Is the sky blue?

Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT

Published: July 25, 2004

OF course it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?pagewanted=all&position

Goes on to say, you're bound to be offended or outraged by the perspective of the Times if you're one of those freaks who dont live in major metropolitan areas, own guns, vote Republican, or believe in God. I have to say it's refreshing to hear them admit their bias. For ONCE.

[Edited on Jul 24, 2004 by stockula]

I don't care about the NY Times.
But the sky isn't blue.

If I believe it is five and not four and you believe it is five and not four, then it is five.

[Edited on Jul 25, 2004 by FrameOfReference]

cuz so many people read the new york times in this country as opposed to getting their news from a television outlet like, say, FOX news....

Let me guess, you got this from a "hat tip" and have utterly no idea who the Public Editor is and what he does.

Wake me when Rupert Murdoch or the Reverend Moon or Jonah Goldberg hires someone for the express purpose of criticizing them. I'll be expecting a long, long nap.

E.d.i.t.o.r.i.a.l

I have yet to find a better newspaper than the N.Y.T.

No, Okrent was hired after a tsunami of complaints about the incredible unfairness of editorial columnists like Dowd and especially paul Krugman. His ostensible role was to rein in their extremeism and wild errors.

Okrent comes off as though the NY Times was just another local paper covering stories for its small local audience and reflecting said sensibilities. We all know it's much more than that.

What happened, did someone donate another whopping $400?

Yeah, cause thats exactly what he said. Sorry Stock, but while word may not have reached the frozen north, the majority of Americans aren't Republican, do live in urban areas, and want gun control. Moreover, most liberals believe in God they just prefer to do it on their own time.

I'm sorry your biased papers suck, but there's a reason the NYT is the paper of record. When they start putting arch liberals on Fox or in the W Times or the NRO, the converse of which the Times does and continues to do, perhaps you'll have a point. Until then you're just a bitter reactionary whose upset that your viewpoint isn't popular enough to be espoused by people who can compete in the marketplace and have to be subsidized by billionaires or churned out in cyberspace by amateurs.

Still waiting for the empirical basis for last weeks screed, by the way.

I guess that's why the House of Representatives is firmly controlled by Republicans and why half of cable news viewers watch Fox. Because this country is overwhelmingly liberal and aligned with the Democrat party.

[Edited on Jul 26, 2004 by stockula]

yep, gerry-mandering had nothing to do with THAT debacle, especially in texas.

and where do you get half?

Damn! I wanted to read about the sky!!

Why do you keep denying reality? This country is split 50/50 (or nearly) politically. Why do you think this is a result of political manipulation or disinformation? Especially when the mainstream media is undeniably (and admittedly in this case) biased towards leftist politics?

What I am pissed about is that the most powerful media organs skew their output in a deliberately biased expression that does not reflect reality. And what happens when media outlets reflect the views and outlooks of close to 50% of the populace? We get hit pieces like "Out foxed" and so on, to tell you how biased and ideological the news is.

Suddenly, media bias is a terrible phenomenon, because it isn;t telling the story the way WE want it told and want YOU to believed.

Ergo, FoxNews=El Diablo.

[Edited on Jul 26, 2004 by stockula]

In Krugman's case, you're talking about those "wild errors" pointed out by, erm, Donald fucking Luskin? Are you deliberately trying to grind any credibility you might have into the ground? I guess so.

Here's the deal, stock. I know you and I have had conversations that later on you've forgotten that we've had.

One of those was where you pissed and moaned about Krugman and made unsubstantiated claims about his supposedly wild and egregious errors. I called you on it, and you went silent. He's almost always accused of errors by people with far worse track records -- only they just happen to have politics more sympathetic to yours, so you're happy to overlook any sloppiness on their part.

Seriously. Put, or shut, the fuck up. This is beyond pathetic. By ANY measure, Bush is one of the most extremist presidents in the history of the US, and you call Krugman and Down extremist?

I'm starting to wonder what colour the sky really IS in your world ...

[Edited on Jul 26, 2004 by TheFuckOffKid]

TFOK, the harsher burden is to show where Krugman;'s been right rather than where he has been wrong. I seem to remember hi predicting an Argentina-style collapse of the US economy a few months ago. Not the case, to his chagrin.

You "seem to remember"?

How about you quote exactly what was said rather than do your usual vague "I sort of recall he made some kind of forecast which hasn't come true".

You can find his writings archived here.

Go look, find, and come back and post the actual quote and the context it was made in. Otherwise, seriously, just shut the fuck up. This is just fucking puerile.

I assume people watch Fox for the same reasons they eat at MCDonald's. Simple, quick, and easy - but probably not very good for you.

i actually spat my tea out then, i was laughing so much!

Firstly, the Republicans control the house with 52%. Hardly a crushing mandate. Your current executive couldn't even win the popular vote in a pluralistic election. Secondly, "half of Cable news viewers" don't watch Fox, Fox has a higher share than CNN but a lower cume. In short, in any given hour (about a 3/4 million people or so, again no crushing mandate there) are watching Fox, but they're the same people every hour, and their numbers are heavily weighted to daytime when real people have jobs. If you look at the number of different people tuning in in a day Fox gets crushed. Plus, 3/4 of Americans don't watch cable news at all unless there's a fast breaking crisis. "Liberal" Dan Rather gets a five times higher share than the most popular show on Fox. Funny how the chattering class doesn't call that a mandate.

Fox News: the channel for disgruntled retirees.

And at the last election your candidate was unable to win the electoral vote.

What is that liberal elitism? real people? Fox wins the imaginary people? the insignificant?....

Genius.

Which is a function of where people live, not how they vote.

Fox doesn't "win" anything. Fox's core audience is retirees who can afford cable and don't have anything to do but watch TV all day. This is not a mandate and saying so isn't elitism its a fact.