TPS Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 quit whining Everyone knows constitutional rights should be suspended until the "war on terrorism" is over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 quit whining Everyone knows constitutional rights should be suspended until the "war on terrorism" is over... 789849[/snapback] login ID? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 login ID? 789855[/snapback] user: praiple pass: praiple source: bugmenot.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 user: praiplepass: praiple source: bugmenot.com 789898[/snapback] This is an issue I'm torn on. One one hand, I hate the idea of giving the Federal government more power than it already has (which is WAAY too much). On the other hand, I think anyone involved with a terrorist organization that threatens the safety of my countrymen OUGHT to be treated brutally. It's a matter of ideals vs. pragmatism for me. Ideally, I'd like this kind of thing to not happen. Practically, I'd like to see any means necessary to prevent something like this from happening again. Tough issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Bush Bad. GOP Bad. Wow, what a rarity for the NY Times to bash all things Republican five weeks before the elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 Bush Bad. GOP Bad.Wow, what a rarity for the NY Times to bash all things Republican five weeks before the elections. 790465[/snapback] They're going to be in rare form the next five weeks. At any point during the year they use misleading headlines and print facts selectively, but with an election around the corner I expect them to pull out all the stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 They're going to be in rare form the next five weeks. At any point during the year they use misleading headlines and print facts selectively, but with an election around the corner I expect them to pull out all the stops. 790569[/snapback] It was an editorial. You realize that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 It was an editorial. You realize that right? 790645[/snapback] Beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 It was an editorial. You realize that right? 790645[/snapback] I wasn't commenting on the link, just the NYT in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 The way they write in the NYT, what's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 30, 2006 Share Posted September 30, 2006 The way they write in the NYT, what's the difference? 790721[/snapback] Do you read the newspaper or are you just continuing to parrot was Ann Coulter told you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 Do you read the newspaper or are you just continuing to parrot was Ann Coulter told you? 790750[/snapback] You actually think the NYT is objective?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 You actually think the NYT is objective?? 790758[/snapback] I read the NYT and WSJ the most. I'd say both have certain bias from time to time. So what? I am a big boy. I can make up my own mind. Can you? Is that why you can't go 5 seconds without talking about the liberal media? Jesus H. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 You actually think the NYT is objective?? 790758[/snapback] You didn't answer my question: Do you actually read the newspaper, or are you just parroting Ann Colter again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 It was an editorial. You realize that right? 790645[/snapback] You don't actually read the NY Times do you? If you did, you might realize that the entire front section of the paper is an "editorial". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 You don't actually read the NY Times do you? If you did, you might realize that the entire front section of the paper is an "editorial". 791713[/snapback] You have trouble making up your own mind? Identify the objective newspaper and I'll give you a cookie. Until then, get over it. The "liberal bias" whiners are ust that: whiners. I read a both a liberal and conservative biased paper. And somehow I can make it through the day and make up my own mind. If you can't do that--make up your own mind--pick the paper with the bias you prefer and read it. That paper will make up your mind for you and you'll be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 You don't actually read the NY Times do you? If you did, you might realize that the entire front section of the paper is an "editorial". 791713[/snapback] Do you actually read it? I subscribe to the newspaper, and wholeheartedly disagree. For example, on Saturday, they had a piece on the front page talking about the detainee bill/military act and arguments against it. Guess what? They labeled it friggin News Analysis at the start of the piece. What more do you want? All in all, they do a pretty good job day in and day out, and are one of a small handful of elite news sources that the US media uses to find out the news from. I love how everyone who claims that the NYT is extremely liberal has a very short memory, where back in the day, before the intelligence was proven false, the Times was on Bush's side in regards to Iraq. In a May 26, 2004 newspaper, the Times wrote about their coverage in regards to Iraq, outlining where they found facts out, and how they screwed up some of the articles. They used some of the same sources as the Bush Administration, and ended up in the same results. It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. Lets talk about the editorial page of the NYT, shall we? -Tom Friedman supported and was hopeful for the Iraq War, but doesn't support the way the Bush administration has handled the post-war invasion. He thinks that the Bush administration !