NY Post or Daily News: Which is better to pick up dog poop? (New York: 2015, loans)

[celticvisa]

Originally Posted by hogstooth

October 27, 2011
James O'Keefe Scores Another Hit
On the New York Times, Jay Rosen, and Clay Shirky.

Rosen and Shirkey are professors of journalism at New York University. O'Keefe made what appears to be an undercover video of a classroom setting. Rosen and Shirky are openly discussing the New York Times strategy to legitimize President Obama during the 2008 campaign, their strategy to help Occupy Wall Street, tax loopholes for NPR, their unwillingness to cover Michelle Bachmann, and a strategy to generate revenue for the Times that involves disparaging conservatives.

The most striking thing about this is the lack of any ethical consideration whatsoever. And the hubris.

Lot of Good Stuff In Here... [ace]: Clay Shirky discusses the issue of bias in coverage, and how it's done.

Regarding Obama in 2006 and 2007, he notes -- at this point in time, at least -- there really was no very credible reason to cover Obama seriously. He was a little-known very inexperienced freshman Senator. And black. The odds of him becoming President were less than 100:1.

And yet the Times realized (correctly) that he could be a viable candidate. But that itself is not supposed to be news; that is, the Times can't "create the news" with a headline like:

Thirty Out of Thirty-Two New York Times Editors Agree: Obama Would Be A Good Democratic Candidate

Now that's actually what they want to say. That is, in fact, the news: that a major influence-leading liberal news organization is impressed by a liberal politician (and so of course will be giving him favorable coverage in the future).

But they can't say that, because supposedly they're not liberal (wink) and because they are supposed to report the news made by others, not report the "news" of their own beliefs and opinions.

So what do they do? They begin covering stuff like Obama Girl, noting the cultural phenomenon of Barack Obama (which wasn't really a phenomenon when they began treating it as such). Without expressly running a story with the headline, Reliably Left-Liberal News Organization Has Decided To Give Barack Obama Favorable Coverage Because They Like Him, that was in fact what was going on, as evidenced by their choice to elevate a little-known freshman Senator into Someone You The Reader Should Be Taking Seriously Because All These Smart People (Not Us!) Are Taking Him Seriously.

It's an interesting observation by Shirky, and undoubtedly true.

Later in the video he discusses the opposite of that -- the Times' decision to not bless Michele Bachmann with Serious Candidate Coverage.

I can't say I disagree with their opinion on that, but then, I'm an opinion writer. I can say "She's not serious." The NYT is supposed to not show that sort of editorial bias in its straight news stories.

At 7:27 begins the most damning stuff. Among the statements (admissions contrary to evidence) Shirky makes are:

1. Most people can't tell their hometown newspaper is super liberal because 95% of the country has only one hometown newspaper and ergo have no basis for comparison. (He seems about 50 years behind the Times on this -- most people have FoxNews now.)

2. The media's business model relies upon the deception that they are unbiased. So while they freely admit their liberal biases among "other elites," they will not admit this to the public. Because (per admission 1), I think he means that the sales pitch of the media -- we give it to you straight and unbiased -- is in fact still fairly effective, due to the prevalence of one-newspaper towns, and thus media liberals would be diminishing their influence and their business reach by confessing this.

He goes on to crow how everyone in the room are all "elites," to which NYU professor of "journalism" Jay Rosen jokes, "We are the one percent!"

But that's a joke like many things are jokes -- a difficult, tendentious admission is confessed to in a jokey format, to lessen the impact.

Good video. Shirky adds a little something to my understanding of bias with his explanation of how the NYT communicated what shied away from communicating expressly (i.e., "We at the NYT are gay for Obama!!!").

Although Shirky is himself a liberal, and a big NYT booster, he's adept at explaining how media bias is actually practiced.

And, as they say in the law, this is admissible in court as Statements Against Interest.



(They actually sit around and refer to themselves and their readers as elites. Good grief. Bask in the warm rays of glorious self-regard, dude.)To Catch a Journalist: New York Times, Jay Rosen, Clay Shirky - YouTube

But the people who were secretly recorded don't work for the NY Times. They are NYU professors.

They might not know jack about what the NY Times does.

And how ethical is it to secretly record them and put it on youtube?

[Taxi guy]

Originally Posted by celticvisa

I didn't know the Post was losing money. If Murdoch keeps it running despite losing money it means he wants to use it as a means to express his political ideology.

The only problem is, what kind of political ideology is that crap-rag expressing? An ideology of idiocy? The people who buy that piece of crap probably don't even vote.

There should be a campaign to boycott the Post. Something like:
If you love New York, don't buy the Post!

There is a boycott of sorts in that no one buys the rag anyway. They give away a lot of copies to schools and dog walkers. A few years back the Post was accused of falsifying their circulation numbers to boost the rates charged to advertisers. The paper is a joke but Murdoch has never seemed to really care about the losses. He has forced some union concessions but never got it into the black.

