PDA

View Full Version : All the biased news they see fit to print



Odysseus
06-22-2011, 10:52 AM
Updated: Wed., Jun. 22, 2011, 4:01 AM
By MICHAEL GOODWIN

Last Updated: 4:01 AM, June 22, 2011

Posted: 1:31 AM, June 22, 2011

Palin Derangement Syndrome strikes again. The victim this time is dangerously contagious.

In a bombshell announcement, New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller publicly confessed his sickness. OK, he didn't put it exactly that way, but you don't have to be a doctor to recognize the symptoms. Here's how he started a column in the Times Magazine:

"If the 2012 election were held in the newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a Palin presidency, I'm pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from the idea."

It's a paragraph worth parsing. First comes the backhanded admission that the "newsrooms of America" are overwhelmingly liberal. The 90 percent Obama vote Keller cites is consistent with surveys showing the vast majority of journalists tilt left, a fact that explains the warped coverage of government, culture, business and even sports in most major news organizations.

His second sentence condescendingly reveals Keller's agreement with the journalistic "horror" of the "havoc of a Palin presidency."

That's a huge mistake. As the supposed objective editor of the Times' news pages, he is giving license to his staff to go after Palin and, by inference, go easy on Obama. His not-so-subtle marching order is certain to find favor with ambitious reporters and editors hoping to please the boss.

Yes, yes, everybody knows the Times is hopelessly biased. Besides, Keller has resigned, to be replaced by deputy Jill Abramson in September, so he is a short-timer.

True, but Keller's piece on Palin, disguised as a thumb-sucker about her relationship with the media, is important for two reasons. It is a violation of the public image of fairness expected of Times editors, and explains the nasty treatment Palin got during his tenure. He sent reporters to Alaska to dig for dirt on the birth of her last baby in 2008 and recently invited readers to play journalist with her e-mails during her time as governor.

Having grown up at the Times under the great Abe Rosenthal, I find it appalling that Keller has so little regard for the standards that were the true mark of professionalism.

Taking over eight years ago after the tumultuous tenure of Howell Raines, Keller is a reluctant leader. He was effectively voted into the job by the staff, and exercised a light touch.

With reporters and other editors free to default to their own beliefs instead of the facts, the opinions in the news stories often made the editorial and op-ed pages redundant. No wonder the Times is often called the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

But the Keller Times didn't just promote liberalism. It became overtly partisan and routinely attacked conservatives and Republicans in its national news coverage, often stretching to score a point for its team. Thus, a television critic could describe a gigolo in a pornographic show as having "bleached blond hair and a Boehner-orange tan."

Other smears were on the front page, such as the innuendo-laden attack on John McCain's relationship with a lobbyist during the 2008 campaign. That article connects with a straight partisan line to the recent hit piece on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and now Keller's piece on Palin.

On the other side, the fawning coverage of Obama is cringe-inducing, given his record and the nation's problems. An article this week on gay marriage, under a dulcet headline about Obama's "evolving" stance, soft-pedaled his contradictory statements over the years and the fact that he sought advice from gay Congressman Barney Frank about maximizing the political benefit of switching positions.

It was probably inevitable that the paper would lose readers during the recession and the technological revolution. But that doesn't fully explain why the Times also lost its place in the American pantheon. I believe it lost its place because it first lost its way. That was Bill Keller's choice.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bucking_disaster_4Z0IGsUckO2dBVfVDYvYxN#ixzz1Q151x brx

txradioguy
06-22-2011, 01:05 PM
Anyone with an IQ above room temperature has known for many decades there is nothing unbiased or impartial about the coverage the NY Times gives to "news"

They just don't feel like they have to hide it anymore.

The Night Owl
06-22-2011, 04:56 PM
Who cares? The NY Times is a great paper with or without the alleged bias.

NJCardFan
06-22-2011, 05:08 PM
Who cares? The NY Times is a great paper with or without the alleged bias.

