The “Liberal” New York Times

Breaking News
CBO Report: Health Care Reform Reduces Deficit By $1 Trillion

The “Liberal” New York Times

January 9th, 2006 Media 39 Comments

’)

Share

I’ve found this bit quite expressive.

No Related Post

Posted in Media |

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

39 Responses to “The “Liberal” New York Times”

Frank_D says:

January 9, 2006 at 2:01 pm

Surely that was written by the “sewer -tongued” frameone….
drpedro says:

January 9, 2006 at 2:01 pm

Thats hilarious! What a rant….I hope he someday finds a country that can live up to his standard…..

who wants to start a “dead pool” on how long it takes for him to blow a cerebral aneurysm?
Big Gay Al says:

January 9, 2006 at 2:01 pm

fuckthesouth.com
fuckchristmas.org
fuckthenewyorktimes.com

What Al Gore created the Internets for.
Frank_D says:

January 9, 2006 at 3:01 pm

Cleo, you’re not saying there was liberal bias in the media, are you? Because, if you are, you should be able to tell me when it ended.
Semanticleo says:

January 9, 2006 at 3:01 pm

It will take a hundred years (about how long it will take to stop
defaulting to Clinton) before the right can get past ancient history
when there was liberal bias in the media. That is over now as
wealth gets concentrated in fewer folks. When we have one or two
families controlling all the wealth and feudal law returns, then perhaps
that canard will peter out. In the meantime, the bitchin’ post of
liberal media bias serves the right well. They hope they don’t lose that
issue (or Roe V. Wade) because they would have to find a new
red-headed step child to abuse.
SaveFarris says:

January 9, 2006 at 4:01 pm

Semanticleo seems to be inferring that liberal bias ended the day noted right-wing Zealot Arthur Sulzberger took over at the Times
Semanticleo says:

January 9, 2006 at 6:01 pm

In a black-and-white world things can be reduced to date and Greenwich
Mean Time. Your world and mine may sometime converge when
complexity and simplicity reach an understanding. Liberal bias in the
media did not spring up like a pumpkin, and it won’t change in the reverse
at the stroke of midnight. The change has occured over the past twenty
years when economics began to shift toward broadcast journalists and
more slowly into the print genre.
Semanticleo says:

January 9, 2006 at 7:01 pm

My error. strike past twenty years. insert thirty
Frank_D says:

January 9, 2006 at 8:01 pm

So your saying there was liberal media bias in the 80’s, and it has now almost disappeared?
The least you could do is clarify…
Semanticleo says:

January 9, 2006 at 8:01 pm

First we would have to have a debate on what “liberal’ means.

I am quite sure that my perception of the Press being tied at the hip
to the status quo and shifting to the right would take eons before
they moved far right enough for your tastes. Any discussion prior
to establishing that ground rule would be doomed to failure.
buma says:

January 9, 2006 at 10:01 pm

The NYT, thanks to Judy Miller, helped Bush drumbeat us into the war, now they decide that the big scoop needed to come out a year after the writer knew about it. Thanks a lot, librul NYT. No sense in informing the electorate BEFORE the election or the invasion.
Frank_D says:

January 10, 2006 at 7:01 am

buma, are you suggesting Judy Miller runs the Times?

Could you guys give it a rest, please?

One “frameone-esque” madman rants for a few paragraphs, and you act like Moses has brought tablets down from the mountains.
Semanticleo says:

January 10, 2006 at 8:01 am

Judy Miller WAS running the NYT.

The shift to the right in the media is partly due to the change in the
dynamics between editor and reporter. In the same way the Senate
has been referred to as the ‘cooling saucer’ for the brew a ‘hot’
House of Representatives pours, and editor uses his seasoned
temprament to restrain rash reporters.

Due to stakeholder interests and the focus on stock price, boards of
directors have influenced management of newsrooms to encourage
the ’star’ quality of some reporters. That loosening of the leash
has lead to less control for editors, and consequently multiple boners
by the media.
Dugger says:

January 10, 2006 at 9:01 am

semant,

IMO the media was liberal 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago and NOW. I say that having gone from being pro Kennedy and LBJ to my current position in the right wing fever swamps. But I’ll agree that we will not agree on this. Although, the day we have a major TV network fake evidence and present it in prime time to benefit a conservative rRpublican candidate and get a liberal Democrat, I might begin to reassess.

Dugger
buma says:

January 10, 2006 at 10:01 am

pedro–Of course nothing in my post suggested Judy Miller runs the NYT.

The paper did give credence to the falsehoods behind the WMD urgency however, in part through Miller’s articles, which were based on misinformation by Chalabi.
And now the NYT decides the public should know about the surveillance story, although the story was not important enough for the public to know one year ago when the NYT powers-that-be first knew about it. Why did they have to shield Bush?

frank–if the article above the fold is about the Abramoff scandal, how do you expect it to be favorable to conservatives/Republicans? Ditto for an article about DeLay oficially stepping down as majority leader. How does one spin those into positive stories for the ruling party? Even the National Review said DeLay should step down. Why are they so biased?
Frank_D says:

January 10, 2006 at 10:01 am

Here’s a simple way to gauge liberal bias:
1) Here are 5 sources of print news

a) Washington Post
b) New York Times
c) Los Angeles Times
d) Boston Herald
e) Associated Press

2) Check the stories “above the fold” – by headline only

3) Are they favorable to conservatives / Republicans? y/n

4) If the headlines are unfavorable, and they undoubtedly will be, then here’s the final part of the test:

Read the last 5 paragraphs of the story

Is this where the part of the story favorable to conservatives / Republicans is to be found?

Is this where the part of the story that mitigates the unfavorable headline is to be found?

Does that, or does that not, indicate liberal bias?

Try it and see — I triple dog dare you…
Quaker in a Basement says:

January 10, 2006 at 11:01 am

Does that, or does that not, indicate liberal bias?

Depends on what the facts are. It’s not “bias” if the facts are reported accurately, favorable or not.
Dugger says:

January 10, 2006 at 12:01 pm

Quaker, Thats true to a point. But obviously the media ‘analyze’ and speculate. And one can be very selective in picking which facts to present and which ones to not present. And which pictures to show and which to not show. Example it could be a fact that “A major study Concludes George Bush is Nazi” and that would be a fact – but it also be biased against Bush.

Dugger
Frank_D says:

January 10, 2006 at 12:01 pm

Many stories about the DeLay “scandal” had headlines that indicated that DeLay was in serious trouble, or that the Republicans were in serious trouble. They would then quote several Democrats and liberal “political analysts” saying that the “scandal” spelled doom for the Republicans.
The story would end with one Republican saying that once the full story is known, appropriate action will be taken.
As we now know, the Republicans are not doomed, as they prepare to choose a new House leader. See?
Zappa says:

January 10, 2006 at 1:01 pm

oh…I do love the Stranger – they have some smart and funny writers working for them…
Zappa says:

January 10, 2006 at 1:01 pm

One of the reasons that the Repubs are not doomed is because of the conservative bias in the media – many outlets are falsely reporting that Jack A gave money to both Dems and Pubs and both are guilty of corruption.
But – you see tomato I see tomato – maybe it is because you hate libs and I don’t trust cons? And when we look through our differently colored glasses we see things different? hmmm…maybe?

This is a nonproductive argument.
Dugger says:

January 10, 2006 at 2:01 pm

hey, Zappa.

I truly don’t hate libs. I don’t hate the left posters on this site – most of whom are to the left of “liberal’. It would be a crappy world w/o libs (or conservs). And if we had a major network that was like, say, NewsMax, we would then have true conservative bias. CBS, ABC etc are the left wing equivalents of NewsMax in my book.
I still say CSPAN does what they do with a large degree of fairness and a lack of bias.

Dugger
Quaker in a Basement says:

January 10, 2006 at 2:01 pm

And one can be very selective in picking which facts to present and which ones to not present. And which pictures to show and which to not show.

Not part of Frank’s equation.

His test was: is the story favorable or unfavorable to conservatives and the GOP?

The facts matter. If I’m caught robbing a bank, I can’t holler “media bias” when they print a picture of me caught on the bank’s security camera.

In a nutshell, bias can’t be determined only by whether there are an equal number of good and bad things said about one person, or an equal number of bad things said about two different people.
Frank_D says:

January 10, 2006 at 2:01 pm

Dugger beat me to the keyboard, zappa. Why do I “hate liberals” while you “distrust conservatives”?

Judging by this, and other blogs, there is way more venom aimed at conservatives by liberals than there is by conservatives at liberals.
frameone, for example, is a one man venom dispenser.

But, secondly, I don’t accept the idea that bias is in the eye of the beholder. There is a truth, and liberals toy around with it. There is a political ‘center’ in this country, and judging by the quadrennial poll that preceded George W. Bush’s 2nd 4 year term, you would call that center conservative. or, at least you should.

The liberal bias in the press, especially the dead tree press and network TV, is very real, and not a matter of opinion.
Quaker in a Basement says:

January 10, 2006 at 2:01 pm

Further, I’d make a small amendment to your statement that I quoted above:

“One must be very selective in picking which facts to present and which pictures to show.”

Resources aren’t limitless. There are only so many pages in a newspaper and so many minutes in the broadcast day. It’s not possible to write an article or produce a news segment that includes all the available information.
Zappa says:

January 10, 2006 at 4:01 pm

Frank -
If I judged something based on one or two facts then I would come to a faulty conclusion.
So if I base this or other ‘liberal’ sites on venom going one direction or the other then I would come to the faulty conclusion that there is more liberal on con bashing.
I would argue that you have spewed plenty of venom here on OW.

I would say Quaker pretty much nails it; When you tally you have to take out all factual reports from consideration…a spade is a spade and if you find that there are more reports slamming libs/cons with facts to back it up you would have to conclude that one or the other deserve it. An op/ed is just that – an opinion…if you see more liberal opinions then maybe it is because folks are tired of the compassionate conservative BS we were sold.

I don’t know why you hate liberals. I do know why I distrust Cons.

Go Hawks!
Frank_D says:

January 10, 2006 at 5:01 pm

Quaker: My point was — re -read it if you don’t believe me — that the headline was unfavorable to conservatives / Republicans, even though in the full context of the story, it could go either way.

Zappa: You can think what you want, but don’t misquote me
Judging by this, and other blogs, there is way more venom aimed at conservatives by liberals than there is by conservatives at liberals.

Let me say this again, since you are pretending you didn’t get my meaning:
Why would you say I hate liberals, while saying you mistrust conservatives?

In my opinion, there is not one liberal commenter on this blog that doesn’t hate President Bush, to name one conservative / Republican.
And how about all this “Repug” and “Rethug” nonsense?
And calling people by names other than their chosen handles that demean and often insult the person? Who does that most?
Quaker in a Basement says:

January 10, 2006 at 6:01 pm

Rather than waste any more time generalizing, why not point us to an example of what you called out earlier?

Many stories about the DeLay scandal had headlines that indicated that DeLay was in serious trouble, or that the Republicans were in serious trouble. They would then quote several Democrats and liberal political analysts saying that the scandal spelled doom for the Republicans.

So name names. Who did this?
Quaker in a Basement says:

January 10, 2006 at 6:01 pm

Frank:
Read and re-read and the answer remains: depends on the facts.

I mean, what newspaper would tell a story this way:

DENVER – (AP) – A man calling himself “Quaker in a Basement” said today that he was visiting his poor, ailing grandmother last Sunday.

“I spent the whole day watching reruns of Matlock and sipping hot cocoa,” the soft-spoken local resident said. “That’s my story. And I’m sticking to it.”

Denver police have identified Mr. Basement as the prime suspect in a rash of mattress tag removals that occurred on that same day. Removing the tag from a mattress is punishable by law.
Zappa says:

January 10, 2006 at 6:01 pm

It is interesting that it is ot hatred (or a strong dislike that drives you to consistently try to get in heated fights (not debate…) with progressive posters (please see the Happy Thanksgiving thread if you can’t remember. It reminds me of the guy that walks in the a honky tonk and starts talking about how dumb rednecks and cowboys are and wonders why he keeps getting into fights and tells everyone that fols that go to honky tonks always pick on him and are rude. But if you say you don’t hate then fine…whatevers…my comment was not specificly made to or about you…more of at the Bills and Anns and Dr. James and Rev. Pats and Sean Hs of the world.

I am more from the Nick Lowe school when I think “Whats so funny ’bout peace love and understanding” – because regardless of how many times I have fallen into the more base aspect of name calling etc. with you I still feel that it is best to understand where each is coming from and find that we are not so different.

Sorry about the post above – I am on a laptop and I hit a tab then enter and it saved my comment – I only meant to be curt in regards to who calls someone more names then most.
Zappa says:

January 10, 2006 at 6:01 pm

And one other point about this and other blogs flaming conservatives. I wonder if it has anything to do with people not getting the truth from a rightly slanted news media or frustration with the current administration and the direction of this country?

Because you know – blogs – they are not the media…
Semanticleo says:

January 10, 2006 at 6:01 pm

Frank;
Stop trying to pick a fight.
Zappa says:

January 10, 2006 at 6:01 pm

I don’t know nor care -
Frank_D says:

January 10, 2006 at 9:01 pm

Alito is hogging the headlines nowadays, so “scandal” stories are hard to find online.

But here’s a weak example:

Atlanta Journal and Constitution (online – homepage)

Alito vows to keep open mind on abortion

story headline
Alito Pleases GOP Senators, Not Democrats

so far, so good

Now, the New York Times (online)

Presidential Power Has Limits, Alito Tells Senators

As I said, a weak example, but still it is clear that the New York Times has quite a different perspective on the hearings for today, and it is less favorable to the President.
Semanticleo says:

January 10, 2006 at 10:01 pm

Alito is hogging the headlines nowadays, so scandal stories are hard to find online.

It’s always the same, except when it’s different, eh Frank?
Frank_D says:

January 10, 2006 at 10:01 pm

No, cleo, not for you. Non sequiturs are all you’ve ever got.

Are you ever getting tiresome.
Quaker in a Basement says:

January 10, 2006 at 11:01 pm

still it is clear that the New York Times has quite a different perspective on the hearings for today, and it is less favorable to the President.

OK.

We’ll go with “weak example” on that one.

To make a case for bias, we’d need to know a bit more. The NYT isn’t the only outlet reporting that exchange as the lead.
Quaker in a Basement says:

January 10, 2006 at 11:01 pm

A little OT, but I wanted to cut-and-paste this before they fix it:

Fox News website had this to say about today’s hearings:

Alito also tried to convince Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats that he will inject personal conservative views into his opinions, particularly when it comes to hot-button topics, if chosen to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Haw.

Paging Dr. Freud? I’m sure they meant to post “will not inject…”
Semanticleo says:

January 10, 2006 at 11:01 pm

non-sequitur=Transient ischemic attack

Indeed: No Mambo, what I’d like to see are people that don’t sit there and lap up whatever they are told (and...
abanterer: Construction of the Smithsonian, I believe, was done under time and under budget. That’s from...
Zython: It’s true what they say. Silence speaks volumes.
mike in dc: Seems like the simplest thing would be for the congregants to start reducing their tithes, and put a...
Duros62: Because cons are making a concerted effort to rewrite history and those of us who care about it refuse to...

Oliver Willis

Like Kryptonite To Stupid

The “Liberal” New York Times

Related Posts

39 Responses to “The “Liberal” New York Times”

Meta

Recent Comments

Coverage

Blogroll

Disclaimer

Links

Breaking News

One Billion Movies

Oliver Willis

Like Kryptonite To Stupid

The “Liberal” New York Times

Related Posts

39 Responses to “The “Liberal” New York Times”

Meta

Recent Comments

Coverage

Tags

Blogroll

Disclaimer

Links

Breaking News

One Billion Movies