The NY Times is so unbelievably awful (enemies, regime, ideology)
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.
Actually, the NY Times is the closest thing we have to a national newspaper. Wingnuts aren't much good at reading, though. But they have Fox News to feed them their daily talking points. If they don't have access to cable, then Beck and Limbaugh can give them their thoughts for the day.
they are self-described "Center-right." you're the first person i've heard describe them as "left leaning". How do you figure? Do you have any examples?
Ok, so who do you consider objective.
Right....................... I guess you have not really read "The Economist" at all. It spends a good deal of time praising Obama and criticizing George Bush. It the champion of Keynesian economics. Have you actually ever read it????????
i don't share their views on many topics, but i still have to admit it's a quality paper. They might be biased, but they are typically very professional. By comparison it makes the Wall Street Journal look pretty bad.
No, they're not professional nor high quality. They routinely make mistakes and then have to post apologies and corrections. Remember the time they posted a pic of a bloodied man at the feet of an Israeli police officer who had a club raised, and the caption said the bloodied man was a poor Palestinian being attacked by Israeli police at a gas station on the Temple Mount . . . only, there ARE no gas stations on the Temple Mount, and furthermore, when the photo was zoomed out and reprinted, it showed that the bloodied man was a JEW who was being beaten by a mob of Palis and the Israeli cop had his club raised to protect the Jewish man against the Pali mob. A crop job, zoom in made it appear as if the man on the ground was being beaten by the cop. OY.
If you call that "high quality" then I can't help you. The NY Slimes makes those kinds of mistakes frequently if it serves their bias.
Meanwhile, the WSJ is and has been a truly professional paper for decades.
well that's the problem, media in general has become more partisan. Comparing it to its former self in 1960 isn't important, what's important is its comparison to other news outlets TODAY. WSJ is easily just as biased to the right as the NYT is to the left, if not moreso.
i don't read the NYT pretending it is pure objectivity, i expect it to give me the a well-informed centrist-left leaning perspective, and that's what it does.
what i don't understand is the people who are conservative, who refuse to read a liberal newspaper to see the opposing point of view. A conservative who relies on conservative news outlets is basically guaranteed to be ignorant, just like a liberal who only reads liberal sources.
Uh . . . do you listen to Rush Limbaugh to get the "other side"? If not, why not? Probably because you think he's nonsense. Well, the NYT has become nonsense.
They also frequently run stories on assisted reproductive technologies, something I know a great deal about as an infertility nurse, and the errors are just egregious -- unbelievable! That paper alone keeps RESOLVE busy writing corrections.
Right....................... I guess you have not really read "The Economist" at all. It spends a good deal of time praising Obama and criticizing George Bush. It the champion of Keynesian economics. Have you actually ever read it????????
i have had a subscription to it for years, yes.
You didn't answer my question, though. To you, who is an objective news source?
Uh . . . do you listen to Rush Limbaugh to get the "other side"?
Very, very rarely
Quote:
If not, why not?
Well his facts are too frequently wrong to qualify as "news", and his opinions are too ideological and partisan to have value to me.
Quote:
Well, the NYT has become nonsense.
You're entitled to your opinion. I think you're crazy to compare Limbaugh to the NYT, but I guess I shouldn't be shocked by that level of partisanship. Just because they're both biased doesn't mean that they're equally correct.
Well his facts are too frequently wrong to qualify as "news", and his opinions are too ideological and partisan to have value to me.
You're entitled to your opinion. I think you're crazy to put Limbaugh and the NYT on the same wavelength. Just because they're both biased doesn't mean that they're equally correct.
I see you conveniently chose to ignore the facts I supplied in support of my views. I have to conclude that facts do not mean as much to you as you claim they do.
I see you conveniently chose to ignore the facts I supplied in support of my views. I have to conclude that facts do not mean as much to you as you claim they do.
What facts? You said something about Rush Limbaugh. I just now scrolled up to see you babbling about Israel and Palestine, and I don't have anything to say about it. I don't pay attention to middle eastern news coverage from any source because it isn't important to me. Nor do I see a bias for or against any middle eastern faction as proof of liberal or conservative bias in reporting. Nor is the existence of errors proof of anything -- all papers make errors, and at least they admit they make mistakes.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is for other people, not for me. I don't care about it, and I don't see either side as liberal or conservative.
What facts? You said something about Rush Limbaugh. I just now scrolled up to see you babbling about Israel and Palestine, and I don't have anything to say about it. I don't pay attention to middle eastern news coverage from any source because it isn't important to me. Nor do I see a bias for or against any middle eastern faction as proof of liberal or conservative bias in reporting.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is for other people, not for me. I don't care about it, and I don't see either side as liberal or conservative.
WHO'S babbling now??? What you are saying is that you DON"T CARE ABOUT FACTS IN NEWS REPORTING. Your pathetic attempt to camouflage that as a lack of interest in a particular subject matter is laughable.
The NYT doctored a photograph in a deliberate attempt to tell a lie - you don't care about that?
What you are saying is that you DON"T CARE ABOUT FACTS IN NEWS REPORTING. Your pathetic attempt to camouflage that as a lack of interest in a particular subject matter is laughable.
hah. I love the P&OC. This is one of the few places where people will TELL you what it is that you think.
errors in news coverage are like recalls in car manufacturing. everybody makes them, and the good ones make fewer of them, while the bad ones don't even admit to them.
As far as the doctored photo goes, i don't know anything about it. I do know that Fox News doctored an audio clip of Ron Paul the other day, that's as far as my memory goes.
i don't give a flying f*** about the middle east, or israel. I skip coverage of that in any newspaper. I couldn't tell you which newspaper supported which group. I would assume since New York has a lot of Jews, that the NYT would bend over backwards to make the Israelis look good, but who knows. In any event you're going to have to find a more compelling subject to rant about, or else come up with some main point you're trying to get across. Or do you have a point? It looks like the purpose of your posts is to attack my character, personally.
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.