And this puts to rest any doubt of whether or not you are a troll. So let me ask you, does honesty in news reporting mean nothing to you?

BadCat
06-22-2011, 05:09 PM
Who cares? The NY Times is a great paper with or without the alleged bias.

This from one of the idiots that actually reads it.

NJCardFan
06-22-2011, 05:14 PM
This from one of the idiots that actually reads it.

Not only that but it's idiots like this that go all apeshit about the conservative bias at FOX News and who want to shut it down.

Odysseus
06-22-2011, 05:33 PM
Who cares? The NY Times is a great paper with or without the alleged bias.

If it cannot report the news honestly, then it is not, by definition, a great paper.

Molon Labe
06-22-2011, 07:26 PM
Who cares? The NY Times is a great paper with or without the alleged bias.

lol. Any MSM outlet corporation and the word "great" are mutually exclusive.



If it cannot report the news honestly, then it is not, by definition, a great paper.

Yes that is true and there are none. ALL major newspapers have bias, and half truths etc.

EVERY news source no matter how big or small is biased. It's finding out that bias. Reliability in a news source most often times is looking at who it benefits from how the story is reported. If it benefits the average person then typically I tend to find more reliability in that. If it benefits a collective body, whether that be a large federal government or any large corporate body....then you should damn well be uber skeptical.
The Night Owl is a collectivist.....I wouldn't expect him to understand that.

Odysseus
06-22-2011, 07:53 PM
lol. Any MSM outlet corporation and the word "great" are mutually exclusive.




Yes that is true and there are none. ALL major newspapers have bias, and half truths etc.

EVERY news source no matter how big or small is biased. It's finding out that bias. Reliability in a news source most often times is looking at who it benefits from how the story is reported. If it benefits the average person then typically I tend to find more reliability in that. If it benefits a collective body, whether that be a large federal government or any large corporate body....then you should damn well be uber skeptical.
The Night Owl is a collectivist.....I wouldn't expect him to understand that.

I don't have a problem with bias. I have a problem with news outlets that refuse to acknowledge their biases. The NY Post and Washington Times admit that they are conservative papers. Why can't the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times admit to being liberal papers? Who do they think that they are foolling?

Nightie is a collectivist, and a highly dishonest one.

nightflight
06-22-2011, 10:05 PM
Who cares? The NY Times is a great paper with or without the alleged bias.

Great for what? Bird cages? Fish wrap? Making pictures with Silly Putty?

fettpett
06-22-2011, 10:35 PM
Who cares? The NY Times is a great paper with or without the alleged bias.

alleged? where the fuck have you been for the last ummmmm......70 years?

CueSi
06-22-2011, 10:51 PM
Who cares? The NY Times is a great paper with or without the alleged bias.

Wouldn't bias, by definition, take away from it's greatness?

~QC

fettpett
06-22-2011, 11:37 PM
Wouldn't bias, by definition, take away from it's greatness?

~QC

If they admittied their bias, they can be great in their sphere. The problem is that many of them claim to be unbiased when they are obviously not

txradioguy
06-23-2011, 02:40 AM
Originally Posted by CueSi
Wouldn't bias, by definition, take away from it's greatness?

Yes



If they admittied their bias, they can be great in their sphere. The problem is that many of them claim to be unbiased when they are obviously not

This is true too. But the bias and slant of what and how the NY Times chooses to report on as "news" has cost lives...covered up atrocities and more recently thwarted efforts by this country to track and capture terrorists associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

That goes beyond bias and jumps straight to sedition and treason.


Not to mention they lie by omission repeat practically verbatim talking points from the left and advocate for hard left policies under the guise of "objective journalism.

