The difference between papers like the New York Times, and media outlets like FoxNews

[Vast LWC]

National Enquirer - John Edwards just sayin'

Yeah, but the Enquirer reports 10 supposed affairs a week. If you keep shooting at the same target thousands of times, you're sure to hit it eventually, no matter how bad your aim is.

 

[Vast LWC]

Do you actually know how a news story 'breaks'?

Yes, reporters gather information from various sources and put it in a story.

Sometimes stories are gained from press releases, which means no-one "breaks" the story, but sometimes one media source fins the information themselves and does "break" the story, like in this case.

 

[Stephanie]

oh well then, I'm supposed to be impressed or what?

No, you're supposed to admit that your implication that I get my news from one leftward-leaning source was incorrect.

I'll admit that, when you apologize to me for your little put down that I have never read an edition of the NySlimes.

I'll wait.

 

[California Girl]

Do you actually know how a news story 'breaks'?

Yes, reporters gather information from various sources and put it in a story.

Sometimes stories are gained from press releases, which means no-one "breaks" the story, but sometimes one media source fins the information themselves and does "break" the story, like in this case.

Actually, that is completely wrong.

When it comes to scandals, and that is what we are talking to about on this thread... it goes something like this.....

Politician does something scandalous.

One of his 'friends', 'colleagues' or enemies hears about it.

They call a media outlet and spill the beans.

Media outlet may - or may not - check for accuracy.

Then they run the story..... it 'breaks'.

Now, if that politician is a Republican, the guy with the dirt will, more than likely, call a left leaning outlet - because they are more likely to run it without being too careful about the 'facts'.

If that politician is a Democrat, the guy with the dirt will, more than likely, call a right leaning outlet - for the exact same reasons.

They take it to the outlet that either they think is most likely to run it, or with which they already have a 'relationship'.... ie that the guy with the dirt already knows a journalist at a particular paper or outlet.

It is not the journalists who go looking for it, it gets handed to them. Democrat sources will usually go to a left leaning outlet. Republicans will usually go to a right leaning one.

End of lesson.

 

[boedicca]

Linda McMahon's campaign claims they provided the G2 to the NYT.


The Blumenthal Bombshell comes at the end of more than 2 months of deep, persistent research by Republican Linda McMahon’s Senate campaign. It gave the explosive Norwalk video recording to The Times. This is what comes of $16 million, a crack opposition research operation and an opponent who, in the words of the president Blumenthal worked for on a draft deferment, who gave them the sword.

http://www.dailyructions.com/mcmahon-strikes-turns-blumenthal-into-bruce-caputo/

 

[Vast LWC]

Do you actually know how a news story 'breaks'?

Yes, reporters gather information from various sources and put it in a story.

Sometimes stories are gained from press releases, which means no-one "breaks" the story, but sometimes one media source fins the information themselves and does "break" the story, like in this case.

Actually, that is completely wrong.

When it comes to scandals, and that is what we are talking to about on this thread... it goes something like this.....

Politician does something scandalous.

One of his 'friends', 'colleagues' or enemies hears about it.

They call a media outlet and spill the beans.

Media outlet may - or may not - check for accuracy.

Then they run the story..... it 'breaks'.

Now, if that politician is a Republican, the guy with the dirt will, more than likely, call a left leaning outlet - because they are more likely to run it without being too careful about the 'facts'.

If that politician is a Democrat, the guy with the dirt will, more than likely, call a right leaning outlet - for the exact same reasons.

They take it to the outlet that either they think is most likely to run it, or with which they already have a 'relationship'.... ie that the guy with the dirt already knows a journalist at a particular paper or outlet.

It is not the journalists who go looking for it, it gets handed to them. Democrat sources will usually go to a left leaning outlet. Republicans will usually go to a right leaning one.

End of lesson.

OK:

1. None of that contradicts my statement.

and

2. Even if all of what you said is true, the media outlet in question still gets to choose to run the story or not.

My point was that the NY Times runs this story, thus "breaking" it. FoxNews does not. The story quoted was after the congressman in question had already decided to quit, and certainly did not "break" any news.

 

[boedicca]

How odd. LWC finds one instance of the NYT breaking a story, and think that it proves that Fox has never broken a story.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'll admit that, when you apologize to me for your little put down that I have never read an edition of the NySlimes.

I'll wait.

ROFL. You're calling it the "NYSlimes" and I'm supposed to think that you read it?

Seriously?

I'll tell you what, as soon as you call it by the correct name, I'll believe that you've picked up a copy and used it for anything but lining for a hamster cage.

 

[Vast LWC]

How odd. LWC finds one instance of the NYT breaking a story, and think that it proves that Fox has never broken a story.

OK,

1. The NY Times breaks stories critical of Democrats all the time.

2. The NY Times has it's own public editor that it prints every week with criticisms of their own work.

and

3. I can't remember the last time I have ever gone to FoxNews.com and found a breaking news story critical of a Republican, unless the story was the Republican in question was breaking ranks with his fellow Republicans on some issue.

 

[boedicca]

ROFL. You're calling it the "NYSlimes" and I'm supposed to think that you read it?

Seriously?

I'll tell you what, as soon as you call it by the correct name, I'll believe that you've picked up a copy and used it for anything but lining for a hamster cage.

You say something like this:

I, on the other hand, often read the Times and the Journal, and watch as much FoxNews as I can stomach on a regular basis before I am forced to shut it off.

and then think she doesn't ready the NYT because she calls it NYSimes?

What a weenie.

 

[Yurt]

another thread fail by vast lwc....

FOXNews.com - Indiana Rep. Mark Souder Resigns After Affair With Staffer

Indiana Rep. Mark Souder Resigns After Affair With Staffer

Fox did not break that story, but ran it long after the affair had already come to light, and only after the Representative resigned.

The story itself states that clearly:

All the way through his election, Souder tried to knock down the affair story, calling it revenge politics at play. But the backroom chatter in Indiana and among the GOP on Capitol Hill became too much to survive. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels was informed as late as Monday night that Souder would give up his post.

good lord...foxnews covered it....so fuckign what if they didn't break it...the enquirer broke the edwards scandal....are you now claiming they're a better news source than NY times...

 

[boedicca]

Compare the fact that Fox covered that story to the way Juanita Broaddick and Paul Jones were treated. Fox did not presume that Jackson was lying and stalking Souder.

 

[Vast LWC]

Case in point:

A search for "NY Times, critical of Obama" brings this scathing piece from the NYT Editorial staff:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/04/opinion/04fri1.html

 

[boedicca]

Just one?

Wow.

And easily countered with this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html

And for a more complete assessment of media bias:

The study examined 1,261 stores by The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, CBS and NBC, Newsweek magazine and the "NewsHour" on PBS. Favorable stories (42 percent) were double the unfavorable (20 percent) , while the rest were "neutral" or "mixed." Obama's treatment contrasts sharply with coverage in the first two months of the presidencies of Bush (22 percent of stories favorable) and Clinton (27 percent).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/01/the_obama_infatuation_96768.html


I'm betting LWC has the bitter aftertaste of Buyer's Remorse, but is in denial, desperate to spin Obama as being what he claimed he would be, but has proven he is not.

 

[Vast LWC]

Compare the fact that Fox covered that story to the way Juanita Broaddick and Paul Jones were treated. Fox did not presume that Jackson was lying and stalking Souder.

Umm that would be because Juanita Broaddick was lying. She filed an affadavit stating that the alleged event had never happened in 1997.

And they did assume that the victim in the Duke University rape case was lying.

 

[Vast LWC]

Just one?

Wow.

And easily countered with this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html

What does that have to do with the price of bread?

Does FoxNews or the Wall Street Journal not endorse Republican candidates? Of course they do. What's your point?

 

[boedicca]

Many rape victims don't report the crime, or cover it up over fear of how they will be treated.

That doesn't mean they weren't raped.

Any proper investigative reporter who handles rape stories would know this.

 

[Vast LWC]

good lord...foxnews covered it....so fuckign what if they didn't break it...the enquirer broke the edwards scandal....are you now claiming they're a better news source than NY times...

No, I'm saying that, contrary to popular belief among some partisan folks, one cannot lump all the media outlets into two convenient categories (left and right).

There are some that have journalistic integrity, like the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal, and some that do not, like FoxNews and MSNBC.

 

[Vast LWC]

Many rape victims don't report the crime, or cover it up over fear of how they will be treated.

That doesn't mean they weren't raped.

Any proper investigative reporter who handles rape stories would know this.

She didn't "not report it" or keep quiet about it, she signed an affidavit stating categorically that she had never had any sort of non-consensual sex with the man.

There's a big difference there.

So, regardless of what actually happened, she was either lying when she signed it, or lying when she made the accusation.

Personally I believe the accusation to be false, but it doesn't matter, she WAS lying.

 

[Political Junky]

Well, Bush Jr. lied about his deferments and got into the White House for 8 years. Cons don't seem to mind it.