I haven't bought it in years but will admit to finding a copy on the subway now and then. It's pathetic but can be a funny read a two in the morning.

[Taxi guy]

Originally Posted by celticvisa

But the people who were secretly recorded don't work for the NY Times. They are NYU professors.

They might not know jack about what the NY Times does.

And how ethical is it to secretly record them and put it on youtube?

It's not ethical but then again we are talking about James O'Keefe of the phony pimp in the Acorn video fame. He is not a journalist. He is a political prankster who knows most viewers of this video will little note that the subjects do not work for the Times.

[celticvisa]

I forgot to mention - some people criticized AM NY and Metro - these papers are certainly better than the Post.

They give very brief articles but at least they are free and give you an overview of the news...

Also, I do some volunteer tutoring and AM NY has good intermediate vocab words for foreign students. :P

[celticvisa]

This thread is going to die soon, just wanted to say thanks for the feedback...I guess I'll buy one Post for my dog's poop and try to make it last for a month.

Or maybe I'll just use the free newspapers like AM NY or Metro.

Yeah, I'll use those. I don't want to put another 75 cents into Rupert Murdoch's pocket. Nor the pockets of the "journalists" who work there.

There are no Walmarts in NYC, so I guess the "writers" at the Post couldn't get any other type of job.

[Kefir King]

some people criticized AM NY and Metro - these papers are certainly better than the Post.

That is absolutely true. They are wretched rags but still better than THE POST which is both wretched and evil.

[Artzilla]

I always found that the Village Voice made for excellent litterbox lining for my pets, especially since it's free on top of ridiculous, lol.

[Fred314X]

One of the best reasons for using the Post as a pooper-scooper is the fact that Rupert Murdoch (who has no use for the sort of working person who actually lives in New York City) is behind it.

[hogstooth]

Liberal Bias is Killing the New York Times


The path towards irrelevancy and future insolvency taken by The New York Times continues at a frenetic pace. Democracy Now! is reporting that the publication has announced the elimination of another 100 newsroom positions, or about eight percent of the paper’s news staff, due to declining advertising revenues and circulation numbers that are in freefall.

Why are subscribers (and advertisers) of The New York Times fleeing to other newspapers (such as the Wall Street Journal, whose circulation numbers have remained steady), or to other avenues such as Fox News, for their news and information?

There is only one answer: The New York Times has a proclivity towards left-wing bias and unbalanced reporting of the news.

Even a cursory glance of the paper reveals its pervasive editorializing, which comes through loud and clear everywhere from page one to the obituaries. But just as damaging to it than its left-wing slant has been its complete lack of interest in any stories having the remotest possibility of tarnishing the hallowed image of President Barack Obama, an image which it and other members of the so-called “main-stream media” has had such an active role in creating.

Take, for example, two recent events which went completely unnoticed by The New York Times, but were covered in great depth by Fox News and conservative bloggers: the Van Jones and ACORN affairs. Marxist Van Jones was forced to resign in disgrace and ACORN was reeling from having had its funding and government connections cut after an undercover sting, and The New York Times– in both instances–was asleep at the wheel.

The complete lack of coverage given to the ACORN debacle so embarrassed the editor of the paper, Clark Hoyt, that he actually wrote a column about it promising to do better in the future and announcing that the paper was going to assign somebody to “monitor opinion media and brief them [the editors] frequently on bubbling controversies”!

no wonder that The New York Times has lost all credibility.

Biased journalists writing biased stories are not a winning formula for a newspaper purporting to provide its readers with “all the news that’s fit to print.” A left wing agenda, however you try and package it, is not news. The lack of ideological diversity at The New York Times (and the Boston Globe and all of the rest of the dying left-leaning publications) is the main reason that the paper is dying.

The real tragedy, however, is that the paper can still turn itself around. Nobody is killing The New York Times–it is committing suicide. A realignment of its editorial policy from far-left to center, and a loss of its timidity when it comes to reporting on stories which may reflect unfavorably on President Obama, might actually bring some of its readers, subscribers and advertisers back.

[SobroGuy]

The above comment is total nonsense. The path towards irrelevancy continues at a frenetic pace? Was this an opinions column from the dog scooper Post? You are giving accolades to Fox News and conservative bloggers????? I presume you are one of those bloggers...great job! Now go back to covering the wisdom and intelligencia that is Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Willard Romney and Michelle Bachman:

Rick Perry: Climate change doesn't exist!
Herman Cain: I would not hire any muslim in my cabinet. They cannot be trusted!
Ron Paul: If you don't have health insurance, it's your own fault and you will die in the streets! That's the price of "freedom" after all!
Willard Romney: Climate change is real. Climate change is not real. I dunno whether Climate change is real. I am already running for President in 2016 and 2020 just in case!
Michele Bachman: No point in saying anything about her...she's an old fashioned kinda crazy.

Oh let's not forget to boo all the service men fighting in Iraq if they are gay, and cheer as many people executed as possible!