmg its formidable powernduring the ’60s. this industry neverncondemned anvtbing~ns anything wasnsupposed to go. be reported, and spreadnaround as the news of freedom, unfetterednchoice, enlightenment, progress,nor even overdue justice. Quite quickly,nthe uncondemned turned into the promoted,nand the American psyche, dazednby media hype, became a helpless preynof phony “revolutions” and “liberations.”nThe future editors and writersnof New Times were among the mostnardent promoters. They now refusenany part in the misdeed.nThe Pontius Pilate gesture nownmakes a career in the American press.nTime, one of the mightiest and mostncynical purveyors of decadence, disclaimednany partaking in spreadingnthe ”philosophy of permissiveness” bynwriting:n”. . . permissiveness (was) made possiblenonly by the acquiescence of anmajority of Americans .. . ‘nas if Time had contributed nothing tonthis compliance. .ow. New Times describesnas “The People’s Choice ” its ownnpropaganda of every excess, transgression,nfreakishness. and deviation. Mr.nHirsch, founder of New Times, was anpublisher of New York Magazine whennit began its crusade against any normnand every value embedded in Westernnsocial tradition. Any opposition to thenchintzy hedonism of New York Magazinenand its acolytes was branded in itsnpages as fascist, any distaste for itsncrass commercialism denounced asnbourgeois torpitude. Now, in its lastnissue, Mr. Hirsch’s New Times bewails:n”Norman Rockwell does not live herenanymore …” and sheds crocodile tearsnfor conventional innocence, as if itsneditors were not the same media mobnwhich had stoned the Rockweilian visionnand message to death in the ’60s. Theynnow bewail the illiteracy of the Prince-nIn the February 1979 issue. Mahmood Butt on ‘TURBULENCE IN WESTnASIA:’ POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES”:nThe explicitly secularist, materialist, and anti-traditional character of the contemporary Americannculture and political rhetoric has become increasingly obnoxious to religious societies throughoutnWest Asia, in spite of its materialist and atheistic philosophy, Soviet Russia may well appearnto Moslem traditionalists less culturally offensive than the uninhibited, libertine tendencies ofnAmerican life. While Moslem political leaders on the whole favor neither communist totalitarianismnnor Soviet control, they do have a profound commitment to such cultural and social valuesnas the sanctity of the family and public modesty.nNone of these Moslem views is alien to an orthodox Christian or Jew. but given the dominancenof the permissive culture in the United States, the traditionalist oudook of Moslem society maynfind little sympathy.nTo receive The Rockford Papers, mail the Subscription Membership card in this issue.nnn127nChronicles of Culturen