KRC Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 Nah, that wasn't my point (and their agenda is to make money, they'll shape the news however it takes to do that). My point was that not everything that comes from the NYT is bad, unlike some people here (not you) think. 761528[/snapback] You need to read it knowing the built-in bias. I will read some of their international coverage, but I rarely read their domestic coverage. I generally avoid all opinion stuff, regardless of the source, but this one peaked my interest when I read the title.
Chilly Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 You need to read it knowing the built-in bias. I will read some of their international coverage, but I rarely read their domestic coverage. I generally avoid all opinion stuff, regardless of the source, but this one peaked my interest when I read the title. 761535[/snapback] Yup. True with any big newspaper though. Easiest way to look at it is just remember who it is being marketed for. I do think that the NYT's opinion staff is very good though, Tom Friedman, David Brooks, and Maureen Dowd all have well thought out opinions and quite a bit of political science knowledge.
SilverNRed Posted September 4, 2006 Author Posted September 4, 2006 Yup. True with any big newspaper though. Easiest way to look at it is just remember who it is being marketed for. I do think that the NYT's opinion staff is very good though, Tom Friedman, David Brooks, and Maureen Dowd all have well thought out opinions and quite a bit of political science knowledge. 761540[/snapback] Maureen Dowd??? All her stuff is high school humor and fluff. Even when she occasionally writes something that isn't incoherent, she's a complete lightweight. Back when you could read her editorials online for free, it was almost fun to check out her stuff just to see how flimsy it was and how few facts she'd ever sprinkle in. Friedman is good. The World is Flat was worth reading.
Chilly Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 Maureen Dowd??? All her stuff is high school humor and fluff. Even when she occasionally writes something that isn't incoherent, she's a complete lightweight. Back when you could read her editorials online for free, it was almost fun to check out her stuff just to see how flimsy it was and how few facts she'd ever sprinkle in. Friedman is good. The World is Flat was worth reading. 761565[/snapback] She varies widely. Sometimes she is as you say, and sometimes she does actually write pieces worth reading.
KRC Posted September 4, 2006 Posted September 4, 2006 I do think that the NYT's opinion staff is very good though, Tom Friedman, David Brooks, and Maureen Dowd all have well thought out opinions and quite a bit of political science knowledge. 761540[/snapback] You had me until you mentioned Dowd.
Chilly Posted September 5, 2006 Posted September 5, 2006 You had me until you mentioned Dowd. 761654[/snapback] Heheh. There have been some decent pieces that she's written, and some idiotic ones. A lot of her role is emotional bull sh--, but she has written some interesting political opinions.
buckeyemike Posted September 6, 2006 Posted September 6, 2006 Maureen Dowd??? All her stuff is high school humor and fluff. Even when she occasionally writes something that isn't incoherent, she's a complete lightweight. Back when you could read her editorials online for free, it was almost fun to check out her stuff just to see how flimsy it was and how few facts she'd ever sprinkle in. 761565[/snapback] And I for one still believe she's upset that Michael Douglas married CZJ and not her.
TPS Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 I guess if you believe the Post piece, then you have to believe this piece, which is from one of the original sources of the post article. Plame's role at CIA
/dev/null Posted September 7, 2006 Posted September 7, 2006 And I for one still believe she's upset that Michael Douglas married CZJ and not her. 763151[/snapback] She can join all the men who were upset that CZJ married Michael Douglas and not them
TheMadCap Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 They are wrong again. I'll tell you who ratted her out: It was that damn sasquatch....
/dev/null Posted September 8, 2006 Posted September 8, 2006 They are wrong again. I'll tell you who ratted her out:It was that damn sasquatch.... 764447[/snapback] crab people
Recommended Posts