Odysseus
06-23-2011, 10:54 AM
If they admittied their bias, they can be great in their sphere. The problem is that many of them claim to be unbiased when they are obviously not

Even outside of their sphere, if they were honest with themselves. A great conservative or liberal paper that admitted to being a conservative or liberal paper will be forced to recognize its own biases and thus be less inclined to try to finesse the news. Imagine that the NY Times admitted that it had a bias. The Times would face a choice: Indulge the biases that everryone knows are there and be marginalized, or overcome the biases and attempt to report the news honestly, so that even when it goes against your biases, you are still an honest player. They would seek to be known as an honest paper, despite their bias, which is pretty much how I think of the NY Post or Washington Times. But, by not acknowledging the bias, they make no attempt to overcome them, and end up marginalized. That's why their circulation is dropping like Obama's poll numbers.


Yes

This is true too. But the bias and slant of what and how the NY Times chooses to report on as "news" has cost lives...covered up atrocities and more recently thwarted efforts by this country to track and capture terrorists associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

That goes beyond bias and jumps straight to sedition and treason.


Not to mention they lie by omission repeat practically verbatim talking points from the left and advocate for hard left policies under the guise of "objective journalism.

Absolutely. The Times exposure of legal but classified programs to track terror financing, for example, most likely prolonged the search for Bin Laden and other key terrorist leaders, by warning them and providing them with the means to further obscure their financial transactions. When the President of the United States sends his representatives to a publisher and begs him not to publish classified material in wartime, it's not a casual request. The Times chose, not just to publish that story, but in doing so also chose sides in the war.

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/062311.jpg

fettpett
06-23-2011, 10:54 AM
Yes




This is true too. But the bias and slant of what and how the NY Times chooses to report on as "news" has cost lives...covered up atrocities and more recently thwarted efforts by this country to track and capture terrorists associated with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

That goes beyond bias and jumps straight to sedition and treason.


Not to mention they lie by omission repeat practically verbatim talking points from the left and advocate for hard left policies under the guise of "objective journalism.

very true, and the main reason I can't stand the NYT. They have a long history of this kind of shit, going all the way back to WW2 if not farther

Articulate_Ape
06-23-2011, 10:57 AM
Who cares? The NY Times is a great paper with or without the alleged bias.


So you must be one of their last eleven subscribers.

NJCardFan
06-23-2011, 11:22 AM
Notice how TNO swoops and poops knowing he's going to get flamed? And to think AD and PG were banned but this idiot is allowed to remain.

The Night Owl
06-23-2011, 01:34 PM
Not only that but it's idiots like this that go all apeshit about the conservative bias at FOX News and who want to shut it down.

I dislike Fox News because it's stupid, not because it's biased.

The Night Owl
06-23-2011, 01:36 PM
Wouldn't bias, by definition, take away from it's greatness?

~QC

No. This idea that there are two equal sides to every story is nonsense.

txradioguy
06-23-2011, 03:15 PM
very true, and the main reason I can't stand the NYT. They have a long history of this kind of shit, going all the way back to WW2 if not farther

The NYT and it's reporter Walter Duranty covered up Stalin's massacre of millions of Russians in Siberia.

They painted a heroic picture of Fidel Castro in 1957.

Jayson Blair.

fettpett
06-23-2011, 04:16 PM
The NYT and it's reporter Walter Duranty covered up Stalin's massacre of millions of Russians in Siberia.

They painted a heroic picture of Fidel Castro in 1957.

Jayson Blair.

What is really sad...they knew about the Holocaust but didn't report on it till it was politically expedient for Roosevelt, and the family that owns the NYT.....is Jewish....:(

Odysseus
06-23-2011, 04:31 PM
I dislike Fox News because it's stupid, not because it's biased.
We dislike you because you are stupid and biased.

No. This idea that there are two equal sides to every story is nonsense.
True, but the problem is that papers with a bias don't tell the truth, they tell what they want the truth to be, and then wonder why nobody trusts them.

The NYT and it's reporter Walter Duranty covered up Stalin's massacre of millions of Russians in Siberia.

They painted a heroic picture of Fidel Castro in 1957.

Jayson Blair.

Those are just the tips of the icebergs. The Times routinely presents opinion as news, and often those opinions are utter fantasy. It also omits facts that don't support their preferred narrative. The final straw for me came when NYC had an antisemitic riot in Crown Heights during the Dinkins administration. I found myself reading the Times, Post and News, and discovered that of the three, the Post actually had the best coverage, and the Times the worst.

The Times' coverage of the event omitted several key facts, such as how the crowd had stolen the driver's wallet when they assaulted him, and how the ambulances had arrived almost simultaneously. In addition, the Times kept trying to sympathize with the black mob and fit the virulent antisemitism and violence into a larger narrative about a racist America, and a whitewash of the Dinkins administration's failure to restore order (the riot ran on for three days, after the murders of an orthodox Jewish college student who was attacked by a mob, and an Italian-American who had a beard and was wearing a black suit). City Journal's critic of the coverage is enlightening:


The Crown Heights riots began with a tragic accident. On August 19, 1991, Yosef Lifsh ran a red light, swerved to avoid hitting another vehicle, and jumped the curb, hitting two children. Seven-year-old Gavin Cato was pronounced dead at the scene.

Gavin Cato was black; Yosef Lifsh was a Hasidic Jew. The accident set off a fury of anti-Semitic disturbances. As the Times reported on August 20, “More than 250 neighborhood residents, mostly black teenagers shouting ’Jews! Jews! Jews!’ jeered the driver of the car . . . and then turned their anger on the police.” That night, a Hasidic scholar from Australia, Yankel Rosenbaum, was stabbed in Crown Heights; he later died at Mugs County Hospital. Meanwhile, rioting continued for four nights.

The news coverage left little doubt that the basic story of Crown Heights was one of black mobs attacking Jews in retaliation for Gavin Cato’s death. Both the Times and Newsday noted that the vast majority of people arrested during the riots were black. The Times of August 23 described a group of black youths chanting “Heil Hitler!” in front of the Lubavitcher headquarters on Eastern Parkway.

Still, news analyses and columns searched for the “context” of the riots, in an apparent effort to make the events conform to what writer Phillip Gourevitch calls the “conventional understanding of race in America.” In this view, Gourevitch writes in Commentary, riots are the result of “some terrible racist incident” that causes “a battered minority to explode with rage.”

Thus, Times columnist Anna Quindlen, after visiting a grim housing project in Crown Heights, asked: “What must you feel if your whole life is a slur, if you read the handwriting on the wall of your existence and the graffiti seem to say, ’Who cares?”’ Newsday’s Jimmy Breslin declared: “I am having a lot of trouble believing that all the fury . . . was between blacks and Jews.” And a Times news analysis was headlined: “For Young Blacks, Alienation and a Growing Despair Turn into Rage.”

The treatment columnists and editorialists gave Rosenbaum’s killing stood in stark contrast with their response to the racially motivated murder of Yusef Hawkins, a black teenager, in Bensonhurst two years earlier. This double standard was best illustrated by the Times editorial page, which published an editorial entitled “Racism, Accomplice to Murder” six days after Hawkins was killed. It was not until 14 months after Rosenbaum’s murder, when suspect Lemrick Nelson was acquitted, that the Times got around to expressing “shame and alarm over anti-Semitic violence that recalled the pogroms of czarist Russia and Eastern Europe.”

In Crown Heights, as in Flatbush, reporters analyzed the events as a culture clash, a long-running feud between two groups equally at fault. A Times headline, for example, declared, “The Bitterness Flows in Two Directions.” The story explained that “the Hasidim are often the focus of the anger because of the widespread belief that they receive special treatment from the police and other city institutions and get help that blacks sorely need in a time of dwindling resources.” Two weeks after the riots, a Newsday article by Michael Powell and Jennifer Preston reported the results of their extensive investigation: little evidence existed to support the charges of preferential treatment.

The focus on allegations of favoritism obscured the raw anti-Semitism that fueled the riots. At the funeral of Gavin Cato, banners commemorating the accident victim shared space with others that said things like “Hitler did not do the job,” while Al Sharpton caricatured Jews as “diamond dealers.”

