The NY times has a serious liberal slant. They write a front page story about an affair that in un proven between McCain and an lobbiest .

They will not write a front page story about a lesbian relationship that might or might not have happened between Hillary and one of her aids. (Huma Abedin)

http://ronbeas2.blogspot.com/2007/11/much-ado-about-huma.html

This is interesting.. I have heard that the McCain thing was debunked, but have yet to see viable proof myself. And that is the first I had heard of Hillary being a carpet muncher.

Is that a blog about Lord of the Rings?

The Gray Lady also refused to write much about Gennifer Flowers or any of the other women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harrassment. They claimed at the time that they were not a tabloid and wouldn't print rumors. Funny how they have no problem printing rumors when they concern Republicans.

The Gray Lady also refused to write much about Gennifer Flowers or any of the other women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harrassment. They claimed at the time that they were not a tabloid and wouldn't print rumors. Funny how they have no problem printing rumors when they concern Republicans.

And Like Rushbo emphasized today on his Radio show,And Iv'e been
pleading for some time,Hopefully NOW comes to the very stern realization
who his true frineds are and who not.
The N.Y.Times and Chris Matthews and his ilk are NOT friends to
McCain.Oh yeah,they loved him,no ned and referred to as their
media Darling.But like Limbaugh caitioned... You can't really ever be
Friends with a true Yellow-dog Liberal,especially a true conservative.
It just goes against nature.
Is All.
Even a well-trained bird dog shouldn't become transfixed over mere
hoot owls.

I wonder how many papers they sold today...

I wonder how many papers they sold today...

I dunno.I wonder who still buys Wonder Bread.
Wonder Bread Boy.!

Fewer than the day before and even fewer than the day before that. Circulation at the Times has been steadily dropping for years.

Not much unlike the Atlanta Journal Constitution
(Atlanta Urinal Constipation)

.....................(two left wing rags)

Fewer than the day before and even fewer than the day before that. Circulation at the Times has been steadily dropping for years.

I dunno.I wonder who still buys Wonder Bread.
Wonder Bread Boy.!
i buy it when it's on sale.

The Gray Lady also refused to write much about Gennifer Flowers or any of the other women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual harrassment. They claimed at the time that they were not a tabloid and wouldn't print rumors. Funny how they have no problem printing rumors when they concern Republicans.
not quite-they have no problem sitting on a story with sources for 7 years-such as Bill Clinton raping Juanita Broderick when he was AR's AG. when the have an un-sourced rumor, with contrary evidence they leave out, it makes the front page....taking up twice as much space as Paula Jones lawsuit.

They were covering Bubba in more ways than one.

Not much unlike the Atlanta Journal Constitution
(Atlanta Urinal Constipation)

.....................(two left wing rags)

Cynthia Tucker is a flat out racist.
Absolutely no question about it.I don't care if she groomed herself
on PBS type shows.
Like Charlayne Hunter-Gault,she speaks openly yet basically has a VERY
obvious BIAS for Anything and Everything Black.
2 sophisticated women who used white influence to build their
career's and now basically only concern themself with entirely black
agenda.
Again... another lesson to be learned.

At least the hard-core conservatives still hate the NY Times more than they hate McCain.

Ah yes, the New York Times... the Grand Old Paper....

So "liberal" they gave William "The Bloody" Krystol a regular column... :rolleyes:

At least the hard-core conservatives still hate the NY Times more than they hate McCain.

Interesting how the "liberal" newspaper managed to provide McCain with precisely what he needed to rally the conservatives behind him.

Dharm,
Simply Put

Their choice to print stories that hurt Republicans, while sitting on stories that would hurt Democrats gives them an obvious liberal slant.



Ah yes, the New York Times... the Grand Old Paper....

So "liberal" they gave William "The Bloody" Krystol a regular column... :rolleyes:

Ah yes, the New York Times... the Grand Old Paper....

So "liberal" they gave William "The Bloody" Krystol a regular column... :rolleyes:
Ahh yes, the neo-con Jew who secretly runs our government.

Bill Kristol, like other liberal and conservative writers, is a syndicated columnist whose work appears in many newspapers simultaneously. Those papers usually run a balanced mix of them.

C'mon, you knew that.

Interesting how the "liberal" newspaper managed to provide McCain with precisely what he needed to rally the conservatives behind him.Let me get this right. The secretly pro-McCain NYT is bringing conservatives voters to McCain by claiming he had an affair?

Wouldn't that shoot the popular belief that conservatives are judgemental about sex and worry too much about what happens inside the bedroom?

Oh, I see. The conservative anti-sex stance is surpassed only by their hatred of the NY Times.
Do you know how ridiculous you're becoming?

Ahh yes, the neo-con Jew who secretly runs our government.

Bill Kristol, like other liberal and conservative writers, is a syndicated columnist whose work appears in many newspapers simultaneously. Those papers usually run a balanced mix of them.

C'mon, you knew that.

Bill Kristol has been pushing MCCain for years.Based entirely on
the Israel scenario.Kristol is one of those Jewish types who's
Politico is entirely driven by our Allegiance and care for ISRAEL.
Like Ron Silver { Hollywood actor } and Allan Dershovitz { famous Harvard
lawyer}.Since McCain has a somewhat neocon agenda,and is puffy
military proud,and now totally on board with The War on Terrorism.

