NYT manipulating news????

[Annie]

I bet you can't find a liberal on this message board that thinks Fox is the only biased news network. You have demonized liberals to the point that you actually think they are less intelligent than conservatives.

So which do you consider biased, and veering which way?

 

[Gunny]

please tell me who exactly is the conservative mainstream media??

is it the new york times?
is it the washington post?
is it msnbc?
is itcnn?
is it the boston globe?
is it abc, nbc or cbs?

Yet another liberal myth. There is no such entity.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yet another liberal myth. There is no such entity.

my point exactly, gunny

 

[rayboyusmc]

I know a lot won't read what contradicts their current biases, but you never know when the light will shine from under the bushel.

People should be aware that attempts made by partisans to determine the ideology of a newspaper are biased, and people seeking accurate news should be aware of these findings. The point of this article is not merely to disprove Insight’s findings, but to explain why more people, namely academics and scholars, do not try to label newspapers by their ideologies. People should be aware of this when they read articles attempting to categorize or label newspapers as liberal or conservative. They should also be aware that they are probably reading partisan prose lacking reliable and valid methods. Newspapers cannot validly and reliably be labeled by how liberal or conservative they are. The ideology of a newspaper is in the eye, and methods, of the beholder.

Most newspapers across the country consistently endorse the Republican and more conservative candidate. In most elections, the Republican candidate is identified as the conservative candidate because the Republican is usually more conservative than the Democratic candidate. In fact, every election year, except 1964 and 1992, of the newspapers that did endorse a candidate, more endorsed the conservative candidate. Since 1948, newspapers supported the Republican candidate 86.7%, while the Democratic candidates received 13.3% of the endorsements.

These data are very different from Insight’s results. Insight rated the Chicago Tribune as liberal because of one quotation. Based on the presidential endorsement data, the Chicago Tribune would be considered a conservative newspaper because during all thirteen elections since 1948, it has endorsed a Republican candidate. From this method it is surely not one of the top liberal five in the U.S., as Insight purports.

Because conservative and liberal are broad terms, defining them is important so there is no misunderstanding. Using Fred N. Kerlinger’s definition, conservatism might be rendered:

Conservatism is a set of social beliefs characterized by emphasis on the status quo, and social stability, religion and morality, liberty and freedom, the natural inequality of men, the uncertainty of progress, and the weakness of human reason . . . and the central importance of business and industry in society.

He describes liberalism as,


A set of social beliefs that emphasizes freedom of the individual, constitutional participatory government and democracy, the rule of law, free negotiations, discussion and tolerance of different views, constructive social progress and change, egalitarianism and the rights of minorities, secular rationality and rational approaches to social problems, and positive government action to remedy social deficiencies and to improve human welfare.

http://www2.ups.edu/faculty/haltom/virtualjournal/vroman.htm

 

[Larkinn]

Actually the NYT kept the story under wraps because McCain was pressuring them too. They finally ran the story right before another news organization was going to run a story on them keeping the story under wraps. Oh, and by the way if you had actually read the endorsement of McCain, you would have noticed that it wasn't exactly favorable.

 

[jillian]

Primary Choices: John McCain

Published: January 25, 2008
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCain’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a country’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?

That man is not running for president.

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

The other candidates offer no better choices.

Mitt Romney’s shape-shifting rivals that of Mr. Giuliani. It is hard to find an issue on which he has not repositioned himself to the right since he was governor of Massachusetts. It is impossible to figure out where he stands or where he would lead the country.

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, is an affable, reassuring Baptist minister who talks about a softer Christian conservativism. His policies tell the real story. To attract Republican primary voters, he has become an anti-immigrant absolutist. His insertion of religion into the race, herding Mr. Romney into a defense of his beliefs, disqualified him for the Oval Office.

Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do. We disagree on issues like reproductive rights and gay marriage.

In 2006, however, Mr. McCain stood up for the humane treatment of prisoners and for a ban on torture. We said then that he was being conned by Mr. Bush, who had no intention of following the rules. But Mr. McCain took a stand, just as he did in recognizing the threat of global warming early. He has been a staunch advocate of campaign finance reform, working with Senator Russ Feingold, among the most liberal of Democrats, on groundbreaking legislation, just as he worked with Senator Edward Kennedy on immigration reform.

That doesn’t make him a moderate, but it makes him the best choice for the party’s presidential nomination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri2.html

 

[midcan5]

please tell me who exactly is the conservative mainstream media??

is it the new york times?
is it the washington post?
is it msnbc?
is itcnn?
is it the boston globe?
is it abc, nbc or cbs?

From the sixties and 70s when I read the times regularly, yes, it is more conservative today but basically moderate and usually well done.

The Post is conservative today, its ownership changed. Read it.

CNN has many conservative voices. All the others I would consider conservative as well.

Why? Because you will never see them handle controversial topics as they once did. Ownership is usually conservative and ad policy follows from that. During NAM there were graphics and pictures and an attempt to portray reality. No one does that today as it is in bad taste to show death and the destruction of our planet. Life magazine was another example then of a liberal press. When is the last time you saw some information about what corporations are doing to the environment or in depth heathcare stories or inner city education or poverty? MM is the only one who did HC. Conservatism has changed the nature of the press, they are scared of being called biased so they do the lukewarm over and over again. Still looking for an answer.

 

[Skull Pilot]

From the sixties and 70s when I read the times regularly, yes, it is more conservative today but basically moderate and usually well done.

The Post is conservative today, its ownership changed. Read it.

CNN has many conservative voices. All the others I would consider conservative as well.

Why? Because you will never see them handle controversial topics as they once did. Ownership is usually conservative and ad policy follows from that. During NAM there were graphics and pictures and an attempt to portray reality. No one does that today as it is in bad taste to show death and the destruction of our planet. Life magazine was another example then of a liberal press. When is the last time you saw some information about what corporations are doing to the environment or in depth heathcare stories or inner city education or poverty? MM is the only one who did HC. Conservatism has changed the nature of the press, they are scared of being called biased so they do the lukewarm over and over again. Still looking for an answer.

your opinion on what is conservative is that everything is conservative because you are far far left

controversial topics is one thing but what about a more subtle bend to stories? what about the doom and gloom that libs spout at every opportunity? that type of reporting favaors the liberal mindset and has nothing to do with controversy or controversial topics

here you go

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

i especially like this part:


Admissions of Liberal Bias. A number of journalists have admitted that the majority of their brethren approach the news from a liberal angle. During the 2004 presidential campaign, for example, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas predicted that sympathetic media coverage would boost Kerry’s vote by “maybe 15 points,” which he later revised to five points. In 2005, ex-CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter confessed he stopped watching his old network: “The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me.” See Section