http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i...815&s=alterman
Thoughts?
Printable View
The Editorial page? Yes, the editorials are slanted left-of-center, but not all the columnists. I don't know anyone who reads the editorial page of any paper anymore (unless it's someone really interesting writing a guest editorial)
The reporting? Definitely not the International section or business.
In fact, I challenge someone to read the paper for a week and show me the bias in reporting (really, I think it's a great habit). The only good study I've seen showed a bias to the right on its coverage of Latin America in the 1980s (or lack thereof).
There's a reason why they're so respect and why no other US news source can come even close to its coverage of international affairs (the WSJ can obviously beat it on Biz news, but that's no surprise).
It seems like a lot of the people who blast the reporting (from either left or right) are just people who find reporting that isn't completely beneficial to their standpoint.
I never thought the reporting to be extremly liberal......
I don't bother with thier editorials so I wouln't know.
The sports reporting in the NYT is about the best there is.
The arts and lit sections of the sunday paper as well as the NYT Magizine are just about the only parts I ever read.
Sometimes Arts&literature=Liberals.
Stop it.
The reporting isn't liberal, but the editing of the newspaper is.
The stories that get into the paper and which ones don't will dictate whether it's liberal or not.
The same people who prop this argument up are the same ones that will vehemently state that Fox News is conservative but the rest of the media is unbiased.
it's IMPOSSIBLE to find a newspaper that doesn't have a bias because the job of selecting which stories run and which ones do is up to an editor's discretion which is inherently biased whether they want to acknowledge that or not.
The biggest problem with Fox news is not the editorials or the selection of it's news topics. The biggest problem with Foxnews is the fact that the line between editorial and reporting is blurred to the Nth degreeQuote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
So your saying that it is not possible for a newsorce to be Fair and Balanced? I don't nessacarily think that it's happening, but I do think that it is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
But I have never seen the NYT put to the BOBAK CHALLENGE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobak
Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Nope, it will never happen. It simply defies logic and fact. As long as a human being is making the decisions, it's simply going to happen.
I don't care for fox news and their alarmist style and I certainly don't care for the rest of the media either... but it's stupid to tell me that the media is on a whole, slanted towards whatever ideology they see fit.
If you can't see that, you're simply blind to it, ignorant or you sympathize with the message given through their selection of stories and headlines.
I don't think the news/media is nessisarily socialy biased along Liberal or Conservative lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
But there is serious misreporting when it comes to other areas like:
Paranoia
Violence
ethnicity/Race (esp considering the above)
buiseness
consumerism
Somewheres, the media fucked up.
IN the early days of the Iraq war, something like 2/3 of surveyed americans thought that Sadam Hussein had a Direct Connection to Al-Queda and 9/11.
Somewhere, the media misrepresented something.
There have been times where news outlets were obsessed with just getting the scoop or getting the story. They didn't give much of a fuck of how it was going to affect the perceived bias of the publication.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
In today's world, exclusivity is not important like it was. It's not about getting the scoop, it's about making it look the best.
The media is in a Sad state.
That's why robots should make the editorial decisions. They never make mistakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
Unfortunately, our newspapers would then overwhelmingly cover pre-approved loan offers, tips on how to have sex with local MILFs, cheap propecia, OEM software, etc.
BLEH!!! I find Sports to be the Achilles Heel of the NYT. While their columns are sometimes insightful, their sports coverage should be renamed "Too Late for This Edition" :angry:Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
The LA Times local edition is still my favorite Sports page. Their columnists have made me laugh on many occasions. Especially TJ Simers, who is notorious to any opposing team's fans in the playoffs.
Yeah, I was thinking that too when I posted the first time --but then I thought "how many conservative artists are there?" Theater? Movies? Ballet? Opera? Not many, thus there aren't many reports on them.Quote:
Sometimes Arts&literature=Liberals.
Going back to the Editorial question, the saddest statement is the one paper that has no Editorial section: USA TODAY :rolleyes: If that becomes our nation's most reliable news source, we'll have officially gone to hell. Oddly enough, their sports coverage isn't bad though :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobak
No, when they step out on the line to state their beliefs, they get ostracized by the rest of hollywood... and that's a fact. Ther'es obviously not a majority, but many more than is noted in the media.