@#$ed up the post-invasion operations, and thats our biggest issue in Iraq. - Maureen Dowd, the feminist who hates men with power and criticizes them with hyperbole. Whether they are named Bush or Clinton, she's there to bash em. Liberal? Yeah, on social issues, but feminism seems to dominate her philosophy, which is why she is perceived as liberal but is really just out there. - David Brooks, a conservative who advocates the moderate views of the majority of America. He has been arguing for the invasion of Iraq his whole career, and supports the war. I remember reading an editorial recently from him which advocated the creation of a moderate 3rd party. Also, Brooks is a fan of Reagan. Damn, he's a liberal !@#$! - Bob Hebert, an African American who is a "classic" Democrat. He criticizes Bush on the War in Iraq, and his issues of focus are on racism and poverty. - Nicholas Kristof, who is focused on Human Rights abuses in Darfur and other places. He'd be considered a liberal due to his criticism of the Iraq war and his concern with pollution. - Paul Krugman, a critic of demand-side economics who advocates the view that political polarization in America is the result of class warfare. - Frank Rich, a critic of the Bush administration who relates politics to popular American culture. - John Tierney, a self-proclaimed libertarian, would be considered a "conservative" because of that on a left-right scale (even though I don't agree with that scale, I'll use it for the purposes of op-ed columnists). So, the breakdown that we have is: - 5 who are on the "Left" side of the scale (Dowd, Hebert, Kristof, Krugman, Rich) - Friedman in the middle - 2 on the "Right" (Brooks, Tierney). This means that of the Times op-ed columnists, 62.5% would be considered Liberal. Not overwhelming by any means. This means that a multitude of diverse views are supported on the NYT Op-Ed page given the diversity of the columnists. The Times has a liberal slant, as evidenced by my breakdown above, but does indeed present other sides of the story and other views. Not surprising, given that the Times is attempting to build a huge audience in a liberal leaning metropolitan city to sell to advertisers. If anything, the Times is biased toward The New York Times Company, advertisers to the Times, and companies friendly toward the NYTCO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 You have trouble making up your own mind? Identify the objective newspaper and I'll give you a cookie. Until then, get over it. The "liberal bias" whiners are ust that: whiners. I read a both a liberal and conservative biased paper. And somehow I can make it through the day and make up my own mind. If you can't do that--make up your own mind--pick the paper with the bias you prefer and read it. That paper will make up your mind for you and you'll be happy. 791811[/snapback] Yeah, it's expecting WAY too much for reporters to actually do their job and report the facts. Biased, misleading newspapers and TV shows are OK because everyone is doing it, right? The "whining" serves a purpose. It correctly points out that most of the outlets that people have been relying on for decades are complete trash. Oh, and by most estimates the number of reporters pushing a liberal agenda is much greater than those pushing a conservative one. Here's an example. In a two-party system, that counts for something. If more people know that their major media outlets are more interested in selling stories than presenting reality, there's a better chance people will seek out more sources of information. And it's not too much to ask major newspapers to report the facts correctly. They have the resources and in the age of the internet, the chances of slipping a bunch of crap through to the public and getting away with it are slim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 For example, on Saturday, they had a piece on the front page talking about the detainee bill/military act and arguments against it. Guess what? They labeled it friggin News Analysis at the start of the piece. What more do you want? 791846[/snapback] Less "analysis" on the front page would be a good start. Lets talk about the editorial page of the NYT, shall we? 791846[/snapback] You succeeded in pointing out that the NYT editorial page is liberal. Thanks, I guess. I'm more concerned that their headlines don't match their articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 1, 2006 Share Posted October 1, 2006 I'm more concerned that their headlines don't match their articles. 791859[/snapback] They've still got a ways to go before they reach Fox News' "Our headlines don't match reality" editorial standard. And for hell's sake, they're comparing the Washington Times to the NYT. That's like saying "My sh-- smells better than yours." It's still sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts