Blogs and Stories
The Right's Lesser Press
Sipa via AP Photo
ACORN is just the latest example of how conservative media love to blast The New York Times for its shortcomings. So why can’t they live up to the Gray Lady’s standards?
Those attuned to America’s place on the world stage have an advantage understanding The New York Times: It is journalism’s sometimes-arrogant, oft-maligned global superpower, and though its influence has waned in recent years, along with its financial health, it remains the world’s foremost purveyor of serious news, analysis, and opinion.
It is therefore a net benefit to humanity.
As a hegemonic newspaper, the Gray Lady has accomplished journalistic goods unprecedented in history—a long-running global network of first-rate reporters, a record-setting 101 Pulitzer Prizes, and powerful advocacy for First Amendment causes, for starters. These feats don’t obviate the need for vigilant critics, especially given the newspaper’s history of significant screwups: false apologia published for Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union, fictional dispatches filed by Jayson Blair, and insufficient due regularly paid to conservative insights are notable examples.
Andrew Breitbart’s criticism of the Times is somewhat odd—given that his media empire, and the outlets he associates with, are thoroughly ideological, publish few if any ideologically heterodox pieces, seldom if ever correct factual mistakes and ignore liberal insights entirely.
Its most recent journalistic sin concerns the ACORN story broken by activist reporters with hidden cameras. Thoughtful critics, including the Times’ own ombudsman, rightly castigated the newspaper for being slow to cover news that was obviously fit to print.
The recent criticism also includes a predictable cadre of folks so enraged by shortcomings at the Times that they are oblivious to its daily accomplishments, its importance as a check against government power, and core values that make it a journalistic entity worth saving. These critics care not for reforming the Times via constructive criticism; they aim to destroy it via hyperbolic sniping that ignores its every good quality.
Andrew Breitbart is the man in the middle of the current madness. Credit him for sponsoring Big Government, the site that broke the ACORN story and prompted the Times to begin monitoring breaking news on partisan sites. These are substantial accomplishments that improve the state of journalism.
But Mr. Breitbart’s role hardly ends there.
As a proprietor of Big Government and Big Hollywood, part of the team that runs The Drudge Report, and a regular guest on Fox News, especially Sean Hannity’s show, he is a leader among folks who complain that the Times is a pernicious force in American life—that it ignores stories that cut against its ideological bent, too often makes mistakes in its reporting, and gives insufficient consideration to ideological insights other than those held by its staff. This is somewhat odd given that Mr. Breitbart’s media empire, and the outlets with which he most closely associates himself, are thoroughly ideological enterprises, publish few if any ideologically heterodox pieces, seldom if ever correct factual mistakes, and ignore liberal insights entirely.
These are outlets that scoff at claims that the Times attempts objective journalism, but that never question the “fair and balanced” claim made by Fox News, or acknowledge that they deliberately ignore certain stories. Its critics cite columns written by the Times’ “public editor” as evidence that the newspaper is unaccountable to the American people—yet they’d never dream of allowing semi-autonomous ombudsmen to operate on their own sites. Imagine Fox News, Big Government, or the Drudge Report hiring an honest guy like Jack Shafer to write a prominently displayed column calling them on their bullshit.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Palin's Fatal 2012 Flaw
Conor Friedersdorf, a Daily Beast columnist, also writes for The American Scene and The Atlantic Online's ideas blog.
The Holes in Health Reform
Conor Friedersdorf, a Daily Beast columnist, also writes for The American Scene and The Atlantic Online's ideas blog.
Racism in the Republican Party
Conor Friedersdorf, a Daily Beast columnist, also writes for The American Scene and The Atlantic Online's ideas blog.
Top 10 reasons why you'll miss the NYT.
10. Use it to start a fire
9. Wrapping presents
8. TV listing
7. Pet bedding
6. Papier mâché project
5. Feeling good about recycling them
4. Fish and chips wrapper
3. Party hats
2. Hold up your air conditioner
1. Today's corrections
Right, since you don't have any way to counter the content of the article, make a dumb joke.
Typical right-wing response to truth.
Oh, boo-freakin-hoo. As if liberals never come back with crap like "Faux News" or "Limbaugh, the fat pill-popping addict" (both Limbaugh insults, I may add, are not even valid anymore).
Actually the typical right wing response to the truth is to acknowledge it.
"Actually the typical right wing response to the truth is to acknowledge it." Nice one, funnyman. And liberals call out Fox News and Limbaugh because they're often so unworthy of taking seriously. That you take them seriously as news sources is an indictment of you, not of liberals....
tony: the dumb joke isn't the problem, it's the use of a dumb joke to hide the fact that there isn't a coherent argument regarding the article. Unlike, say, mfthomson below. I disagree with him, but at least he's making an argument, instead of just a stupid joke.
This is the question begged in the article: "...to destroy the broadsheet would eliminate one of America's most powerful institutional checks on government,..."
The leading broadsheet of the state-controled media is the NYT. The NYT is somewhere between a stenographer or an artistic-consultant for all things Obama.
Just ask yourself, Would Dowd lie to make pubs look bad?
Does Pinch love America?
For a recent example, the NYT recently re-worked an article about BHO's Olympic fail to omit some information that didn't make BHO or his friends look good at all:
peekURL.com/z2q88b7 (newsbusters)
Before the election, they helped BHO cover up his links to Ayers, and several other sources then followed their lead:
24ahead.com/blog/archives/008087.html
Needless to say, I could go on and on; here's a list of several dozen posts about their reporting:
24ahead.com/s/new-york-times
As for the author, see this for a previous example of him not being able to figure things out:
http://24ahead.com/why-conor-friedersdorf-idiot-part-5832923b
This mis-casts blogs, left, right or center: they're not newspapers and, unlike the Times, don't purport to portray a "news" reality shorn of ideology. The objection to the Times is that it (and many other prominent examples of the old media) claims an objectivity it lacks. It is corrupt in a way that Daily Kos or Redstate are not. Anyone who relies on the Times for "fact" is likely to be gulled; anyone who relies on a tendentious blog for same deserves to be gulled. On the internet, we are our own editors, and "fact" emerges from the clash of competing advocates, much as in the days of honest yellow journalism, when newspapers whored openly.
While I enjoy the Times sections (Business, Science Times, Arts, Metro, Dining, Travel, etc.) their editorials are clearly not objective. The full page ad (at a discount rate none the less) allowed to MoveOn.org degrading General Petreus (General Betray Us) shows the Times partisanship. They were very slow on the ACORN scandal and the Van Jones story. Their poor defense of Judge Sotomayor's decision regarding a fire dept. promotional test based on race iced it for me. I till enjoy the Times, just not their overt editorials.
They're editorials. They're not supposed to be objective. That's why they're called opinion pieces.
Every newspaper has them, not just the Times. What, exactly, is your point?
babrooks213 - You took one piece of the above and attacked it. Was their slow response on Acorn or Van Jones editorials? NO, that was just the NYT just not covering it in hopes that it would go away. Especially with the Acorn scandal. You are right, editorials are not supposed to be objective, but to blatantly not cover certain news stories is just ridiculous! If it were a conservative group, the Times would've been all over it.
I don't care about editorials, what I care about is a non-partisan approach to the news. The NYT is useless to me and many other Americans just like the alphabet news media.
The point you work so hard to pretend not to understand is the leftist monoculture that these editorials reveal.
It would be one thing if the NYT presented itself as a crypto-marxist commentary outlet ala The Nation: "All the propaganda the left likes printed." The ideologically inebriated would use it for their mental masturbation and the rest of us would ignore it, which is largely the role the NYT is coming to play anyway.
The NYT presents itself not merely as "mainstream," which means very different things in different cultures, but as objective, which should largely mean the same thing everywhere. It is not objective however, not even close. It is the product of decades of leftist infiltration and corruption of our news institutions and the journalism schools that feed them. It has been corrupted and transformed from a news outlet to a propaganda outlet, a weapon used by the left in its ongoing war against liberty and democracy.
Luckily for liberty and democracy, the people of this country are growing wise to this deception and malice. Organizations like the NYT and CBS news are no longer able to push out leftist propaganda and expect the public to gobble it down as fact.
One of the most egregious examples of dishonesty and propaganda from the Times is an article from 2005. It was yet another hit piece on our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Firearm ownership was presented as a social ill akin to disease or poverty, a problem to be solved, rather than a right to be cherished and protected. I do not remember who the author was, but that was the very last time I took that paper seriously. Any newspaper that is going to act as a shill for the forces of political disenfranchisement is not a newspaper at all.
Gun ownership *is* a social ill.
This is really laughable. The NYT is as far from objective journalism as I think its possible to get. Let's see a bit of evidence here.
1. Their massive reluctance to cover ANY left wing scandal at all as shown in the recent ACORN, Van Jones, John Edwards, etc etc etc.
2. The ease with which any Republican scandal will get shown. The infamous John McCain affair rumor that went out based on nothing but vapor. At the same time they refused to publish on the Edwards affair they ran a rumor about a McCain affair on the front page. This is objective?
3. Name That Party. Google it, you'll find thousands of examples for the NYT alone. What is Name That Party? Basically it means the ability to identify the party of someone involved in a scandal based simply on the placement of party identification. If there's a scandal and the NYT says the Party Affiliation before the person's name, or as the first word of the headline, etc, you KNOW its a Republican: Republican Senator Does Bad Thing! If the story either never mentions party affilitation or mentions it on the second page they are gambling you won't go to, then you know its a Democrat.
So that's three right there. Its hard to really pay much mind to the whole layers of fact checkers, the ombudsman, the heterodoxist guy or whatever when they get so much so wrong and are so obviously biased. The layers of fact checkers seemed like they were too occupied with making ABSOLUTELY SURE on the Edwards story before running it... but they were nowhere to be found when the NYT got that whisper of a rumor about a McCain affair.
TLDR: How am I supposed to trust the NYT when they won't even admit they hate my guts and will never give my side a fair shake?
The New York Times is a joke as this article must also be. The author claims it has a significant role in the check on government power...you have got to be kidding!! The NYT is a rubberstamp to the radical leftist policies that have taken over our government. Nothing is looked at with a critical eye. Controversy and scandal outright ignored. Incompetence in the Obama administration is covered-up, ignored, or glossed over. Obama was NEVER even vetted by this oh so important paper!! Gee based on what is being done to our country now...ya think that might have been a good idea!!! The author tries to present it as a possible few times the NYT may have slipped up instead of admitting that the paper is a partisian hack rag mouthpiece for leftist radicals. It has made itself irrelevant...it will NEVER considered by anyone with any intellect to be anything else than what it has become...stuff to line the bottom of birdcages and train puppies on.
I've always maintained that you don't measure the bias of a media outlet by what they say, but by what they don't say.
The New York Times has always been slow to report scandals that might effect Democrats negatively, while giving significant prominence to any story that might embarrass a Republican.
Their refused to cover the ACORN story until it got too big to ignore is just one of their intentional shortcomings, but hacks like Conor Friedersdorf would have you believe this s their only sin.
They ignored the Reverend Wright story until it was too big to ignore, but ran an unsubstantiated and old story about an alleged John McCain affair. They treated Van Jones with kid gloves while savaging any member of the Bush administration.
It's not their editorials we have a problem with, but the way their "news" reads far too much like their editorial page.
[Breitbart] is a leader among folks who complain that the Times is a pernicious force in American life-that it ignores stories that cut against its ideological bent, too often makes mistakes in its reporting, and gives insufficient consideration to ideological insights other than those held by its staff.
The case has been made above that despite its egregious flaws, the NYT is a 'journalistic entity worth saving'. A hegemonic one at that. Very well, then. Since the hegemonic Times is worth saving, flaws and all, there's an equally strong case for preserving Breitbart et al, flaws and all - particularly since it's the Opposition, and dares speak truth to power regardless of its unhegemonic list of subscribers.
Is it too much to ask for right-wing media outlets to employ an ombudsman, a talented pool of reporters, and ideologically heterodox columnists like the Times; to check facts as carefully as the New Yorker; to challenge its own orthodoxies as regularly as The New Republic; and to assemble an staff alumni list as impressive an influential as The Washington Monthly?
It is too much to ask. All those listed 'virtues' are very much like the values of Communism-which-has-never-been-tried. They're the billboard, behind which lurks a more earthy reality - the 'reputation' which the debutante publicly maintains while her private activities generate poetry.
The 'right-wing media outlets' (RWMO) already investigate and make public those current events which the MSM shuns, lest its liberal political allies might lose an election. That is sufficiently valuable a service to the country as a whole to continue publishing. About the time that the MSM actually follows those principles, to the frequent horror of its Blue State patrons, then it's time to ask the RWMOs to adopt all those zealous overlookers.
But then, you in the MSM would still have to check on those overlookers, as the RWMOs have successfully done all too frequently against you.
Well I have to agree with your general take but then it seems like you go into a little to much conservative "media bashing".
My observations.
All news papers are becoming irrelevant. Readership is down and they all have Internet sites now so what's the point really?
Newspapers, Cable News, Blogs, are all what I consider pay for service vehicles. What I mean by that is you have to pay for a newspaper, you have to pay for cable to watch cable news, and unless you go to the library you have to pay for internet service to get to a blog.
I expect all these sources to be biased, if they choose too. As a matter of fact I consider it their right. There is no doubt that this is a liberal left of center site. You see the attacks almost every time a conservative makes a post.
Now there was a time when all media sources "tried" to act as responsible journalists but those days are long gone. Yes the Times certainly does have a long list of award winners but they just don't seem to live up to the same standards anymore so I don't think using them as an example of someone to emulate means as much today.
I think the real problem is that the MSM has for the most part shown the highest level of irresponsibility. They have all proven to be leaning extremely to the left and all but ignore anything that may hurt or put the current administration in a bad light or allow any opposing view. Not always but a high percentage of the time. This is sad as it is the only source for a lot of Americans and their getting the mushroom treatment. I think that one day in the not to distant future they are going to be held accountable for there action by the people. I would love to see someone do a piece on the BIAS of NBC, CBS, or ABC.
As a conservative I'm glad there is a Fox News, Biggovernment.com and other conservative sites. If they didn't exist we would never hear the other side of the story, and in a lot of cases the truth. I think Fox at least tries a lot more than its cable competitors to allow or show opposing views, but again they are a pay service and have the right to air what they want.
It sure would be nice though if there was a place you could go and get opposing views and feel confident that the information was accurate. Call me a dreamer.
The NYT "Grey Lady" is a net benefit to humanity...?!
The NYT stopped being a newspaper years ago. It has become a yellow rag printing its biased opinion as "news".
The NYT will not be missed as it becomes more and more irrelevant to the world.
"conservative media love to blast The New York Times for its shortcomings. So why can't they live up to the Gray Lady's standards?"
The Jayson Blair Times, are you serious, do you know what the NYT stock is worth - seriously. I mean literally and credibility.
Wow pats on the back all around. All those posts were the mental equivelent to a circle jerk. How intellectually dishonest to you have to be to completely deride the so-called MSM while shilling for Fox and Biggovernment. First off anyone who gets their news from just one source is a dunce and should be eligible for a lobotamy to help speed up the process. Always check multiple sources, always put yourself in someone else's shoes so you can see where they're coming from. The best way to debate someone is to know their arguement better than them.
I'm not trying to defend any of these papers or news channels they're big boys and can take care of themselves(or can't as it were) but I find it infuriating when hypocrites spew their shit.
crngndmhm: Circle jerk? Well I guess that puts your statements in line with that old saying (Mental Masturbation is a Real Mind F**k) because it appears to be what your suffering from. I didn't see in any of these posts where anyone said that they only got there "news", as you call it, from one source. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
I think you need to take your own advise and know the other sides argument before you speak. You not only don't provide an argument at all your response is to information that doesn't exist and then you pretend to straighten everyone else out with your drivel. Guess they actually botched your lobotomy. Thanks hypocrite for being the Moral Barometer for us though.
Touch a nerve did I? No arguements just observations, like most of the above comments attacking certain sites, channels and papers while extolling others like they're the holy grail of news sources. So I'm saying if you choose to believe one over the good for you just make sure you actually know what the others are saying before reaching that conclusion. Hate the message not the messenger.
As far as the other sides arguement it's written fairly plain in the posts instead of taking the message at face value you choose to take it as an attack.
Glad to see you took it so personel cause I was actually directing my post at you directly, and you once again you stroked off another one lickty split. Hope you wiped up before typing at least.
"Me thinks he doth protest to much"
Oh yes, I probably won't be right for a week, you should be so proud of yourself. What ever will I do. If you read my post you would know that I expect no less than what we get from all these sources. I don't hold any up to be the Holy Grail, they are words you chose to provide yourself with so you had an argument to speak to.
You wrote: "Hate the message not the messenger. As far as the other sides arguement it's written fairly plain in the posts instead of taking the message at face value you choose to take it as an attack."
And then of course you make yourself the victim only after stating that all the posts are "the mental equivelent to a circle jerk". Yes that was real insightful information. There is no other sides argument. I do not see, in one post above, where anyone holds one source higher than another, I do see commentary on how some feel but that's about it. So I think that if a nerve was struck it was yours. So please if you have something to add to the "subject line" of the story than please do.
You directed it at me? How would I have ever known? Could it have been the fact that you mentioned 2 sources that appeared in the article and my post only? You are so clever, how would I have known without you explaining it to me!!
"Me thinks he doth make stuff up to much"
My response to any future responses from you: Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
And to furthure my point a little check out this article at HotAir.
CBS flunks research and journalism
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/06/cbs-flunks-research-and-journalism /
And here is another.
Gallup Poll: Media Seen as 'Too Liberal,' Untrustworthy
http://us.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.gx=1&.rand=2edf8iinnpvk9
Any conservative who is reading an article at the Daily Beast isn't getting their news from a single source. Trust me on this.
I couldn't agree more.
I just read three different articles about the eight U. S. troops killed in Afghanistan over the weekend. The articles were in The New York Times, Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. The difference I noticed in the articles was the way the facts were reported and the importance placed on the articles.
The New York Times and Washington Post articles were page one articles, while the The Wall Street Journal article was page 14.
The basic facts were the same in all of the articles, even having some of the same quotes.
Could it be that people just want to read something into a article so it confirms their beliefs? Maybe checking several sources like crngndmhm says it the right way to get your information.
daveinboise: You quote one article about Afghanistan and that makes your point true? How about responding to some of the examples given above? I'll say the same to you that I did crngndmhm. Where in the above posts do you see anything that leads you to believe that anyone doesn't already check several sources? You shouldn't make assumptions.
Dreamer:
I liked what you wrote in your blog above at 12:44 but with a few excepts. No matter who writes here, they are attacked. Whether they are right leaning or left leaning.
I missed the times in our nation's history that all media sources tried to be responsible. Can you give me an example of this period? Why have you not seen the MSM criticism of this administration. I have seen it. Yes, in the New York Times, The Washington Post and especially in the editorial section of The Wall Street Journal. This administration has been in office less than nine months and their policies has been criticized in the MSM. Are you really reading or listening to the MSM or are you just hearing what you want to?
When you watch the news, are you talking about Shepard Smith or the talk shows after? Have you missed the pieces on the O'Reilly Factor about the bias at all the networks you mentioned.
What would you like be to comment above: The New York Times printing falsehood by Blair or The New York Times printing falsehoods by William Kristol?
Yes, I stated that one story was covered by the Big Three newspapers. Some information in each. Is this how you get your information? By reading different source to check the facts or by reading different source to find the information that fits your opinion?
daveinboise:
Thanks for the complement. I agree with you that all sides get attacked here but, with the exception of threads like this one it certainly seems to be a lot more one sided. If it's a thread about Obama or the dems and someone makes a negative post they get creamed by no less than a 2 to 1 margin, wouldn't you agree? I don't have a problem with that though as this is a left leaning site and I would expect that. It would be the same if the roles were reversed on a right leaning site. Don't think that makes it right, it just is what it is.
The time I referred to was 20 to 30 years ago. I think there were just higher ethical and moral standards back then. It was important to get it right and people's reputations were important. I am not saying that was true of all media sources back then. Now a days a reporter can tell a bold face lie, be called out on it, say my bad, and move along with virtually no consequences. After a week or two no one even remembers it happened.
I have seen the MSM and other sources criticize the Administration. The problem I have is that you can check the sources that monitor these things and you will find that the pro administration stories out weigh the cons by a large number. And then when they do run them they are middle of the show, middle of the page and given the smallest amount of attention and importance. Was that the case with Bush? Don't think so. And I'm not a fan of his either, just making a point. I read and watch as many sources as I can, then I hit the internet and see if I can validate that information. Sad that we have to do that though.
I don't watch the news, I DVR it from several sources (MSM and Cable) and then speed watch it so I can avoid the commercials and the pieces I'm not interested in. Yes I have seen some of O'reilly pieces but he is Cable News, not everyone has access to that.
How about comment on Dark Eden's post, or Ozone 69's post?
I do try and read the actual article, without bias as much as I can, and from multiple sources. Then I often see what else I can find on it if it's important enough to me.
I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, and you make a lot of valid points. The problem I have is that I didn't see where anyone in this thread stated that they only got their news and information from a single source or from sources that only lean one way. The fact that we are here shows that we enjoy a variety of opinions, does it not?
The opposite of Fox = NYT.
Did anyone actually read the above article? it was pretty reasonable...not really rant-worthy.
The Times has credibility problems but those who attack it do so through news outlets with little journalistic integrity.
sounds about right
Yes, we read it. It's not reasonable. The funny thing is that you repeat the basis for this.
The entire problem is the concept of 'journalistic integrity'. It's a sham. Journalistic integrity is a false concept forced on us by j-schools, which themselves are entirely partisan and biased.
If you truly think the Times has 'journalistic integrity' when it refused to cover ACORN or Van Jones, then you're part of the problem.
"Is it too much to ask for right-wing media outlets to employ an ombudsman". Um Excuse me but when did the NY Times create an ombudsman position? Oh yeah AFTER the Jayson Blair scandal. So the position had been in effect for less then 10 years. So how much went on prior to 2003 that was never disclosed? Has having an ambudsman that stopped the NYT from being a pretty partisan source of news? Nope. In fact the ombudsman admitted to partisan bias but basiccally told everyone to deal with it because thats what the Times reader base wanted. Som in essence the ombudsman is nothing more then a public explanation of left political bias.
Conor where were all those people employed by the times that strive for "accuracy" when the paper was insinuating an affair between John McCain and a lobbyist with no sourcing and yet punted an article about Obama and ACORN despite having sourcing for the story? Where was the Ombudsman when the Times more then happily published an editorial by Obama during the campaign but did not act in kind with McCain? These are not simple mistakes, but purposeful decisions.
Call the Waahmbulance. I uses to read the NYT cover to cover every single day for 25 years straight. I stopped in 2005 in the face of relentless Bush bashing and cheerleading for failure in Iraq. Screw them. I hope Pinch Sulzberger winds up in a soup kitchen line. Yeah, we need journalists but we sure don't need the likes of Frank Rich or, worst of all, an economic illiterate such as Tom Friedman.
Gee I thought these guys were columnist not journalist. Big difference.
>>The Times, whatever its faults, is a better general-interest newspaper than anything conservatives ever created
Nice straw man. The Wall Street Journal would be the conservative analog to the NY Times. And, though hardly conservative, The Washington Post is also a far better paper these days than the Times (actually, my hometown Shopping News is a better paper than the NY Times). Breitbart is more like the conservative analog to Huffpo or this site.
I agree the Washington Post is a better paper than the New York Times, but the Wall Street Journal? Maybe a couple of years ago, but the new format is killing the quality. It's turning into the USA Today.
One area where the NYT agrees with neo-cons (aside from the invasion of Iraq) is on economic policy. Free trade, cheap labor, outsourcing are all supported by the NYT. The difference is that the NYT stumps to increase welfare while the neo-cons are opposed to a social safety net.
But, no surprise here, the economic policies supported by both the NYT and neo-cons have ruined the economy, which has made an adequate safety net unaffordable. That makes it a net win for supply-siders - with thanks to the New York Times.
Timbo
I actually don't think its 2 to 1. Maybe the majority are more left leaning but not 2 to 1.
In looking back at the 'glory years' of reporting. Remember the stuff Ike, Kennedy and LBJ were doing wasn't reported? The dark period of McCarthyism brought fear to reporters. Yes Murrow stood up but how many other struck their neck out? In the Sixties we had a reaction to the previous period. While Walter Cronkite was revere nearly everywhere what was not the case in the Nixon White House. The term Stonewalling comes to mind. It's the same term I use for the previous administrations actions. You must admit the current administration is more open, not completely open, we will never have that, but more open.
Then you have the rock stars, Bernstein and Woodward. And then you have reporter taking the the easy way to get noticed. That may be the start of the current decline. But the Watergate era was a small window that opens every once in a while. It's not a trend but anomaly.
I think the current trend of positive reporting on the current administration you are talking about is more evident because of the mistakes of the last administration are still very fresh in people's mind. The current administration is trying to correct these mistake. Sometimes to the better and other times not. You see in the MSM that liberals are upset about the lack of progress in repairing our image abroad and reversing some of the wrongheadness of Bush. You have seen this, yes? Isn't that what the press is suppose to do? Question the people in authority and keep them in check? Be them liberal or conservative. It seems to me that the some of the MSM is trying to this. Let's hope they continue.
In terms of lying, I go back to Blair and Kristol. You agree both were rightly released from their contracts. But they are just part of the symptom of trying to be a rock star. The disease is ignored. And I think the disease is to prove the other side is wrong all the time. This spin is used on Fox, as well as MSNBC, just to feed the people who want that garbage, encouraging these lies, so their believes are confirmed. And also continuing to reward the lazy. Until the few million viewers stop watching cable, and a sizable portion are liberals looking for their red meat, we are going to has the blogs above. Welcome to the 1st Amendment. You think Thomas would be happy? Of course this stuff happened back then too.
It maybe true that no one above specifically stated they get their information from a single source, but to me the bias in the comments tells me that the majority don't. They may read something from the DailyKos but then go the Drudge Report to debunk it. Yes, that checking another source, but really is it understanding the other side. It would be nice if the name calling would stop, but what would the advertisers do?
The two post you talk about are correct. But using editorials as gospel is not a way to get facts. I have a subscription to the WSJ and I regularly wonder it the editorial board read the main section.
My point with my original post was three major national papers all reported the same facts. Now how can anyone fault these papers for doing so. Of course, since the Times and Post covered the story, the right uses it to show how the liberal media is criticizing the war, missing the point that the Journal said the same thing. I remember in Fahrenheit 911, the thing that struck me was Moore used news footage from Fox News. Moore is called a bomb thrower but all he was really doing was showing the news reporting and how the people missed it or ignore it to feed their believes. I hope he paid royalties to Murdoch.
Really sandwich got it right, and the majority missed the boat. Let's hope we caught it next time.
It seems obvious that the difference between Drudge, Brietbart and the Times is that Drudge and Brietbart are upfront about their politcal biases, while the Times attempts to convince us that they are playing it straight down the middle.
The typically thin-skinned Breitbart responds. Via Andrew Sullivan?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/10/breitbart- responds.html
Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman... Can you name one regular NYT columnist who isn't a virtual parody of themself? I guess there's always William Safire. Oh wait...
Seriously, the NYT editorial page is the biggest echo chamber in journalism. Even "conservative" lapdog David Brooks endorsed Obama! And do you ever read the letters? Is there even one conservative in Manhattan, or do their letters all get ignored?
No wonder the paper is in trouble. I stopped wasting my time with it years ago. I'll take the WSJ any day.
So Mr 'dorf wants more balance and intellectual fairness in conservative media outlets but doesn't include any quote or response from the incredibly available Mr Brietbart. Get lost Conor .You left your fairness and integrity at the door went you decided to misrepresent those you criticize.
Conor gives himself away when he says at the end of his article "The Times, whatever its faults, is a better general-interest newspaper than anything conservatives ever created . . " You mean, I guess, that the NYT was "created" by liberals?? Oh, thanks for telling the truth. As to conservative "creating" news reporting; yeh, we're friggin idiots to think the noble 4th house was non-partisan. IT WAS CREATED BY LIBERALS!!!! FOR LIBERALS!! Thanks for clearing that up Conor. Geez.
"a long-running global network of first-rate reporters..." yeah like Judith Miller whose "first rate reporting" helped sell the war in Iraq resulting in more deaths than the killing fields
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-over-one-million- iraqi-deaths-caused-by-us-occupation/
Uh....am I the only one who sees a difference between a guy like Breitbart who doesn't purport to be objective and agenda-free...and a news outlet like the New York Times that does?
Did this Fridersdorf character really just draw that comparison? LOL!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.