Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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 controversiesâ€!
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.
This is just over the top nonsense. Anybody who thinks that the New York Times is "far-left" is either totally out of touch with reality or failed their political science courses in college and don't understand what "far left" means.
If anything, the Times is an establishment paper. It's biases are not left or right, but toward those who hold power in society, whether political, economic, or social. Politically, it will cozy up to whoever is in power, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, because that is how it defines itself as the "paper of record" and how it gets its inside news sources. And despsite that, on occassion it will actually take issue with that power somsetimes. Anybody here old enough to remember the Pentagon Papers?
The real issue is that conservative types can't control the most influential paper in the country (along with the Washington Post). Well, tough. You can't always get what you want.
This is just over the top nonsense. Anybody who thinks that the New York Times is "far-left" is either totally out of touch with reality or failed their political science courses in college and don't understand what "far left" means.
If anything, the Times is an establishment paper. It's biases are not left or right, but toward those who hold power in society, whether political, economic, or social. Politically, it will cozy up to whoever is in power, Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, because that is how it defines itself as the "paper of record" and how it gets its inside news sources. And despsite that, on occassion it will actually take issue with that power somsetimes. Anybody here old enough to remember the Pentagon Papers?
The real issue is that conservative types can't control the most influential paper in the country (along with the Washington Post). Well, tough. You can't always get what you want.
I have never thought the NY Times to be especially liberal (I consider myself to be quite liberal).
In regard to the "hidden camera" passage, those were just two NYU professors acting like know-it-alls for their students. Profs love doing that - pretending to have "insider" info when they've never been insiders in their lives. :P :P :P
I loved that in graduate school, when the prof would act as if he held the masonic secrets of the universe even though he had never held down a real job in his life.
Readership has been falling since 1990 and the trend shows no signs of reversing.
The paper’s motto is “All the News That’s Fit to Print”, but is more accurately described as “”All the News That Fits the Leftist Agenda.”
A study of media bias by the University of California at Los Angeles, Media Bias is Real, found that the New York Times has the second most liberal news pages in the nation.
A study by the University of California Los Angeles rated the New York Times as having a liberal slant of 73.7, with 50 being a score showing no slant and 100 being a score showing the most slant.
Daniel Okrent, former public editor of the New York Times, revealed deliberate censorship of conservative views by the Times editorial board:
When I was at the Times – my term there ended four years ago – everybody on the editorial board was a Democrat. I asked Gail Collins, who was then the editorial page editor, “Why don’t you have a greater ideological variety and philosophical variety so you can have richer debate on the page?” And she said, “If I had a couple of conservatives on this page, they’d be unhappy all the time. They’d either have to write something that wasn’t their view, because we decide our view consensually, or they’d never get to write. So, what’s the point?”
The American people are not blind to this constant propagandizing and censorship.
A Rasmussen report in showed that only 24% of Americans had a favorable opinion of The New York Times.
The New York Times failing because they have failed to do their job — to report the news.
Newspapers are losing money because the economy is in a nosedive and print media is being superceded by Electronic news sources.
If the Times went the route of the POST and DAILY NEWS and gave issues away free a lot more would be in circulation. Then a billionaire could use his money and could free the Times from anything like reporting the truth and concentrate on political invective.
As it is, today the Times is a struggling newspaper and the only Centrist paper in New York. (It always has appeared Leftist to those of the far right over it's history: the monarchists, Fascists, Nazis, and plutocrats.
Anyone giving it a fair reading must conclude theat the NY Times is the only paper in New York presenting balanced reporting, to the extent of giving Progressivism short shrift.
Newspapers are losing money because the economy is in a nosedive and print media is being superceded by Electronic news sources.
If the Times went the route of the POST and DAILY NEWS and gave issues away free a lot more would be in circulation. Then a billionaire could use his money and could free the Times from anything like reporting the truth and concentrate on political invective.
As it is, today the Times is a struggling newspaper and the only Centrist paper in New York. (It always has appeared Leftist to those of the far right over it's history: the monarchists, Fascists, Nazis, and plutocrats.
Anyone giving it a fair reading must conclude theat the NY Times is the only paper in New York presenting balanced reporting, to the extent of giving Progressivism short shrift.
isn't the times being kept afloat by the world's rishest man in mexico?
The Ochs-Sulzberger family, one of the United States's newspaper dynasties, has owned The New York Times since 1896.[13] After the publisher went public in the 1960s, the family continued to exert control through its ownership of the vast majority of Class B voting shares. Class A shareholders are permitted restrictive voting rights while Class B shareholders are allowed open voting rights. Dual-class structures caught on in the mid-20th century as families such as the Grahams of The Washington Post Company sought to gain access to public capital without losing control. Dow Jones & Co., publisher of The Wall Street Journal, had a similar structure and was controlled by the Bancroft family; the company was later bought by the News Corporation in 2007.[39]
The Ochs-Sulzberger family trust controls roughly 88 percent of the company's class B shares. Any alteration to the dual-class structure must be ratified by six of eight directors who sit on the board of the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust. The Trust board members are Daniel H. Cohen, James M. Cohen, Lynn G. Dolnick, Susan W. Dryfoos, Michael Golden, Eric M. A. Lax, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr. and Cathy J. Sulzberger.[40]
Carlos Slim is the Mexican telecom billionaire who owns a chunk of the the NYT and recently upped his stake in the paper. Still, despite his stake, he does not run it.
This, from the WSJ in Oct of this year:
"Mexican telecom billionaire Carlos Slim significantly increased his stake in the New York Times Co. for the second time in less than two months, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Slim earlier this week purchased 850,000 Class A common shares of the company at between $5.54 and $6 a share. The shares, acquired through the entity Inmobiliaria Carso SA de CV, increased Mr. Slim's stake in the media company to 8.1% from 7.5%.....
Including the warrants, which expire in January 2015, Mr. Slim through some of his entities owns 27.8 million shares, or about 17.1% of Times Co.'s Class A common shares."
Difference between his stake and Murdoch taking over the WSJ and NY Post seems to me to be that Slim, from what I can gather, has no big interest in influencing the editorial or news pages, while Murdoch clearly wants to be a political player worldwide and uses his papers to do so.
And yes, the newspaper business, and the NYT too, is in trouble mainly because of the rise of the Internet and athe loss of ads becuse of the recession. That's why they got Slim to invest. He gets the prestige of backing the Times, and they get his money. And remembmber, Murdoch got the chance to buy the Post and the WSJ because their finances were on the wane and the controlling families wanted to sell out. Papers are in trouble because of economics, not ideology.
there are more things on heaven and on earth than you can find on wikipedia.
there's a mexican zillionaire who has floated loans to the gray lady.
google: "richest man in the world new york times" and i think you'll find something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I concur