The Times and Newsday soft-pedaled the opportunism, demagoguery, and race-baiting of some of the black activists who responded to Cato’s death, though the papers dutifully reported on such publicity stunts as Sharpton’s September trip to Israel, where he tried to serve a summons on Lifsh. The Times reported Sharpton’s “diamond dealers” slur, but it ignored his other incendiary remarks at the funeral, where he compared Gavin Cato to slain civil rights leaders and drew parallels between the Hasidim and supporters of apartheid. According to the Long Island edition of Newsday, Sharpton “seemed to scoff . . . at labeling Gavin’s death an accident.” This observation, however, was excised from the same story in the tabloid’s New York City edition.

Another militant leader whom reporters treated with kid gloves was the Reverend Herbert Daughtry. According to an August 24 Newsday article, “Daughtry said he did not view it as his role to help calm the situation because he shares the pain and understands the frustration of the young people.” The story was a flattering profile of Daughtry, headlined “A Voice in the Wilderness.” Two days later, Daughtry accused Hasidic Jews of “abusing their power” and likened them to the Ku Klux Klan.

Hasidic leaders have charged that Mayor Dinkins and Police Commissioner Lee Brown ordered the police to hold back during the first three days of rioting. Whether or not there was such an order, police unquestionably did hold back. John Kifner of the Times reported on August 23 that officers at the 71st Precinct “complained about having to dodge rocks and bottles-or get hit by them-without being allowed to fight back.” Kifner added: “Before yesterday’s promise of a tougher police response, Commissioner Brown’s public statements had mainly called on officers to understand community feelings, and officers in Crown Heights had generally held back. Some had even been heard asking when they could make arrests.” In early 1993, three rabbis filed affidavits in a federal lawsuit against the city, claiming they attended a community meeting in Crown Heights on August 20, 1991, where top mayoral aides gave a sympathetic hearing to blacks expressing anti-Semitic sentiments. (The meeting was closed to the press.) According to Rabbi Jacob Goldstein, some of those in attendance declared that it was time to “get even with the Jews.” “Mr. Lynch’s response to these diatribes against Jews were such statements as ’I understand you, brother,’ and ’I’m with you, brother.’”

The press failed to ask tough questions of the mayor and his police commissioner: Had Dinkins left police commanders confused about their role in racial conflicts when he failed to order enforcement of the restraining order in Flatbush the year before? Were police afraid to act lest they be accused of brutality in the wake of the Rodney King beating in March 1991? Was the slow response motivated by fears that a crackdown would have adverse political repercussions for Dinkins in the black community?

Whatever the answers to these questions, the mayor and his police commissioner were guilty of a grave miscalculation at the very least. As Newsday reported on August 23, “Street violence-handled by police with procedures used for demonstrations-had turned into a riot.” Yet the press seemed to absolve Dinkins of any responsibility for the way the disturbances were handled. An editorial in the Times on August 23 reminded readers that he was “the mayor, not a magician.” A September 1 news analysis by Felicia Lee in the Week in Review section concluded, “In the end, Mr. Dinkins appeared to come off well. Four days after the rioting, the streets were quiet and he was warmly received at the Cato funeral.” And in a January 1992 editorial reviewing the first two years of Dinkins’s mayoralty, the Times faulted him for his slow action in Flatbush, adding: “But he has learned. When Crown Heights erupted . . . Mr. Dinkins was at his peace-making best.”

I stopped reading the Times then, because I wanted to get news from my newspaper.

Hawkgirl
06-23-2011, 05:23 PM
The Times is two editorials short of being renamed the NY Globe.

Molon Labe
06-23-2011, 09:02 PM
I dislike Fox News because it's stupid, not because it's biased.

ya. Maddow, Olberman, etc. would never be on equal par with idiots like O'reily and Hannity now would they? :rolleyes: