Franklin Foer has decreed on The New Republic’s blog that the left is morally bound to be lauding praise on the NY Times for printing the domestic spy story, and we’re doing the work of the right when we trash it. Oh, shut up.
The so-called liberal New York Times, while doing good journalism on occasion, has also been the newspaper that day-in and day-out trashed President Clinton, ridiculed Al Gore, carried water for the Bush administration on WMD and numerous other issues, and even in this instance held the story and helped to throw the ‘04 election.
Yeah, effing thanks.
The right wants stenography, not journalism. The left wants journalism. We’ll applaud it when it’s done and call it out when we see RNC press releases on page one of the Times. But we’re way passed reflexively defending the very same people who knife us in the back day in and day out across the media.
>> NYTimes Under Attack: Bloggers To The Rescue?
>> Shorter Blogosphere
>> Come on, Foer
Oh please. Will you please give me an example of the NYT opposing Clinton & backing the republicans on a policy issue? Abortion? Nope. Affirmative action? Nope. Taxes? Nope. Reducing the military budget? Nope. Gun control? Nope. Gays in the military? Nope. HillaryCare? Nope. Impeachment? Nope.
I’m trying to help you guys out here. A democratic party that thinks the NYT backs the Bush administration’s policies is not a democratic party that can win elections, and we need two viable parties in this country.
How about Judith Miller printing Ahmed Chalabi’s lies about WMD verbatim, for just one example? Where have you been the last 3 years, stick?
Whoa, one example! Massive evidence indeed… Which Republican candidate for President has the Times supported since say, 1964?
Oh, and personally, I think that if the Democrats think the Times can’t be trusted, that’s good news for the Republicans. Maybe, in the future, the left – wing Congressional staffers will start leaking their top – secret info to MoJo or the Nation, where no one will read it. Fabulous.
Um, okay, I didn’t realize you guys weren’t able to read well. Let me repeat: “Will you please give me an example of the NYT opposing Clinton & backing the republicans on a policy issue?”
Will you please give me an example of the NYT opposing Clinton & backing the republicans on a policy issue?
Monica Fucking Lewinsky, asshole. Whitewater. Vince Foster.
The New York Times was right out there, front and center, carrying a pitchfork for the GOP when they drug our country through all that shit. Don’t get me started.
Oliver
The fact that you (and other Democrats) feel so betrayed by the NY Times speaks volumes about how compromised its journalistic intergrity became a long time ago.
“The left wants journalism.”
Really? Would that be journalism of the Mary Mapes/Dan Rather kind ? This site has been calling lock-step for left-wing ideological rigidity for some time, no place for dissenting “traitorous voices” like Joe Lieberman etc, and you want real journalism? No you don’t. You only want Bush-hate writing.
Dugger
Ahem. Posters above miss the point.
Who among the Republican Party tell the Washington Times or New
Republic, “Stop helping us!”
Why would the Democrats complain to NYT when it supports their
candidates?
Remember, the Left does not always like what the Dems do. They
don’t always support the candidate the NYT endorses.
Sometimes the left sees the choice between the Dem and Repub
as the coice between paper and plastic.
What the Left does support is ‘truth in advertising’ and often that has
been found in NYT. The state of journalism generally, in the last
quarter century or so, is deteriorating. It is regressing to a period
similar to the 19th century, where a few held most of the assets,
and controlled most newspapers.
Thank God, there are still a few true believers who still speak truth
to power. But, the struggle to survive(or to make their fortune)
makes journalists subject to the same forces that caught, what
used to be a decent fellow, Randy “Duke” Cunningham selling his
soul for a few shekels.
I want journalism. I want the media to look objectively at the facts and report them. And amazing concept in the era of Fox, I know. If a Dem or Rep is bullshitting… the media should say that they’re bullshitting. I don’t want more Pravdas.
How can you judge that? You think Jayson Blair, Mary Mapes, and Judith Miller are the first and only reporters to have put out questionable work product? We know that “journalists” have been doing this as far back as Walter Duranty and most likely even further. It’s only now, with the blogosphere, talk radio and the like, that the public has been able to fact-check what the 4th Estate has been pumping out all these years. It’s not that journalism is deteriorating: we just now know how crappy they’ve been all along.
Semant,
For your point to be right, wouldn’t I, a conservative, would have to think the Washington Times is not conservative and has been hurting our movement ? I think the opposite. I think the WaTimes is the ONLY major truly conservative newspaper out there (WSJ is really not ideologically conservative – it is pro business and often not anti Bush). WaTimes does a great job within this extremely narrow niche. Why would I tell this lonely, isolated voice to ’stop it’ ? So there would be NO major conservative papers? There are so many media voices of the left that I understand that you guys have the luxury to cavalierly dismiss an ideological ally, albeit one not sufficiently lock-step-leftist for OW and his friends. We on the right don’t have that luxury and have to husband our view voices.
Dugger
Cleo, where in the h-e double hockey sticks did you learn your history?
In the late 19th Century, there about a zillion newspapers with dozens of ideological stripes, until the Park Row Fire wiped out so many newspapers.
Farris;
You have a point. Journalism has always been deadline driven and the
pressure to publish is often like ‘pinching a loaf’. It has always been
more of an art form than a science and thus is often an imperfect
product. But the impulse of an ambitious Bob Woodweird has always
been subject to the more circumspect, like Ben Bradlee. That is what
has changed. Editorial oversight has given way to the star quality
of the reporter and the boardroom approves because such stars
create brand equity. Multiply that many times in braodcast media.
Why would I tell this lonely, isolated voice to stop it ?
Exactly my point. It would be foolish for you to do so.
But you still seem to think you are outnumbered 10 to 1
or more in spite of the fact that you give the example of
WSJ having economic interests that conflict with the
role of journalism. That is my point with regard to papers
that have long been considered left-leaning (latimes, WAPO
NYT). They have become marketeers at the expense of
journalism. They just haven’t moved far enough right for
your taste, yet.
to say that one paper is left or right is reasonable. to say that a paper prints what its readers want to read is often correct. To say that editors use their power to move opinion or express their personal beliefs if also often correct. To say “The right wants stenography, not journalism. The left wants journalism.” is not. If only people would dispense with partisanship and worry about the issues, we might have better leaders. Do people really vote based on meaningless rallying cries. Can a paper’s slant on a story effectively change anyones mind? If so…then this democracy thing is a joke.
theunderpantsgnome
“They have become marketeers at the expense of
journalism. They just haven t moved far enough right for
your taste, yet. ‘
Well, I agree completely that they aren’t ‘right’ enough for me. When Raines left the NY Times, the paper crept ever so infintessimally to the right – so that it was then positioned as a mainstream leftist paper.
But I do think most leftist skeptics of left media bias assume there is and can be no or little bias because the paper is a capitalist enterprise (”marketers at the expense of journalism”). Not so at all. It can be a marketer, a capitalist venture, even be owned by right wing moguls and still produce a leftist product. You would say, logically, but why would an inherently capitalist business enterprise, a newspaper, put out a type product that would be ultimately harmful to the theoretical underpinnings of that business? And the answer is that complicated but basically has to do with the capitalist mentality (remember the Lenin quote about obtaining rope). It also has to do with fashion of all sorts (left wing themes are very fashionable), the type of employees hired, whats taught at college, etc.
Dugger
“It can be a marketer, a capitalist venture, even be owned by right wing moguls and still produce a leftist product.”
And if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle. The problem with our media is not a Left/Right issue, it’s a corporatist/democracy issue. Namely, for democracy to function, the public has to have access to good information in order to make good decisions. This is suppposed to be the job of the press in a free society.
But when the media is concentrated in the hands of corporate interests, you are only ever going to hear the pro-corporate side of any story. We’ve been through this before. Monsanto will never tell you the downside of genetic engineering, MBNA will never go into the dirty details of bankruptcy reform.
Your statement about Lenin and the rope is based on the assumption that the media somehow makes money directly from subscribers or viewers, so that if there were money to be made from presenting a “leftist product” they would do so. This assumption is flawed. Media makes its money from advertisers, so it doesn’t have any real incentive to “give the people what they want,” and as long as they all move in lock-step together (people tell me CNN is different from Fox News but damned if I can see it) people don’t have any choice, do they?
Sadie says:
“But when the media is concentrated in the hands of corporate interests, you are only ever going to hear the pro-corporate side of any story.”
Duggre (French Canadian for Dugger), ever the logical pupil, asks, then, if government owns and finances the media, should we assume we will hear only the pro-government side? Wouldn’t that media, with only one owner, be even more concentrated? And then which would be worse? We can have multiple corporations in a free society: corporations like the ones that run Nation Magazine and Mother Jones (are these right wing publications, Sadie, darlin’?) and ones that run National Review and News Max. But we can have only ONE government and hence a completely one-sdied, monopolistic media.
And how silly to claim there are not left wing corporations and private left wing publications! How very silly.
Monsewer Duggre, Zut Alors!
Je pense que tu dire le merde, mon ami.
You seem to think that either a) the government owns the media or b) corporations own the media, and that these two positions are mutually exclusive. They’re not. What we have here is a situation where corporations own the governmen, and corporations own the media.
It’s like a Punch and Judy show — Punch and Judy are enemies, right? They are always fighting with each other and that proves they are enemies, right? But in reality, they have the same guy’s hands up their keisters, calling the shots.
Duggout “And how silly to claim there are not left wing corporations and private left wing publications! How very silly.”
Do you ever, is it even possible, for you to be in any way, objective? Every single person, you misinterpret.
I want to know exactly what you mean by ‘right’ and ‘left’ slant in journalism, and by that I do not mean stupid examples of what you consider, thereby still escaping putting your mind and thoughts directly out there.
What is your definition, and how would you be able to justify calling media as having a ‘left’ slant?
“Well, I agree completely that they aren t right enough for me. When Raines left the NY Times, the paper crept ever so infintessimally to the right – so that it was then positioned as a mainstream leftist paper.”
What a croc. What do you mean, ‘leftist’? Eh??! Define
CBS explodes liberal media bias myth
N.Y. Times case was more serious but favored Bush, got less play in media
Bill Press: The myth of the liberal media rides again
Newspapers Urge President to Quit
Outrageous, out of the question? Of course. Then again, here’s what happened in the summer of 1998 when the president was named Clinton. Dozens of editorial pages clamored for him to quit (see this list). “He should resign,” the Philadelphia Inquirer declared, “because his repeated, reckless deceits have dishonored his presidency beyond repair.”
It is sickening how badly Clinton was jumped, and persecuted by the media and repugs, yet thsi bastard now, Bush, lies through his teeth, breaks the law, lies to get into an aggressive war, yet it is little more than a “ho – hum” and the BS just gets thicker and thicker.
There is no rational comparison between the enormity of this administrations lies and deciets and conciets, compared to what the party tried to annhialate a Democratic(in name only) leader for lying about an act of little or no consequence to anyone in the public.
the Banana Republicans
Pretty much add Ney, Rove, and Frist to the list, just for starters….
Let’s see, 70% of the rest of the world’s countries, and 80% of the population of the reast of the world, view the US negatively.
I wonder how the US rates on a left/right scale compared to the rest of the countries in the world? More right wing than, what, 90% of them?
Sadie
“corporations own the governmen,”
I know we live in diffreent worlds when you say something like that.
mikmik,
Lets see. You are a new poster here. You, first time, use a pejorative to address moi (more of mon Francais, Sadie) and you want to know certain things from me . Well, son-daughter, learn some manners, take off your hat, slick down that cowlick and if you want me to explain media bias to you, something I can easily do, come back with an open mind and without the chip on your cyber shoulder.
Duggre
Mercy Bowcoops, Monsewer le doctor
Duggre
What do you think, would Bush have been prosecuted if we didn’t have a complete lack of balance of powers?
Survey says: Yup. Sure woulda.
And now you’ll respond with a “doesn’t count, you don’t know what would have happend” argument. Or some bs about how grand it is that checks and balances have disappeared.
It is sickening how badly Clinton was jumped, and persecuted by the media and repugs, yet thsi bastard now, Bush, lies through his teeth, breaks the law, lies to get into an aggressive war, yet it is little more than a ho – hum and the BS just gets thicker and thicker.
Ok, lets get beyond the leftist revisionism and correct a few things….
Clinton was not persecuted, he was prosecuted. And you are right, things are very different. Bush has not been prosecuted or indicted….so “ho-hum” is an appropriate response.
You are correct though, there is no “rational comparison”.
Oh, Dugger, MikMik lurks here and will occasionally spew in a somewhat Tourette’s-like manner radical leftist talking points, quite amusing actually.
Dr. Pierre….(J’taime Francophile….!)
“I know we live in different worlds when you say something like that.”
Yeah, I live in a world where the lobbyist Jack Abramoff was funnelling corporate money to Republican lawmakers hand over fist, and “journalist” Chris Matthews was holding fundraisers for Abramoff’s sham charities.
Whereas in you world … okay I’m stumped. I don’t know what the hell goes on in your world.
ps dugger, your French is tres atrocious, but it’s probably for the best. You wouldn’t want to attract the attention of the NSA by speaking that language too well.
It’s true, you start to parlez vous really well, and democrats will want you to run for president!
Tres Bien mon ami Sadie. Comprende voux le bordeaux monde. Les francais de Duggre ees un douche? Well cherchez my femmes and die drei beinege frosch hat un messer sehr scharf. Wirklich.
Duggre, Possibly Not a Linguist, But Long Live the Rebels of the Vendee!!!!!!
No question Duggre
You are one cunning linguist!