Famous Celebrity Conservatives:
Schwarzenegger
Bruce Willis
Ron Silver
Toby Keith
I could go on, but those are the immediate ones that come to mind. I'd say a very large percentage of celebs are republicans for one simple fact.. they're rich and the conservative taxation policy favors them. They won't say it though, because it's not chic to be an "old codger conservative"
Forget celebrities and their silly political opinions. I bet 1/2 of them are Scientologists anyways.
Yeah, but that's my point: there's a sizable minority in Movies and dominate Country Music, but when you go into any other art (painting, ballet, opera, theater), areas the NYT covers in their massive Arts section, they're exceptionally rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
1. I work for Fox. Everyone with the possible exceptions of Greta Van Susteren, Shephard Smith, and Alan Colmes (barely) is a conservative with an axe to grind. Roger Ailes is head of the network and is Bush's cousin. There is really no two ways about it VT. It's as obvious when I'm in the newsroom as when I watch it on TV.
2. Outside of the National Review and Atlantic Monthly, there is a serious drought of intellectual conservative talent in journalism. It seems they are too busy "Fighting the good fight against the liberal bias." I subscribe to the National Review, I think its a wonderful magazine, regardless of the fact that I don't agree with a single word of it. Byron York and Richard Brookhiser are two of the few conservative intellectuals who can hold a candle to Joe Conason, Al Franken, and Eric Alterman.
3. Liberals need to stop dumping on Tom Friedman. He's a textbook New Democrat...not a Republican. It pisses me off the way he was disowned by the left for showing the benefits of globalisation. My random $0.02.
4. Fuck the WSJ, Peggy Noonan needs to drown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
Schwarzennegger is not a conservative. He is a liberal republican, of which there are very, very few these days. Lincoln Chafee and Jim Jeffords (not anymore hahaha) are the other two outspoken liberal republicans.
Ron Silver is also not a conservative, he is a neoconservative, which is a very different creature. Neoconservatives are essentially liberals that have been mugged.
That name alone makes me totally disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoriquaSNK
Al Franken is a half unhinged boob. End of story.
There a quite a few liberals I agree with, respect and look up to. Al Franken is the exact opposite of that. He keeps it together long enough to try to make his point, but becomes a maniac when you oppose him or even put him on the ropes. He's the liberal Bill O'Reilly.
The ultra-left makes me sick with the thought policing, PC bullshit that is dragging us all down. Jim Norton made a fantastic point this morning that I wish I could articulate as well as he did.
Basically his point was about the NY subway inspections and racial profiling. Basically, Bloomberg (a converted liberal) was speaking about the "every 7th person inspection" and made his point above all that there would be no profiling or singling out of one group. WHY?!?!?!?! IF you're looking for mob activites you target Polish, ITalian and Russians.. and so on. Bloomberg would rather blow himself up next to a bomber to spare their feelings. Extreme point of view? Yes, but it rings true. If it's done dignified and correctly, it should be done. Everyone of these bombers have been the SAME profile... middle-eastern arabs in their early 20-30's, muslim.. etc. WHY NOT LOOK AT THEM? Not interrment camp and such and with other searches..
It was much better put than that, but it came down to this.. it's all about Liberal PC thought and making sure that no one was offended.
The far right is just as ridiculous with their religious ramblings and thought policing, but they're not as successful because it's isn't as viral and subtle. When you see conservative thought, it's a mile away. They paint it with a subtle brush of sensitivity vs. bigotry. If you don't agree with their way, YOU MUST BE A THUGGISH OLD RACIST CODGER. They're great at it, I admit but it's sickening.
When Hillary Clinton is making GTA a hot topic instead of middle eastern relations, when Lieberman is worried about censorship instead of the oil crisis... when Al Franken is more worried about making a boob out of the people who profess an ideology instead of coming up with a working solution to North Korea or Iran... you've got to see what's wrong with the left.
I'm not stupid and if you've even take PoliSci 101 you learn that when you get far out into the political thought continuum, you come right back around to the other side's extreme and the only difference is the name you slap on it.
NeoConservatism is refreshing to me because I see it as a more centrist and logical option. Ron Silver professing his 9/12 conservatism is exactly what needs to happen to the rest of the left if they want to become relevant again. I'm frankly disturbed by the trend of ultra-conservatism that's invading the upper echelons of government and the best pony to back right now is the newly conservative, left-leaning conservative. Bush and his cronies with their cloak and dagger, back room politics are shredding this country, but to me, it's a better option than the very leftist leaning Kerry would-be government. What the republicans did SO well which gets nothing but venom from the rest of the political pundits was after they got their asses handed to them in the early clinton years... they realized they needed a more liberal leadership and cohesive message. They adapted to the environment at hand and won. What liberals like Franken and his ilk want to do is scream MORE left to try to draw attention. WRONG thing to do. IF you want to beat the system, get inside it... understand WHY you lost and continue to lose key elections and votes. They'd rather try to get more people on board instead of stoping the leak in their floundering ship.
All things being equal, like I've said a thousand times.. we need a viable third party. Nader isn't the answer.
Nader in 08'
IF you think that racial profiling will help. Maybe you'd let a nice Brit named Richard Reed onto your plane or nice hispanic named Jose Padilla onto your subway.
But lets harass Yusef Islam on his way to working with his Charity. Or stop Akmed Omar on his way to Foggy bottom with his INtelegence reports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Richard Reed *Was* profiled by Israeli authorities a month before he got on his plane and was sat next to an Israeli Agent the entire flight.
Ooops.. did I do that?
Oh wait a sec... all those bombings and terrorist operations... they were all commited by grannies, white business men and black women right?
Didn't think so.
Profiling in this case is justified.
Yeah I knew about that.... But his profiling had to do more with his travel habits than his look.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Hmmmmm... all early 20-30's, male with muslim ties.....
Yeah, there's a whole lot of variation in those two guys compared to the rest of the major attack perps.
:rolleyes:
Bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Where was all this outrage over profiling during Mafia investigations?
Even better... what about being angry about the DC sniper case? All the VERY published profiles that it was a single shooter, white male, mid-30's loner... etc? Where was Al Sharpton when it came out they were two gay African american men?
How about serial killer cases? Same thing....
Nope. Not a peep.
Paternalistic Liberal claptrap.
I didn't say that racial profiling was nessicarily outrageous... I was just doubting it's effectiveness.
The "enemy" has moved past using obvious tactics.
The funny thing is, My black friends all support racial profiling of people from the Middle East. Despite the fact that they have endured many hardships just because they are blacks who grew up in a mostly white redneck town.
My friend's words were "Good thing there wasn't a mass spearing, or they would have locked us up."
You can say whatever you like about Franken, but there is one simple fact about him that cannot be ignored. His mission is to defeat some of the conservative pundits by showing that they don't tell the truth, which they don't. If you read his book, you will see how he documents and cites lies that these people make.
You can't deny that. You may not like how he bashes conservatives, but he does it in an honest way. In fact, he fact checks everything he says on his show and will have a segment whenever he says something that wasn't entirely true to apologize. O'Reilly cries about him because he is scared of him.
On the other hand, I definitely don't support thought policing, but that is a cross party issue without any doubt. The religious right doesn't have any love for things like GTA. To say that the right isn't as effective is a completely bogus thing to say. When they get on a religious issue (Schiavo, for instance) you will see a massive protest on behalf of conservatives.
Besides the point, how could liberals be the ones doing all the thought policing now when the conservatives hold the power in every part of the federal government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
Do I really need to get into this?Quote:
Originally Posted by IMTheWalrus
Look at advocacy groups, the ACLU, Rainbow Coalition, Unions (which are quietly going by the wayside) Hollywood Celebrity spokespeople and controlling a large part of the industry.
tell me for a second that the left doesn't do a spectacular job of painting whoever opposes their view as hateful, old, stuck in the past or evil.
They're the kings of loaded questions.
BTW, didn't Terri Schiavo really die? (I think she should have and I agree totally with the left on this issue)
The conservatives are motivated and organized, yes... but like I said.. you can see the changes they want to bring about a mile away and it's easier to defend against. (When Pat Robertson is doing the talking, he's not exactly subtle.... or evne relevant... or logical) The left makes it much more nefarious and subtle by changing the language.
There needs to be a middle party that responds to the young (under 30) crowd that is, more or less, the "South Park" (or even "Daily Show") party that reflects the massive amounts of cynicism turned into a productive angle.
I think its possible.
I've read a few of Franken's books (Limbaugh, Why not me). Say all you want, but he's a Enteraining, Funny and Smart MoFo. I enjoy his writting as much as I do Vonnegut.
Nobody on the right been able to rip Franken like he ripps them. He exposes the Abusurdity of the ritght.
As a whole, most of the ideas or belifs that the Right comes up with make alot of sense. Trickledown, Patriot Act, Cutting Welfare. The problem with those ideas is that THEY HAVE NEVER PROVEN TO WORK! Once you look at them closer, they fall apart.
Anyways. A News Agency is only as Liberal as the Company that owns it.
That's why I don't see how NBC/MSNBC can both be Liberal and Biased. GE is making a killing off of this war.
You know, Sharpton is not the man he once was. He is not the Sharpton of the Tawana Bradly era. Just I'm not the Same person I was 12 years ago, Bush is not the playboy Cokehead he was 12 years ago, and so on.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
Remember when that baby got shot up on LA, he was trying to calm the tensions in the area.
Sorry, Blame Nader...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobak
IT can't happen.
I think O'Reilly did a tremendous job of laying into franken during the series of debates they had. In fact, I think he made Franken look like the unhinged boob that he is. I'm not a big O'Reilly guy, but I thought he clearly dominated him. There was one in particular where Franken lost his MIND on stage when O'Reilly dressed him down with facts during a speech and then Franken started interrupting O'Reilly's 45 minute session. I thought he handled himself quite well and really exposed him. It was the most riveted I'd ever been watching C-Span.Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Trickle down did work albeit very slowly. Take Macro-Economics. My prof in college who was an admitted "flaming liberal" herself admitted... "Trickle down actually worked."Quote:
As a whole, most of the ideas or belifs that the Right comes up with make alot of sense. Trickledown, Patriot Act, Cutting Welfare. The problem with those ideas is that THEY HAVE NEVER PROVEN TO WORK! Once you look at them closer, they fall apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Nice way to dodge the point. Fine, make it Jesse Jackson.. or Farrakhan or the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Insert anyone who speaks out against criminal profiling.. the point is the same.
Don't try to swap out the issue on a losing cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
After Tawanna Brawley, I don't know why ANYONE would listen to what he had to say. It was a TOTAL HOAX. Yet, people still listen to him. He's a proven liar, hate monger and racist... but since he's black, that's ok.
Yeah Trickle down worked. Worked well to boost the economic status of an upper minority, Hold the status of a middle majority, and drive a bottom minority farther into the ground....Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
I guess you use the World bank definition of "progress" also.
Right now, we have the biggest flow of trickle down going on (All those so called Liberal Pussies arn't calling it that).
Our country is crumbling at our feet. We are losing our edge in all aspects of world leadership. We refuse to invest.
Now Roosevelt, there was a man who knew what the fuck he was doing.
Amazingingly, my macro prof disagreed with Trickledown....
He said that yes the laffer curve applies, but Ronnie Retard didn't realize where we were on the curve.......
Heh. I'm gonna hijack your quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
Quote:
Originally Posted by bokmeow
Quote:
Originally Posted by bokmeow
Are you expecting a disagreement?
You're not going to get one.
agree to disagree?Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
Quote:
Originally Posted by neo>all
No, I agree..
One problem with that hijacking. Saddam wanted everyone to think he had them. He liked the idea of sabre rattling.
I didn't see a bunch of white guys bragging about raping and taking a dump on a black woman and challenging the Black community to take 'em down.
Subtle difference there. ;)
I can tell you who isn't Liberal, Daryl Strawberry.
My parents met him at a Republican Fundraiser.
You should try being black for a month.... then you will see how great you have it.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Oh please..
More Paternalistic, patronizing liberal garbage...
It's ok, they're poor and black and they don't know any better.. let them lie about race relation incidents... it's ok, they're so underprivileged.
Farrakhan calls NY "Hymietown" and there's hardly any backlash... how about a guy like Buchanan wanting to close the borders.. he's a racist and bigot.
Yeah, that makes sense.
No, I'm talking about the privlidged, hard working ones who put up with more shit in one year than most people do in thier lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by VanillaThunder
Or peole who made a mistake and can't get a job while watching white boys with worse records get grandfathered in and advanced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Quote:
You know, Sharpton is not the man he once was. He is not the Sharpton of the Tawana Bradly era. Just I'm not the Same person I was 12 years ago, Bush is not the playboy Cokehead he was 12 years ago, and so on.
Remember when that baby got shot up on LA, he was trying to calm the tensions in the area.
So where does sharpton fit in there?
