New York times violates its own policies with Move-on advertisement

----> wrote:

HAHA, really? Man, with the public so one-sided, its amazing Bush won the electoral college with only 10% of the popular vote. Oh wait, its impossible!

Which is exactly my point. You don't have to be left-wing to oppose this war. And if 90% of the media were truly liberal, then does that mean that only 20% of conservatives read newspapers?

hypnotoad wrote:

Which is exactly my point. You don't have to be left-wing to oppose this war. And if 90% of the media were truly liberal, then does that mean that only 20% of conservatives read newspapers?

No, it means the liberal media are trying to force their politics on the rest of us.

Gary - your points are well taken. But the best quality control is a fierce and competitive quest for truth and veracity, and the media outlets that ascribe to that will prosper over those that don't. The Jayson Blair incident is an illustrative anecdote. Many reporters warned editor Raines repeatedly about Blair's antics - and these were not reporters that were just run of the mill news hacks - no - those warning Raines were frankly some of the best reporters in the world - who could intuit hackdom and sloppiness far better than most. Anyone with common sense would listen to them. They are by their very nature some of the smartest and most persuasive people around. Yet they were ignored. And one it is fair game to lay the blame on affirmative action, that seems too easy - the leadership at the Times was (and remains in many ways) too automatically persuaded of the correctness of its own views and culture and doesn't not continually advance the healthy skepticism and breadth of world view that makes for consistently top notch reporting. This is a shame, because my reporter friends at top media institutions by and large acknowledge the wealth of talent at the Times - talent, I might add, that is being poorly utilized and constrained improperly. And this is why they must take steps to de-politicize their newsroom - their long term survival depends on it.

60 minutes fabricated "Martyr's Junction" story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys

Gary Bag Lady wrote:

No, it means the liberal media are trying to force their politics on the rest of us.

And how does that work exactly? Last I checked the media can't "force" you to do anything. The media can't take your tax dollars and waste them on a useless war. The media can't murder civilians in your name, or drive 4 million people from their home. The media can't squander the national defense you take for granted and wear it down to its bare metal.

Is this the same kind of "force" that gay people do when they "force" their lifestyle on you?

Man, it must really suck to be a scared, paranoid sh\it-for-brains conservative.

hypnotoad wrote:

Man, it must really suck to be a scared, paranoid shit-for-brains conservative.

Spoken like the most stable of all liberals.

All the libs seem to be avoiding the topic of the O.P.

When your caught in a lie change the subject.

Just this week the New York Times ran stories on the Hunt Oil deal with the Kurds, Dubai/Nasdaq deal, the Carlyle Group/Saudi $20 Billion buyout, the rapid devaluation of the dollar, oil to switch to Euro currency, etc. No mention of any of this in most other US papers. OH MY FREAKIN GOD!!!!!

Liberal Lies? Or, our country is going down the toilet fast and we are too illiterate, uninterested or ideological to care?

notakicker - it is not a question of "liberal lies". The Times has a wealth of talent - and has some of the best reporters in the world - most of whom are really, really good. Witness the incredible reporting job done by those that reported on the Jayson Blair incident itself - Raines knew the damage to the paper was significant (and still is) and assigned the best and the brightest to report on it. So the Times can and does produce great work. But they are too often ideologically driven, and from time to time, get the story so wrong it is embarrassing. Recent example is the Duke lacrosse case - where the Times frankly was hoaxed to the highest order, no doubt because they wanted to believe the narrative, irrespective of the facts. And their hit pieces on the Duke lacrosse squad came at a time when bloggers with no or limited resources were resoundingly hitting on the truth. There was a time when we not only hoped, but expected that our largest and most sophisticated news organization would be the first to recognize prosecutorial misconduct in a high profile case (in the South, no less). The fact that they didn't, and got fooled so royally speaks volumes about their motivations. And the end result is rotten reporting. Again, making it a liberal versus conservative issue is the wrong tack - their lack of ideological balance, or desire to overly politicize any number of issues, makes for future trouble for them and for institutions in the press that often act like them. Institutions that don't feel compelled to welcome a competition for ideas wither.

SC Slim wrote:

"They" actually have done studies that seem to indicate a left slant to most major media outlets.

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

I find it humorous how most political party members will be quick to point out the flaws in the other side while at the same time overlooking the major issues within their own chosen group.

More evidence that CONservatives are the least intelligent class of pseudo-human since the neadrathal. You obviously didn't read past the headline, because it proves you're dumb as a stump.

Comparing media to a conservative congress based on the ratings of a single special interest group "proves" 90% of the media is more liberal? Geez, are you really that gullible?

Did you happen to notice it ranks Drudge at liberal leaning using it's method? Is there a single one of the lemming legion that would consider Drudge liberal? I understand that conservatives are stupid but this takes the cake.

Did you even read the article beyond the first paragraph?

A UCLA professor is a "special interest group?"

The Quarterly Journal of Economics is just some hack periodical, although everyone who publishes there has devoted thousands of hours studying quantitative techniques to best analyze data?

What's a "neadrathal?"

Do you know the difference between "it's" and "its?"

Did you take your Xanax this evening?

Heres a good one - JFK won the 1960 election fair and square, and everything he did deserves him a place in Camelot. -

shits and giggles wrote:

I like it how it took over 2 weeks of scrutiny by other newspapers before the NYT admitted they violated their own policies.

If this illustrates how truthful they are when dealing with a story in which they have, and control, all of the facts; imagine how little they can be trusted reporting important geopolitical stories?

How very true.

Keith Stone wrote:

bobbyboy wrote:

Fox has a conservative bent compared to the rest of the media yes. But like 85-90% of the media is liberal. They've done studies on this.

It's pretty funny to see another typical brain dead conservative pull out the old "they've done studies" proving 90% is liberal when anyone with half a brain (and yes, I know that excludes conservatives) knows they haven't. It's true that conservatives are just a bunch marginally functional lemmings (and they do have studies priving that) and as such should be given the same deference one gives the mentally handicapped but even retards need to be scolded from time to time.

Pull your head out of whatever its in. Just this summer reports by researchers that looked at campaign contributions by media companies and journalist revealed that it was overwelmingly financially supportive of liberals. Not sure it 90% is correct, I'll let you look that one up, but it was high.

So who is marginally functional? that would be a big finger pointed in your direction.

Whenever I hear O'Reilly moan about how editorializing seeps into NY Times articles, I wonder if he ever even looks at the paper in which his own column appears, the semiliterate NY Post, which actually insults people in headlines and first paragraphs on a routine basis...which as far as I can tell is not "objective reporting."

Leftie Hypocrite wrote:

LOL, I could match that list and then some with the Clintons alone. Hilary's latest fund raising scandal is just the latest example....

..

No you couldn't, you're full of shit. The Repubs never got anything to stick on the Clintons except getting him to lie about a BJ. BIG F***ING DEAL.

READ THE LIST AGAIN. It's a long freaking list of Republican embarassments. Not a single unbiased person wouldn't readily admit that while their have been scandals and legal problems for politicians on both sides of the aisle for a long time, REPUBLICANS have been winning (or losing if you will) the corruption/legal troubles battle royale the last several years. HANDS DOWN. Don't be an absolute liar over this.

You jackasses alwasy jump all over the Jefferson case. Wow, you got one big indictment there. What about DUKE CUNNINGHAM??? The guy was the corruption KING and his ass is sitting in jail! What about all the republicans connected to Abrahamoff ?? Does Scooter Libby ring a bell? Oh yeah, let's hear about the "no underlying crime" talking points nonsense with that one. He lied to save his and Cheney's ass, and he got CONVICTED. What about Republican Governor from Ohio Bob Taft?? Guilty of ethics and corruption charges. Rep Bob Ney ? Pled Guilty to accepting bribes. Ted Stevens from Alaska? Just had his offices torn apart because he is being investigated by the FBI and the IRS for good old fashioned tax evasion, bribe taking, and the like. Should I go on????

What about Mark Foley harassing little boys? What Mark Vitter, Republican Senator from Louisiana, being recently ensnared in the Washington Madam case ? Oh yeah, also involved with that Madam was Republican Randall Tobias, who was the head of the US Agency for International Development. He quit when he realized he was being outed.

YOU WANT ME TO GO ON??? ARE THE FACTS GETTING IN THE WAY OF YOUR LITTLE "THE DEMS HAVE BEEN JUST AS CORRUPT LATELY" BULLSHIT ?

Yanqui wrote:

Whenever I hear O'Reilly moan about how editorializing seeps into NY Times articles, I wonder if he ever even looks at the paper in which his own column appears, the semiliterate NY Post, which actually insults people in headlines and first paragraphs on a routine basis...which as far as I can tell is not "objective reporting."

WHAT ABOUT THE F***ING NETWORK HE WORKS FOR ???? HELLO ????

There is nothing more insane than watching O'Reilly go nuts over the NY Times "biased reporting" when he works for the most biased "mainstream media" outlet on the planet! Holy F***ing shit is that guy deluded, or a very fine actor. Let's even say that "90% of the MSM" leans left. Ok, they all lean a little left. But Fox News tries to make that up all by their little selves by leaning so far right, they are about fall over. At least liberal papers like the Times do have reporters on both sides. One token liberal (Alan Colmes or whatever his name is), doesn't come close to balancing out the raving lunatic conveservatives they have on the other 99% of the time.

How O'Reilly lays into the Times on a daily basis with a straight face is beyond me.

suck on the list below, "leftie hypocrite" and keep moaning about "the clintons, the clintons, the clintons."

(What did conservative ALAN GREENSPAN just say about Bill Clinton?? Called him the smartest president he ever worked for, called his admin "very centrist" and even joked on Fox News about how Clinton was the "best REPUBLICAN president ever" !!!!!! He then apologized to Clinton for calling him a Republican! HA HA HA Greenspan also said the Republicans "SWAPPED PRINCIPLE FOR POWER AND DESERVED TO LOSE. " Read it and weap. Greenspan, ever heard of him? This is what he said about Dumbya Bush-

"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake." He also says Bush went to war for OIL (though he doesn't necessarily say it was a bad thing, he gives the REAL REASON).

For the Republicans, when it rains it pours, and since Hurricane Katrina, it's been one big MONSOON on the Republicans )

===============================================

LIST-

"Jack Abramoff: The disgraced "super-lobbyist" has been nailed for wire fraud, and is cooperating in the investigation into the bribing four Republican members of congress.

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas): Once the most powerful man in the House of Representatives, Texas congressman DeLay now stands indicted on three counts of money laundering, charges stemming from his all-out attempt to secure a permanent Republican majority in the House. His story isn't finished; the Abramoff investigators have been sniffing around his door for months now.

Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio): Ney has pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from Jack Abramoff. Ney pulled #4 out of the bag of GOP excuses above, announcing that he has entered a rehab clinic for alcohol addiction.

Tony Rudy: Once the deputy chief of staff for Tom DeLay, Rudy has pleaded guilty to bribing a Republican House member, said member widely assumed to be Bob Ney. Rudy also pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from Abramoff in return for favorable actions on Abramoff's behalf by his former boss.

Mike Scanlon: Another Republican lobbyist and former DeLay press secretary, Scanlon has pleaded guilty to stealing millions of dollars from Native American tribes, on whose behalf he was supposed to be lobbying Congress regarding casinos. Scanlon is also cooperating with federal investigators.

Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-Calif.): The California congressman has pleaded guilty to accepting $2.5 million in bribes, in exchange for steering federal contracts to a number of defense firms. Cunningham is currently staring down the barrel of eight years in prison.

Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.): There isn't much more to say about this fellow, who has joined Rep. Ney in the I'm-an-alcoholic-going-to-rehab club.

Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.): Long considered to be little more than the mush-mouthed front man for Tom DeLay, Speaker of the House Hastert has found himself swept up in the Foley scandal. Several fellow congressmen have said that they warned Hastert about Foley's improper behavior, but nothing was done about it until the Foley emails went public. The watchword for today is "cover-up."

I. Lewis Libby: Cheney's former chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby, has been indicted on five counts of lying to investigators regarding the outing of deep-cover CIA agent Valerie Plame.

David Safavian: Once the head of the White House Office of Federal Procurement, Safavian has been convicted of four counts of lying to investigators regarding a bribe he took from Abramoff.

Claude Allen: Formerly a domestic policy advisor to the White House, Allen was arrested for shoplifting thousands of dollars worth of merchandise from various retail stores.

Brian Doyle: Formerly the Department of Homeland Security's deputy press secretary, Doyle was arrested for attempting to seduce a 14-year-old girl over the internet.

James Tobin: Tobin, who served as the northeast field director for the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, has been convicted on two counts of conspiracy stemming from a phone-jamming scheme in New Hampshire during the 2002 midterms. Tobin made dozens of phone calls during this time to the White House political affairs office. He was sentenced to ten months in prison.

Susan Ralston: An aide to White House political advisor Karl Rove, Ralston resigned recently after her multiple meetings with Jack Abramoff became public knowledge. Ralston was also in the habit of accepting gifts, such as tickets to sporting events, from the disgraced lobbyist.

Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.): Doolittle hasn't been convicted of anything yet, but has rolled out the "not a target" line regarding the investigation into Abramoff's bribery scheme.

Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.): Like Doolittle, Burns has deployed the "not a target" line regarding the Abramoff probe. He is, however, apparently a "target" of the probe, a fact that has his staffers splitting rhetorical hairs at warp speed.

Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.): Rep. Dale Kildee, the only Democrat on the House Page Board, dropped an interesting brick the other day. While commenting on a conference call between page board members regarding "other allegations" beyond those directed at Rep. Foley, Kildee said, "It was about other allegations and I'd like to leave it at that. Let me just say, not about Mr. Foley." These "other allegations" appear to be augering towards Rep. Kolbe, who took two former pages on a camping trip several years ago. A federal investigation has been opened to look into the matter.

Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.): The senate majority leader is currently under investigation by the SEC for seemingly taking advantage of insider information to make a killing on stocks, the company attached to said stocks being owned by his family.

Lester Crawford: Once the Bush administration's FDA commissioner, Crawford has been charged in federal court for conflict of interest, and for making false statements related to his investments. He recently pleaded guilty to the charges.

Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.): The home of Weldon's daughter was raided by federal investigators on Monday. The investigators are looking hard at her lobbying firm, and whether her well-connected father improperly steered business her way. Weldon has pulled out #2 above, laying the whole thing off on a Democratic plot to destroy him.

Tom Noe: A four-star Republican fund-raiser in Ohio, Noe has just gone on trial for stealing millions from a fund for injured workers and spending it on himself."

Oh and keep in mind -- these are only Republicans charged with crimes or under investigation for crimes.

Just wondering, as I always hear on this site about how Fox is conservative and others liberal...how do these political or ideological leanings manifest themselves in the reporting? Don't you just report news? I mean, just give us the facts about the day's most important events, like a flood in Nicaragua or elections in Morocco or whatever.

(I hardly ever watch American news, though I subscribe to TV5 Monde and watch that most nights...much more interesting and diverse international topics.)