Their choice to print stories that hurt Republicasn ...

Thats just it... it hasn't hurt McCain. Quite the opposite. The Republican attack dogs who just a few days ago were tearing at McCain like a dead deer are now rallying to his defense.

Ahh yes, the neo-con Jew who secretly runs our government.

I lost interest in reading further after that bit of nonsense.

I lost interest in reading further after that bit of nonsense.Well here then, I'll remove your excuse.

Bill Kristol, like other liberal and conservative writers, is a syndicated columnist whose work appears in many newspapers simultaneously. Those papers usually run a balanced mix of them.

C'mon, you knew that.

Kristol is one of those Jewish types who's
Politico is entirely driven by our Allegiance and care for ISRAEL.
Like Ron Silver { Hollywood actor }
I was sort of satirizing the people who believe what you are saying here.
I don't exactly know what a neo-con is, but when detractors are asked to list them they are usuallyJewish.

I don't believe Kristol is motivated by Israel because he didn't like President Clinton much and Clinton was a pretty good supporter of Israel.

And Ron Silver was a Democrat who shifted alliances after 9/11, as did many Americans.

Bill Kristol, ... is a syndicated columnist

Yeah, thats not all he is.

So Waldo thinks the Times is liberal, Dharma thinks the Times is conservative... Sounds like a pretty good paper then. :p

I lost interest in reading further after that bit of nonsense.

Well it musta Ben the word " jew " because in the lexicon of all
Good Liberals,and particulalry the Liberal Media,the word
Neocon is synonomous with Trick or Treat.
It's use has been exploited,reinvented and turned topsy-turvy
for no more impoartant a thing,than make any strong Conservative
into a blood-curdling,unfeeling CHICKENHAWK.
You do like that word,I take it.
In point of fact,Boat yuz and FT toss it around more than
Mom's apple pie.Which don't fly well,once off the plate.

Id agree that the NY Times has done McCain a favour in the long run.

He hasnt been done any harm by this story and it does give a rallying point for his supporters.

Maybe they shot themselves in the foot with this one.

Or maybe they're secretly part of the conserva-fascist conspiracy, but they want to fool liberals into liking them! :eek:

And the NY Times did not want to hurt McCain right????

Just like Uncle Dan Rather did not want to hurt Bush with Memo Gate.

Thats just it... it hasn't hurt McCain. Quite the opposite. The Republican attack dogs who just a few days ago were tearing at McCain like a dead deer are now rallying to his defense.

Dharmaize

Verb

To post something so silly that others laugh so hard they cannot respond.



"The poster really had no idea what he was talking about so he decided to dharmaize, hoping others would be so shocked by his silly post they would be unable to respond."

So Waldo thinks the Times is liberal, Dharma thinks the Times is conservative... Sounds like a pretty good paper then. :p

I think they are driven by sales, not ideology. My point was to show how ridiculous waldo's claims are.

And the NY Times did not want to hurt McCain right????

Correct.
Why would they wish to hurt someone they endorsed?
They are more concerned with sales than with helping or hurting any particular candidate.

Newspapers are old school. They will go the way of the land-line telephone and the cassette tape. Those that transfer their reporting to the internet and TV will be the ones that survive. It has no bearing on their political "slant"... it's just a fact of life.

There will always be a market for hard copy

There will always be a market for hard copy

...and pay phones, it will just be inconsequential in a few years.

...and pay phones, it will just be inconsequential in a few years.

If you are saying the market will shrink then I agree with you.

If you are saying the market will shrink then I agree with you.

Yep, we agree (mark this down as a "red" letter date!)

:drinktoth

The NY times has a serious liberal slant.

:rolleyes:

It is hard to think of an assertion more at odds with the facts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As the Paper of Record, the New York Times is the keeper of history, so every morning it must theoretically proclaim and document the most important events of the previous day, even if its entire audience has heard those events in a hundred TV and radio broadcasts and several editions of tabloids already.

Just as its editorial style encumbers its ability to talk about contemporary events, it is handicapped in its ability to accommodate a broad range of events in the 21st century for which there are no precedents. How does, for example, the New York Times deal with a stolen presidential election? More or less by denial.

Since the New York Times and its brethren cannot discuss the stolen election as a stolen election, it must talk about it as though it were legitimate, and then fall into its standard patterns of language to refer to "the president" exactly the same as if he had actually been elected. When its own research shows that the operation was a heist, it must be polite to the extent of entirely avoiding anything that would be embarassing. As events become ever more extreme, it puts the Times at a greater distance from the real world its readers.

In the past, the major media has been very successful in enforcing ideas upon the public. If the polls commissioned by the major TV networks and newspapers tell us that a huge majority "approve" of "the job the president is doing," that judgment the becomes the accepted reality. But it is not at all sure that that the major media will retain its perceived authority as the gap between what they report and what the population can see for itself widens.

Under the Bush administration, the Corporate State's drive to seize power and nullify democratic power has been unleashed and gone into runaway. A corresponding reaction is taking place in the population, a change that is not reflected in the major Corporate Media because the self-consciousness of that social change would be anathema to the corporations that own the media.

That changing awareness, which is little more than a natural reaction to the pressures of the Corporate State to marginalize the majority, is finding a channel for expression on the Internet.

As Mussolini said explicitly, fascism IS corporatism. That is the process we are now witnessing: the ever increasing accumulation of wealth by an ever decreasing number of Corporate entities; the turning over of the government to these entities; and their use of it as an instrument of war, by which they further enhance their profits and power.

We should come down off our high horses about it, drop our pretensions and get over our naive belief that it can't happen here.

It is happening.

Call it what you will, this is the process Mussolini called fascism. It played out in Italy and Germany and Japan and it is now playing out in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. If we don't like it, we can oppose it. If we ignore it, and deny its existence we are well and truly fucked.

I'd be all for fascism if they'd just give me a tank to blow up dissidents with. Tanks rule.

:rolleyes:

It is hard to think of an assertion more at odds with the facts.



stop dharmaizing, Freethinker.

Concerned about sales???

Why would they give a huge discount to moveon.org on their General Betray us ad??? (Yeah concerned about sales and the dollar right???)

Concerned about sales???? Who ever in in charge of sales should be fired then. Their readership has been on the decline for a long time.

Nice Try Dharm.

They Endorsed MCCain because he is a liberal Republican. They still don't want to see him become the next president.



Correct.
Why would they wish to hurt someone they endorsed?
They are more concerned with sales than with helping or hurting any particular candidate.

They sat on a recent story that could hurt Hillary. (This story was as well sourced as the McCain story)

They printed a retarded ad blaming McCain for somthing that might or might not have happened 8 years ago.

Please explain how that does not show a liberal slant.

I'm still waiting for an answer from Dharm or even FT.


:rolleyes:

It is hard to think of an assertion more at odds with the facts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As the Paper of Record, the New York Times is the keeper of history, so every morning it must theoretically proclaim and document the most important events of the previous day, even if its entire audience has heard those events in a hundred TV and radio broadcasts and several editions of tabloids already.

Just as its editorial style encumbers its ability to talk about contemporary events, it is handicapped in its ability to accommodate a broad range of events in the 21st century for which there are no precedents. How does, for example, the New York Times deal with a stolen presidential election? More or less by denial.

Since the New York Times and its brethren cannot discuss the stolen election as a stolen election, it must talk about it as though it were legitimate, and then fall into its standard patterns of language to refer to "the president" exactly the same as if he had actually been elected. When its own research shows that the operation was a heist, it must be polite to the extent of entirely avoiding anything that would be embarassing. As events become ever more extreme, it puts the Times at a greater distance from the real world its readers.

In the past, the major media has been very successful in enforcing ideas upon the public. If the polls commissioned by the major TV networks and newspapers tell us that a huge majority "approve" of "the job the president is doing," that judgment the becomes the accepted reality. But it is not at all sure that that the major media will retain its perceived authority as the gap between what they report and what the population can see for itself widens.

Under the Bush administration, the Corporate State's drive to seize power and nullify democratic power has been unleashed and gone into runaway. A corresponding reaction is taking place in the population, a change that is not reflected in the major Corporate Media because the self-consciousness of that social change would be anathema to the corporations that own the media.

That changing awareness, which is little more than a natural reaction to the pressures of the Corporate State to marginalize the majority, is finding a channel for expression on the Internet.

As Mussolini said explicitly, fascism IS corporatism. That is the process we are now witnessing: the ever increasing accumulation of wealth by an ever decreasing number of Corporate entities; the turning over of the government to these entities; and their use of it as an instrument of war, by which they further enhance their profits and power.

We should come down off our high horses about it, drop our pretensions and get over our naive belief that it can't happen here.

It is happening.

Call it what you will, this is the process Mussolini called fascism. It played out in Italy and Germany and Japan and it is now playing out in the U.S. and elsewhere in the world. If we don't like it, we can oppose it. If we ignore it, and deny its existence we are well and truly fucked.

The NY times has a serious liberal slant.

Yeah. :rolleyes:

I guess that's why they printed whatever best served the interests of the B*sh White House, and shilled for the war that B*sh was so desperate to have in Iraq.


http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/07/16/tomo/story.jpg

that cartoon has nothing what we are talking about... start a new thread...

answer the questions FT

They sat on a recent story that could hurt Hillary. (This story was as well sourced as the McCain story)

They printed a retarded ad blaming McCain for somthing that might or might not have happened 8 years ago.

Please explain how that does not show a liberal slant.

I'm still waiting for an answer from Dharm or even FT.

It's always unwise to try to predict a trend from one or two examples.

Ouch...

You know it's bad when a fellow paper, the SF Chronicle, spanks you on the story...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/23/EDGOV6TOM.DTL

It's always unwise to try to predict a trend from one or two examples.

Far be it from Me,me,me,me .... Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
to play Miss Junior High English teach,but i shore nuff could
proffer some fast-like advice on hows ta spiffy up that sentence.

" It's always unwise to try to predict a trend from one or two examples. "

Instead

' It's always unwise to try AN predict a trend from one or two examples. '

Witch mite juts git a passin' grade in Foolardi's school of Beat
Writin's & stuff.

Concerned about sales???

Yeah, what a crazy notion that a business would be concerned about sales. :rolleyes:

that cartoon has nothing what we are talking about...