Big deal. I hear Mary Carey is attending a Republican Fundraiser at which the President George W. Bush will appear, and she's independent.Quote:
Originally Posted by norton9478
Mary Carey also happens to be batshit insane.Quote:
Originally Posted by bokmeow
She dosen't count, one way or the other.
I agree with the idea of using common sense in national security, i.e. not checking an 80 year old white woman's luggage at the airport. However, there are a few nuances that are missing from your argument altogether.
Firstly, I know that Al Franken isn't very accessable to conservative, and he shouldn't be. But the fact is he is rarely wrong. He's an annoying whiney bitch, yes, but he doesn't lie and that is a more important quality to have IMHO.
The sea of 9/12 Patriots is an excellent example of how obtuse our country became. Conservatives whine about celebrity endorsements yet they foam at the mouth at every time they hear any of the following douchebags on the right open their clouded minds:
Don King
Dennis Miller
Dennis Leary
Toby Keith
Ron Silver
Charlie Daniels
Jim Norton
Colin Quinn
Tom Selleck
etc....
Celebrity endorsement is one of the biggest hypocritical lightning rods of the right.
Also, your macro-economics teacher is retarded. Trickle-down led directly to enormous budget deficits and shrunk the middle class income range by some 60%, pushing many families either into the Rich or Poor categories. It took tax increases from Bush Sr and the genius that was the Clintonian tax increases of 93 (he balanced the budget in under two years) to get us out of the rut.
Bush jr. Lowered taxes during a recession, which I agreed with unlike many other liberals, but then went to war and made the tax cuts permanent. He then caused MASSIVE federal spending with BORROWED CAPITAL. How is that even remotely republican? He has, however, done wonders for the Northern Virginia housing market. My parent's house is worth 4 times as much now because of Bush.
Also, walk into an urban public (or even private school) and tell me affirmative action isn't 150% necessary. So don't go whining about "reverse racism" and all that other crap because for every white guy that has to go to yale instead of harvard, there are 50 black kids that can't read because they've been forsaken by the community and the state.
The one thing the trickledown fucktards don't look at is the deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoriquaSNK
The deficit is driving interest rates up, devaluing US currency and doing more damge to the bottom 80% than they get back in jobs and tax breaks....
w3rd.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoriquaSNK
There were a lot of things I wanted to write, but I'm on a really short schedule these days. Now I don't have to.
Uhhh.... I worked in an urban, incredibly poor school as a teacher and IT Director. Don't preach to me about it. I've experienced and worked with that population more than you could ever imagine. i was on the front lines on more than one occasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoriquaSNK
You know what happened? Most of those kids don't give a fuck. To them it was a handout and was exploited to the Nth degree.
These kids received stipends to attend school for books, supplies and to help feed and house them and their families.
You know what they did with them?
40oz's, Weed, sneakers, Speakers and clothes.... then it was off to the Welfare office or other programs to find another way to work the system.
Forsaken? Interesting terminology. I'd blame the culture and themselves as much for their incredible failure. I've seen it first hand.
That's not to say there's not a good sized percentage of the kids in my school (95% african-american, I might add) that weren't trying their asses off and making it. Many of my hard working students went from practically on the street to 4-year schools, union jobs and other successful areas.
You know what those kids got? "Uncle Tom", "You a sell out, yo" and "You be working hard and shit.. Alls I's do is get fucked up and shit... I gets to get paid".
Affirmative Action not necessary. It's teaching a group with an already screwed up culture of misplaced anger and weened on social assitance and taught to seek reparations for something they hadn't even experienced that handouts are the only way to get "what the world owes them". Patronizing the minorities in america by pacifying them with token programs traded for votes is not a solution.
What really fascinates me is that it's ok to single out a minority when it's for admission in to college, social assistance and special needs... but it's not when it comes to searches (terrorism), crime and negative points.
This hypocrisy can't be lost, even on the most naive of pundits.
"Reverse Racism" is a liberal term for backlash against hypocrisy. It's not about race, it's about economics. I can't get into yale either and it has nothing to do with my intelligence. Boo hoo.
What's wrong with asking that things be based on merit and not the color of your skin? I thought that fight was won in the 60's. Apparently, it's not.. it's ok as long as the white working/middle class are the ones being stepped on for success.... but we can't bitch because god knows we had it so good for that 200 year stretch. :rolleyes: