Quoting. Is that correct? Sorry if I’m not doing it right. My html skills are rusty.
I for one would be interested in a compare & contrast of NYT v.NYP

Was I wrong?

Duros: I said I could, I didn’t say I would. You don’t pay me enough.

I don’t mean to put a fine point on it, but Ben Domenech isn’t a reporter either. He’s a blogger.

But, I’m sure there’s a major paper that could be used as a neutral. I haven’t investigated it, but I make a point of reading papers from all over the country online, when I’m checking out the news each day — including foreign english language papers.

I usually start with my MyWay page, and then my Google page.

And, oh yeah, is the smarmy “Um” business really necessary?

Um, Frank. Doesn’t your little plan need a neutral?

I meant that I could show the conservative bias in a New York Post covering the same event as a New York Times article, where I would then show you the liberal bias.

And, btw, in certain circles, as hard as you might find this to believe, the New York Times is viewed as a “notoriously liberal paper.”

MJB: Interesting. All I know about MM is what Oliver shows me. Do you think when he links to it, he is showing me its bad side? Of course not. I can’t think of a way to view a publication more favorably, than to have it’s excerpts presented to me by a happy employee.

Your bias is obvious — a liberal interpretation is “truthful”; a conservative one, a “lie.” Do you honestly believe that FOX is the number one cable news channel, because they lie, and no one can tell, no one can reveal those lies? C’mon — you’re kidding me, right?

Frank,
If you’d bothered to read what MM is all about, http://mediamatters.org/about_us/ (”news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda”) you’d see why the focus on commenters, because they usually are the most prominent vehicles for inaccurate, unreliable or incredible information, opinion or not. They never called bias a “failure to be as ideologically bent as they are”, but that’s a real topnotch strawman you got there. There is a difference b/w opinion and spreading false information.

If you want to rely on your untestable standards, rather than the easily verifiable use of false information which benefits one side or the other, go for it, but realize you are just admitting that you have based this extreme judgment based on a feeling.

There are of course examples of liberal bias which fit this definition, but that’s not what MM is about, and MRC would be more credible if it followed suit, but they’d rather rely on the same fuzzy feelings which you and Dugger use as a basis to call nearly all journalist incapable of doing there jobs.

And you’re right about the Times and NY Post. Their coverages will be much different, but more because the Post has a prediliction to repeating false information and prominently placing stories with no substance but which aim to enflame with small-word rhetoric.

Oh this is classic. Frank, the NY Post is a notoriously conservative paper. I don’t think anyone would argue that it isn’t. Or is that what you are claiming?

The point is that of course the difference will be obvious because the Post is a conservative paper. Just because the Post covers a story different from the NY Times it does not follow that the Times is then liberal. It could also just be reporting objectively.

I thought it was your gut. Is your guy all tied up with all the “feeling” it does for you on Iraq?

MJB: MM has two obvious deficits, that MRC rarely suffers (not MM’s fault, by the way, looking for liberals on TV news is like shooting fish in a barrel):

1) They spend way too much time talking about commentators (Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly) who are supposed to be biased; and

2) They call bias a failure to be as ideologically bent as they are. By that I mean not sufficiently anti – Iraq – war; not sufficiently anti – Bush, etc. Example: There was an article, linked here by Oliver, regarding the fact that the Washington Post failed to publish an editorial on the third anniversary. That’s not an indicator of bias of any kind.

And I’ll tell you how I define bias (show me an article from the New York Times and the New York Post — the difference will be obvious):

1) Editorial choice
2) Story placement
3) Headline
4) Tone of article (the most nebulous of the criteria)

George Will is not a reporter.

Neither is Charles Krauthammer. Find a (conservative) reporter!

Oliver:

The bastion of journalism that uncovered Watergate and printed the Pentagon Papers is devolving into yet another mindless oultet of the conservative cult.

Point taken, Frank. I haven’t read the Post in years. Frankly, I’m not familiar with their reporting staff. But I imagine the true state of their reporting lies somewhere between your and Oliver’s assessments (i.e. no conservatives at all and mindless conservative cult).

But mentioning that it is the 3 year anniversary of Iraqnam is an indicator of liberal bias?

Ben Domenech should check out http://goarmy.com. Seems like a 24yo pro-war Bushite could help his king in a more tangible way, than just war blogging.