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 only NY paper I will read is The Post because every other paper panders to the Liberals big time and The NY Times is the worst! It's losing readership like crazy even in Liberal NY. I'd love to see them fold completely.
I read the NYT because there is better depth in most of its articles (and I hate sports). Granted it's sometimes ridiculously slanted to liberal, but one learns to read past that predictable spin. Maybe I should look at the WSJ--I've always imagined it was too business-focused for my leisure interest.
I read the NYT because there is better depth in most of its articles (and I hate sports). Granted it's sometimes ridiculously slanted to liberal, but one learns to read past that predictable spin. Maybe I should look at the WSJ--I've always imagined it was too business-focused for my leisure interest.
WSJ used to be a very respectable financial paper. Its been going downhill since Murdoch took over and fired the previous editor in 2008... just a year before that in 2007 WSJ won the Pulitzer prize. A lot of the articles since then resemble more Fox News/Glenn Beck types. Lets just say that even the financial articles in WSJ now are full of half-truths (McDonalds controversy this year for example).
Post is owned by that **** Murdoch. He would not get any money out of me.
NYT is alright except their soccer reporters and they also own 17% of Liverpool FC. I think tey are too center right.
Manchester Guardian is my favorite paper despite it having Manchester, UK origins. I like that it is liberal and Jonathan Wilson writes for them. James Richardson is God.
Both the Post and the Times news reportage leans hilariously. However, the Post knows what it is: an affordable rag with oftentimes great snarky writing. 'Headless Body in Topless Bar' FTW.
It's well known that the NYT is the MOST leftist paper, of the major newspapers, in the country. It's the equivalent of MSNBC in newspaper form. Hope it goes under.
The WSJ is very in-depth without the propagandistic slant of the NYT.
It's well known that the NYT is the MOST leftist paper, of the major newspapers, in the country. It's the equivalent of MSNBC in newspaper form. Hope it goes under.
The WSJ is very in-depth without the propagandistic slant of the NYT.
NYT is left leaning and not leftest, but I cant say far left. I was reading some history about Leo Frank. 100 years ago Leo Frank was accused of Raping and killing little Mary Phagan. Leo Frank was a prominante Brooklyn businsess man and a Jew and he was good friends of the owner of the NYT who was also a Jew. NYT tried everything to get Leo Frank aquited but failed at every corner. NYT tried to rally everyone to save Leo Frank. Instead some nasty Southerners decide to noose Leo Frank. Sad story.
The Times, like every other paper in the country, doesn't make the money it once did, not becuase its badly run, but because ALL papers are in dire financial straits: the recession plus the rise of the Internet has stolen tons of advertising that used to routinely go into newspapers. You want to look for real estate, a job? Its not the newspaper you turn to anymore, its the Internet. Papers all over the country have been closing, merging, combining sections,firing staff and going into Chpater 11. The problems at the Times are no different. The NY Post stays afloat only because Murcdoch subsidizes it from his other operations. He puts no money in the news side of it and it still manages to lose (I've read) about $30 million each year. The NY Times, like it or not, does put alot of money into the news hole, still operating many (but fewer) foreign and domestic bureaus and sending reporters to cover news as it happens anywhere. It can do so to the extent it still does because its upscale readers attract those upscale advertisers. It is true that there is class difference between the the typical NY Times reader and typical NY Post reader. I once heard an interveiw years ago from a department store exec who was asked why he didnt advertise in the NY Post. I'll never forget his answer: "Because their readers are our shoplifters." Over the top, yes, but that's the rep a rag like the Post had gotten even years ago.
You know how some business equip their employees with BBs right? The NYT is equiping every journalist with iphone4s to capture photos and write articles anywhere in the world.
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.
