“If the shareholders of the New York Times ever wonder why the paper’s ad revenue is plummeting and its share price tanking, they need look no further than the hysterical reaction of the paper’s editors to any slight, real or imagined, against their preferred candidate. This campaign has never engaged in ‘racially tinged attacks,’ and the Barack Obama campaign conceded as much yesterday in a statement clarifying that “Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain campaign is using race as an issue.”

That the Times made this allegation in a blog post rather than running it on the editorial page indicates that they either knew the charge was bogus or they didn’t have the nerve to make their case in full view of the public. But in their new role as bloggers, the paper’s editors seem to have all the intelligence and reason of the average Daily Kos diarist sitting at home in his mother’s basement and ranting into the ether between games of dungeons and dragons. They also have about as much care for the facts–the “board” has already been forced to append a correction.”

It’s not that McCain himself has said that he ‘hates the bloggers‘. It’s not that his spokesperson just said that the NYT’s ad revenue is down because they love Obama too much. It’s not that it reminds us that McCain has admitted to not knowing how to use a computer.

It’s that unlike McCain, people care about what bloggers have to say.

Get it? He’s old.

And dismissing bloggers as nerds in their mothers’ basement may have been true the last time McCain ran for president – but times have changed and now we read about the decline of newspapers online. On…ahem…blogs.

New Career Opportunities Daily: The best jobs in media.