The political cartoon reflects exactly what we're talking about; whether or not the paper in question is "liberal". Like virtually every other newspaper in the country, the content of that paper is slanted to appeal to the mass consumer market, and that market is overall very conservative, because America and its people are -in general- very conservative.

Rightwingers like to act as if there is some huge segment of "liberal" folk distributed throughout America, but there are actually only a tiny number of people in this country who are true "liberals" politically.

People who'd vote for Hillary Clinton are NOT, in any real sense of the word, "liberals". She is a war supporter and a dedicated Corporatist cut from the same cloth as the rest of the Washington crowd.

The vast majority of people in this country (i.e., people who vote for the Democrats) who get painted as *the liberals* can only be termed "liberal" by dint of their being marginally less conservative than the vast segment comprising the center or the extreme Right.

In other First World nations, the voter that passes for a "liberal" here would still be seen to be decidedly on the conservative side.

The New York Times --as it can always be counted on to do-- fell into line with the rest of the Corporate Media and shilled for the Iraq war like a two bit whore. There was nothing remotely "liberal" in it following such a policy. And there is nothing remotely "liberal" in their having endorsed a conservative Republican war hawk as candidate for president. Quite the opposite.


The cartoon demonstrates exactly what function the New York Times fills; a mouthpiece for whatever political views the reigning ultra-conservative status quo wants to disseminate to the masses when it comes to economic policy, foreign policy, the projection of American military might or waging war.

They Endorsed MCCain because he is a liberal Republican. They still don't want to see him become the next president.

I invite all here to examine that statement for one moment.........and stand in awe of the insanity of it.

They sure as heck don't act like they are concerned about sales. They give move on a huge discount on the General Betray us ad.
(not too concerned about the dollar, but very concerned about their liberal agenda)

Yeah, what a crazy notion that a business would be concerned about sales. :rolleyes:

FT,
Please stop spewing your crap and answer the question in post # 43.
Please read the entire post, and don't try to answer it by addressing only a portion of it.
I've already spelled it out for you. Please answer it.



I invite all here to examine that statement for one moment.........and stand in awe of the insanity of it.

They give move on a huge discount on the General Betray us ad.

I would like to see you prove this claim.

The political cartoon reflects exactly what we're talking about; whether or not the paper in question is "liberal". Like virtually every other newspaper in the country, the content of that paper is slanted to appeal to the mass consumer market, and that market is overall very conservative, because America and its people are -in general- very conservative.

Rightwingers like to act as if there is some huge segment of "liberal" folk distributed throughout America, but there are actually only a tiny number of people in this country who are true "liberals" politically.

People who'd vote for Hillary Clinton are NOT, in any real sense of the word, "liberals". She is a war supporter and a dedicated Corporatist cut from the same cloth as the rest of the Washington crowd.

The vast majority of people in this country (i.e., people who vote for the Democrats) who get painted as *the liberals* can only be termed "liberal" by dint of their being marginally less conservative than the vast segment comprising the center or the extreme Right.

In other First World nations, the voter that passes for a "liberal" here would still be seen to be decidedly on the conservative side.

The New York Times --as it can always be counted on to do-- fell into line with the rest of the Corporate Media and shilled for the Iraq war like a two bit whore. There was nothing remotely "liberal" in it following such a policy. And there is nothing remotely "liberal" in their having endorsed a conservative Republican war hawk as candidate for president. Quite the opposite.


The cartoon demonstrates exactly what function the New York Times fills; a mouthpiece for whatever political views the reigning ultra-conservative status quo wants to disseminate to the masses when it comes to economic policy, foreign policy, the projection of American military might or waging war.

Um,where the word ... " chickenhawk " or better still
Military Industrial Capitalist somethin er udders.
I think yer slippin.Have even run out of the same old same old
argument.
Can't even credibly analyse a Politico dynamic w/o restorting to a
Vast right-wing conspiracy type what ya Ma calls it.
I don't suppose ordering Chinese today and reading a juicy Fortune
Cookie,wood help any.
Well Maybe ordering Cantoneese and a nice crunchy Fortune Cookie
would be best.
Cuz you've crumbled all the withered Leftists argument all :
- To Hell and Back - { 1955 } True WWII story of THE most
decorated soldier in U.S. history.
Audie Murphy,the son of poor sharecroppers dropped out of school
in 8th grade to help raise his family.
I don't suppose a Michele Obama,ever done heard of such White Boy
success.Humble and with a baby face [ on his scting career ] " I'm
working under a great handicap ... no talent. "
[ fellow U.S. Army officer about Murphy ] " Don't let that baby face
fool you,that's the toughest soldier in the Third Division. "

No Problem Dharm,
Now what would you like?


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html


http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296696,00.html


I would like to see you prove this claim.

They sat on a recent story that could hurt Hillary. (This story was as well sourced as the McCain story)

They printed a retarded ad blaming McCain for something that might or might not have happened 8 years ago.


I will be happy to answer that question. First though, I'd have to know something about which story about Hillary you are saying that they 'sat on'.

BTW.....they 'sit on' dozens of stories that might expose the wrongdoings of persons or companies who are part of the status quo and/or who comprise some segment of the Corporate State. Nothing new there.

As to the "retarded ad" you are talking about with regards to McCain, I assume you're talking about the piece detailing McCain's connections to a telecommunications lobbyist named Vicki Iseman.

Printing one article of salacious gossip --just because it concerns a Republican one time and a Democrat another-- does not mean that the NY Times has suddenly become some crusading "liberal" newspaper. :rolleyes:

Is the article about some totally meaningless bullshit that has nothing to do with McCain's political positions or his presidential candidacy?

Yes. Damned straight it is. It ought to be beneath the dignity of any major newspaper to deal in such fucking meaningless tripe. But they did it with the Clinton/Lewinsky thing (about 100 times as much, but hey, who's counting) and they will do it with any politician they think they have found a scandal about, provided the topic is sex

Apparently, sex sells...........to the dimwitted masses that comprise the majority.

As for me, I couldn't care less who McCain is screwing.

I will be happy to answer that question. First though, I'd have to know something about which story about Hillary you are saying that they 'sat on'.


As for me, I couldn't care less who McCain is screwing.


Huma Abedin................... The NY Times either sat on it, or they didn't put it near the first page like they did to McCain.
(I think they sat on it, but not 100% sure)

You mean you couldn't care who he was screwing. Wait the correct answer is you couldn't care who he might or might not have screwed 8 years ago.

That is the point. The story is 8 years old. The Hillary story is alot more recent.

They give move on a huge discount on the General Betray us ad.

I would like to see you prove this claim.

No Problem Dharm,

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/opinion/23pubed.html


http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm


And from your own fucking link, genius.........

""Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a Republican presidential candidate, demanded space in the following Friday’s New York Times to answer MoveOn.org. He got it — and at the same $64,575 rate that MoveOn.org paid.""

I guess that your spluttering, infantile response to this will be --"Well, uhh...uhh....uhh....Rudy Giuliani is a liberal Rightwinger!, so that's no doubt why he was given the ad at that same rate!"

You mean you couldn't care who he (McCain) was screwing.

What I 'mean is' that I do not care who he was, is now or ever will be screwing.

Wait the correct answer is you couldn't care who he might or might not have screwed 8 years ago.

I don't care if he had anal sex with an HIV positive transvestite hooker under a table at the Four Seasons restaurant last night OR eight years ago. I don't care.

The story is 8 years old. The Hillary story is a lot more recent.

Get real. They didn't "sit on" any story on that topic because they don't have anything substantive.

If they could come up with the slightest shred of evidence concerning any sexual contact between Abedin and Clinton, they would print it so fast the press will catch on fire.

They don't have any real evidence on Hillary or McCain.
That did not stop them from running the McCain story did it?






Get real. They didn't "sit on" any story on that topic because they don't have anything substantive.

If they could come up with the slightest shred of evidence concerning any sexual contact between Abedin and Clinton, they would print it so fast the press will catch on fire.

Actually my answer is that the Times was backed into a corner. They had to give it to Giuliani at that point.
(If the Betray US ad price did not leak out, they would have never done it for Giuliani)


And from your own fucking link, genius.........

""Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a Republican presidential candidate, demanded space in the following Friday’s New York Times to answer MoveOn.org. He got it — and at the same $64,575 rate that MoveOn.org paid.""

I guess that your spluttering, infantile response to this will be --"Well, uhh...uhh....uhh....Rudy Giuliani is a liberal Rightwinger!, so that's no doubt why he was given the ad at that same rate!"

Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT

Certain posters, ie. dharmabum and Freethinker seem to think the NY Times does not have a liberal slant. They cite no proof of this assertion, simply dharmaizing and saying it isn't liberal, so there.

Daniel Okrent, the author of the following piece thinks the NY Times has a definite liberal slant and gives examples to prove it. Now why should it matter what this man thinks? It matters because at the time he wrote the article he was the public editor of the NY Times, a sort of ombudsman representing the readership of the newspaper.

Of course dharmabum and Freethinker are free to say they know more about the slant of the NY Times than Mr. Okrent but I think most posters would agree that that would simply be hubris on their parts.


Published: July 25, 2004

OF course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left - and there are plenty - generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world.

Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.

Across the gutter, the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish - but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act).

But opinion pages are opinion pages, and "balanced opinion page" is an oxymoron. So let's move elsewhere. In the Sunday magazine, the culture-wars applause-o-meter chronically points left. On the Arts & Leisure front page every week, columnist Frank Rich slices up President Bush, Mel Gibson, John Ashcroft and other paladins of the right in prose as uncompromising as Paul Krugman's or Maureen Dowd's. The culture pages often feature forms of art, dance or theater that may pass for normal (or at least tolerable) in New York but might be pretty shocking in other places.

Same goes for fashion coverage, particularly in the Sunday magazine, where I've encountered models who look like they're preparing to murder (or be murdered), and others arrayed in a mode you could call dominatrix chic. If you're like Jim Chapman, one of my correspondents who has given up on The Times, you're lost in space. Wrote Chapman, "Whatever happened to poetry that required rhyme and meter, to songs that required lyrics and tunes, to clothing ads that stressed the costume rather than the barely clothed females and slovenly dressed, slack-jawed, unshaven men?"

In the Sunday Styles section, there are gay wedding announcements, of course, but also downtown sex clubs and T-shirts bearing the slogan, "I'm afraid of Americans." The findings of racial-SpamSpamSpamSpamSpamSpam reformer Richard Lapchick have been appearing in the sports pages for decades ("Since when is diversity a sport?" one e-mail complainant grumbled). The front page of the Metro section has featured a long piece best described by its subhead, "Cross-Dressers Gladly Pay to Get in Touch with Their Feminine Side." And a creationist will find no comfort in Science Times.

Not that creationists should expect to find comfort in Science Times. Newspapers have the right to decide what's important and what's not. But their editors must also expect that some readers will think: "This does not represent me or my interests. In fact, it represents my enemy." So is it any wonder that the offended or befuddled reader might consider everything else in the paper - including, say, campaign coverage - suspicious as well?

Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban." He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means "We're less easily shocked," and that the paper reflects "a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility."

He's right; living in New York makes a lot of people think that way, and a lot of people who think that way find their way to New York (me, for one). The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists. Articles containing the word "postmodern" have appeared in The Times an average of four times a week this year - true fact! - and if that doesn't reflect a Manhattan sensibility, I'm Noam Chomsky.

But it's one thing to make the paper's pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls (European papers, aligned with specific political parties, have been doing it for centuries), and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don't think it's intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn't have to be intentional.

The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example. Set aside the editorial page, the columnists or the lengthy article in the magazine ("Toward a More Perfect Union," by David J. Garrow, May 9) that compared the lawyers who won the Massachusetts same-sex marriage lawsuit to Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. That's all fine, especially for those of us who believe that homosexual couples should have precisely the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that "For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy," (March 19, 2004); that the family of "Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home," (Jan. 12, 2004) is a new archetype; and that "Gay Couples Seek Unions in God's Eyes," (Jan. 30, 2004). I've learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I've met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I've been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability.

Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn't even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you'd have the makings of a life insurance commercial.

This implicit advocacy is underscored by what hasn't appeared. Apart from one excursion into the legal ramifications of custody battles ("Split Gay Couples Face Custody Hurdles," by Adam Liptak and Pam Belluck, March 24), potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage have been virtually absent from The Times since the issue exploded last winter.

The San Francisco Chronicle runs an uninflected article about Congressional testimony from a Stanford scholar making the case that gay marriage in the Netherlands has had a deleterious effect on heterosexual marriage. The Boston Globe explores the potential impact of same-sex marriage on tax revenues, and the paucity of reliable research on child-rearing in gay families. But in The Times, I have learned next to nothing about these issues, nor about partner abuse in the gay community, about any social difficulties that might be encountered by children of gay couples or about divorce rates (or causes, or consequences) among the 7,000 couples legally joined in Vermont since civil union was established there four years ago.

On a topic that has produced one of the defining debates of our time, Times editors have failed to provide the three-dimensional perspective balanced journalism requires. This has not occurred because of management fiat, but because getting outside one's own value system takes a great deal of self-questioning. Six years ago, the ownership of this sophisticated New York institution decided to make it a truly national paper. Today, only 50 percent of The Times's readership resides in metropolitan New York, but the paper's heart, mind and habits remain embedded here. You can take the paper out of the city, but without an effort to take the city and all its attendant provocations, experiments and attitudes out of the paper, readers with a different worldview will find The Times an alien beast.

Taking the New York out of The New York Times would be a really bad idea. But a determination by the editors to be mindful of the weight of its hometown's presence would not.

With that, I'm leaving town. Next week, letters from readers; after that, this space will be occupied by my polymathic pal Jack Rosenthal, a former Times writer and editor whose name appeared on the masthead for 25 years. I'm going to spend August in a deck chair and see if I can once again read The Times like a civilian. See you after Labor Day.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=

They had to give it to Giuliani at that point.

Riiiiight.

The fact that your own link stated that the reason for the lesser price was a mistake by a person in the Times ad department doesn't come into it at all. :rolleyes:

(If the Betray US ad price did not leak out, they would have never done it for Giuliani)

Yeah.....thanks for that revelation, Kreskin.

I guess the fact that, according to your own link, a rightwing organization (Freedom’s Watch) was also offered the same reduced price is not germane to the issue.

Freethinker,

Dishonesty is not usually your style but it seems to be your recent style.

Why was Freedom's Watch offered the reduced rate and when was it offered?

Please don't try to dishonestly make it seem it was offered the ad rate out of the goodness of the NY Times' heart rather than to try to deflect criticism after they had been caught giving Moveon.org the reduced rate.

Certain posters, ie. dharmabum and Freethinker seem to think the NY Times does not have a liberal slant. They cite no proof of this assertion,

That is a lie.

I have pointed out more than once the fact they they endorsed a Republican war hawk for president.

Even those with limited powers of reasoning (hint; partisan rightwingers) ought to be able to draw a reasonable conclusion from that fact.

A conclusion that does NOT point to the paper in question being a champion of "liberalism".

Just the opposite. When it comes to politics, they are seen continually supporting and defending and making excuses for the wrongdoing of the conservative status quo.

If you can point to a major newspaper (in the event you can locate one) in any city in the United States that endorsed, for instance, Dennis Kucinich, --a politician that is at least within shouting distance of actually being *a liberal*-- then I will willingly admit that THAT newspaper is, compared to the rest of the country, attuned to a more 'liberal' stance and ideology.

The fact that they endorsed the most liberal of the possible Republican candidates in no way proves they don't have a liberal slant.

The fact that they endorsed the most liberal of the possible Republican candidates in no way proves they don't have a liberal slant.

If the New York Times were liberal, or anywhere within a mile of being "liberal", then they would have endorsed a liberal politician for president.

Period.

They did not.

McCain is no liberal, by any stretch of the word.

And neither is any newspaper who would endorse such a Republican warmonger.

They ddn't, Freethinker? What about Obama?


You still haven't responded to the article I posted.

What about Obama?

??..........

What about Obama?

What are you referencing? The last article you posted makes no mention of him.

You still haven't responded to the article I posted.

Are you referring to post #63?

Yes, I am referring to post #63.

??..........

What about Obama?

What are you referencing? The last article you posted makes no mention of him.



Are you referring to post #63?

The NY Times endorsed Obamas, Freethinker. I thought you knew that.

The NY Times endorsed Obamas, Freethinker. I thought you knew that.Actually, they endorsed McCain and Clinton.

I thought you knew that.

I did. I just hate Clinton so much it slipped my mind. I can't conceive of anyone, even the hated NY Times endorsing her. My bad.

I've subscribed to both a right-leaning and a left-leaning paper in the past five years and they both endorsed people of both parties in the primaries. They both went back to their political leanings when the main election came around. I kinda thought everyone knew that.

Likewise, both of those papers regularly featured columns from people with politically opposite leanings (Maureen Dowd in the conservative paper, George Will in the liberal paper). Again, I kinda thought everyone knew that.

Having said that, if you think Kucinich is only within shouting distance of being a liberal, then yeah, obviously the Times is a paper full of raging reich wingers.

The NY Times endorsed Obamas, Freethinker. I thought you knew that.

?!?!?

It did?!?!?

Do you have a link substantiating that claim?

I'd be very eager to examine it.

I've subscribed to both a right-leaning and a left-leaning paper in the past five years......both of those papers regularly featured columns from people with politically opposite leanings (Maureen Dowd in the conservative paper, George Will in the liberal paper).

??

I'd be very curious to learn the name of that left-leaning newspaper.

I'm fairly certain it is not available in the southern half of the U.S.

The NY Times endorsed Obamas, Freethinker. I thought you knew that.

Here is a list of newspapers who endorsed Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/29/obama_campaign_receives_the_en.php

i dont see the NY times on there. But it needs to be updated. For Texas they only have one paper. I know the Houston chronicle and the Dallas city paper also gave him the nod.

I did find this link sayng the Clinton got the nod from the times on Jan 24th
http://www.cnbc.com/id/22831962

Here is a list of newspapers who endorsed Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/29/obama_campaign_receives_the_en.php

i dont see the NY times on there. But it needs to be updated.

Huh?

The N.Y. Times is not on the list of newspapers who endorsed Obama?!?!? Do tell.

What could THAT possibly mean?!?!?!?

Not that you'd ever fucking figure it out.

Now, now, FT... Play nice. :thumbs:

If anyone gets backed by the NY times.. they are automatically a corporate lap-dog conservative... it happens overnight according to FT. Forget that the NY Times has a liberal slant, FT will just label it conservative and stick to his guns like a stubborn old man who won't let go of his dentures.

This is like too predictable.

Now, now, FT... Play nice.

I do not "play nice" with imbeciles who spew every manner of obfuscation and lie imaginable to try and deny that they asserted what they just got through asserting.

I do not "play nice" with imbeciles who spew every manner of obfuscation and lie imaginable to try and deny that they asserted what they just got through asserting.

well then take your senile ass somewhere else... or quit complaining about stuff.

:D This is becoming a pretty entertaining thread...

Huh?

The N.Y. Times is not on the list of newspapers who endorsed Obama?!?!? Do tell.

What could THAT possibly mean?!?!?!?

Not that you'd ever fucking figure it out.

HEY HEY HEY... I was sticking up for your side on there jack ass.....When I read froggers claim I looked it up and posted it for YOU to see you fucking tool. Watch yourself tonight FT. You seem to be all heated already. it never works out for you when you put your ugly mask on.

You seem to be all heated already.

I am not 'heated' at all.

I just cannot manage to suffer fools gladly.

I am not 'heated' at all.

I just cannot manage to suffer fools gladly.

whatever buddy. I posted a link to support your view and you got your panties twisted. Plain and Simple... While you are takingyour foot out of your mouth I will make a mental note tothink twice before I do it again.

I posted a link to support your view.....

In the matter of whether or not the New York Times endorsed Barack Obama, I do not have "a view"..........I have the goddamned FACTS.

It was one of the clueless little rightwing buffoons here who was pushing "the view" that the newspaper in question had endorsed "Obamas". <sic>

In the matter of whether or not the New York Times endorsed Barack Obama, I do not have "a view"..........I have the goddamned FACTS.

It was one of the clueless little right wing buffoons here who was pushing "the view" that the newspaper in question had endorsed "Obamas". <sic> and I corrected him and you jumped on me.... thus the foot in mouth syndrome you endured

If anyone gets backed by the NY times.. they are automatically a corporate lap-dog conservative... it happens overnight according to FT.

You have it backwards.

The endorsement by the N.Y.Times does not make the politicians that they support *conservative pro-Corporate lapdogs*.

It is that the N.Y.Times will only endorse those politicians who are conservative, pro-Corporate lapdogs

not to mention the sudden transformation from liberal to conservative one makes when they just happen to be mentioned by the NY Times... wow, what a miracle of life!

I do not "play nice" with imbeciles who spew every manner of obfuscation and lie imaginable to try and deny that they asserted what they just got through asserting.

UM,where yer copy of Der Spiegel !... Danny.?
In the bottom drawer of yer desk,next to that precious
bottle of Russian Vodka and Pics of nekkid Bavarian Gals.?

Frogger found this amazing, candid article by the Ombudsman for the NY Times that has gone conveniently ignored.
I'll edit it a little so those who chose to ignore it may now have the time to read it.

Mind you, this guy works for the Times.
Of course, some people here will claim to know more about it than him.

(Nice find Frogger)


Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT

OF course it is.

Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.

Across the gutter, the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish - but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative.

In the Sunday magazine, the culture-wars applause-o-meter chronically points left. On the Arts & Leisure front page every week, columnist Frank Rich slices up President Bush, Mel Gibson, John Ashcroft and other paladins of the right in prose as uncompromising as Paul Krugman's or Maureen Dowd's.

Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban."
He's right; living in New York makes a lot of people think that way, and a lot of people who think that way find their way to New York (me, for one).

The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists. Articles containing the word "postmodern" have appeared in The Times an average of four times a week this year - true fact! - and if that doesn't reflect a Manhattan sensibility, I'm Noam Chomsky.

The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example. Set aside the editorial page, the columnists or the lengthy article in the magazine ("Toward a More Perfect Union," by David J. Garrow, May 9) that compared the lawyers who won the Massachusetts same-sex marriage lawsuit to Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. That's all fine, especially for those of us who believe that homosexual couples should have precisely the same civil rights as heterosexuals.

But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading. So far this year, front-page headlines have told me that "For Children of Gays, Marriage Brings Joy," (March 19, 2004); that the family of "Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home," (Jan. 12, 2004) is a new archetype; and that "Gay Couples Seek Unions in God's Eyes," (Jan. 30, 2004). I've learned where gay couples go to celebrate their marriages; I've met gay couples picking out bridal dresses; I've been introduced to couples who have been together for decades and have now sanctified their vows in Canada, couples who have successfully integrated the world of competitive ballroom dancing, couples whose lives are the platonic model of suburban stability.

Every one of these articles was perfectly legitimate. Cumulatively, though, they would make a very effective ad campaign for the gay marriage cause. You wouldn't even need the articles: run the headlines over the invariably sunny pictures of invariably happy people that ran with most of these pieces, and you'd have the makings of a life insurance commercial.

This implicit advocacy is underscored by what hasn't appeared..... potentially nettlesome effects of gay marriage have been virtually absent from The Times since the issue exploded last winter.

Frogger found this amazing, candid article by the Ombudsman for the NY Times that has gone conveniently ignored.
I'll edit it a little so those who chose to ignore it may now have the time to read it.

Mind you, this guy works for the Times.
Of course, some people here will claim to know more about it than him.

(Nice find Frogger)

The N.Y.Times is meant exclusivey for a National audience.
Unlike many inner city Newsrags like Village Voice or
Greenwich Village Gazette or even Irish Voice or Jewish Post,
The N.Y.Times is like The Wall Street Journal.
Even The New York Observer with Rabid leftist Joe Conason,takes
in a more local constituency.

You have it backwards.

The endorsement by the N.Y.Times does not make the politicians that they support *conservative pro-Corporate lapdogs*.

It is that the N.Y.Times will only endorse those politicians who are conservative, pro-Corporate lapdogs

Well then why is Hillary Clinton mentioned at all? There is no such thing as bad publicity, and it's not as if the NY Times is bashing her.

Hillary's socialistic stance on healthcare surely puts her very liberal on that stance along with many others. I realize you are 5 billion light years out left, but compared to what is considered "moderate", she is a liberal. So is Obama. So why would the NY Times support either?

I'd be very curious to learn the name of that left-leaning newspaper.

The Akron Beacon Journal. But if you don't think the Times is left-leaning than I doubt the ABJ qualifies either.

I'm fairly certain it is not available in the southern half of the U.S.

I'd almost guarantee it.

Hey Ft,

Please read the quote below. Oh by the way......... It is sarcastic.


The fact that they endorsed the most liberal of the possible Republican candidates in no way proves they don't have a liberal slant.

Hey Ft,

Is Clinton a liberal?? (Just thougt I check to make sure she is not a war hawk.)

Lets star a big beautiful test. A test that will last 4 years. Maybe we can prove a point. Lets all vote like Dharm and FT would vote.
In 4 years we can then prove how bad their thinking is.
We will be the worst socilist state in the world. Jobs would leave the country left and right because of high taxes. We will go bankrupt because of the free health care. (It has to be paid for somehow)

(Actually lets just forget this test....... It scares me)



Actually, they endorsed McCain and Clinton.

I thought you knew that.

Hey Ft,

Please read the quote below. Oh by the way......... It is sarcastic.
Are you sure that was sarcastic?