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

[Stephanie]

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.

LOL, I wouldn't use that paper for a hamster if I had one.
and the truth, I don't care if you think I read the NYslimes or not.

 

[txlonghorn]

Maybe the reason Fox wouldn't break a story about a member of the GOP lying about serving in Viet Nam is because there aren't any GOP candidates who have made such lies.

Oh right. Because GOP politicians NEVER lie, right?

None of them have turned out to be gay or anything, for instance. Or turned out to have accepted millions of dollars in bribes, or anything.

Noooo, that'd never happen!

that's not what was said VLWC...read carefully.

because there aren't any GOP candidates who have made such lies.

 

[Vast LWC]

that's not what was said VLWC...read carefully.

because there aren't any GOP candidates who have made such lies.

I know that wasn't what he said, I was pointing out that GOP members have told whoppers that are just as bad, with no coverage from Fox.

 

[California Girl]

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.

It does contradict it. You put the workload on the journalist. Most newspapers do not employ enough journalists to 'gather' information on one politician - and there are thousands of politicians.

Journalists rely on tips. They don't 'discover' the information, they have it handed to them. If that journalist works for the NYT, it stands to reason that they will be first to 'break' the story, does it not?

The rest of the media then run around trying to get further information and find other angles etc to make their story different to the first one to break it.

That is how it works, whether you care to believe it or not. I am absolutely right on this. I know, because I've done it. Not with politicians - I am not interested in scandal stories. But I certainly have given 'exclusives' to journalists.

Who 'breaks' the story depends on who the source chooses. It is not up to the media outlet - any fool can see that. Can you?

 

[California Girl]

that's not what was said VLWC...read carefully.

because there aren't any GOP candidates who have made such lies.

I know that wasn't what he said, I was pointing out that GOP members have told whoppers that are just as bad, with no coverage from Fox.

And the same is true the other way around. Go back to the campaign and see how many of the criticisms of Obama were carried by the left leaning media. They avoided fact after fact on a variety of issues that came out to the detriment of Obama. And yet, Fox was the one that was, according to verifiable independent research, the most fair and balanced in their coverage of the two candidates. Exactly equal percentages of time of negative info about Obama and McCain, and the same percentages of positives on both candidates. That's fact. It is an inconvenient truth, but it is the truth.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

LOL, the NYslimes finally reports on a slimy Democrats lies instead of trying to spin the shit out it and they have now become the paper of all times.

and of course they have to be compared against Fox news.

You have never read an edition of the New York Times in your entire life, so how would you even know?

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.

Yeah.....god forbid you should get opposing viewpoints......you might end up having to change your moniker to Vast Fair and Balanced Conspiracy.

 

[Vast LWC]

It does contradict it. You put the workload on the journalist. Most newspapers do not employ enough journalists to 'gather' information on one politician - and there are thousands of politicians.

Journalists rely on tips. They don't 'discover' the information, they have it handed to them. If that journalist works for the NYT, it stands to reason that they will be first to 'break' the story, does it not?

The rest of the media then run around trying to get further information and find other angles etc to make their story different to the first one to break it.

That is how it works, whether you care to believe it or not. I am absolutely right on this. I know, because I've done it. Not with politicians - I am not interested in scandal stories. But I certainly have given 'exclusives' to journalists.

Who 'breaks' the story depends on who the source chooses. It is not up to the media outlet - any fool can see that. Can you?

Perhaps if I was a fool, I could see it...

Let me ask you this:

When is the last time you saw FoxNews break a story critical of a Republican candidate during a critical election?

Do you think no-one ever brings them such a story? And if that were true, why do you think no-one ever brings them such a story.

It's obvious that someone supplied the Times with this story, yes. But then a reporter WROTE the story, and the paper RAN the story.

Any fool can see the difference between the two media outlets. Can you?

 

[Sherry]

It does contradict it. You put the workload on the journalist. Most newspapers do not employ enough journalists to 'gather' information on one politician - and there are thousands of politicians.

Journalists rely on tips. They don't 'discover' the information, they have it handed to them. If that journalist works for the NYT, it stands to reason that they will be first to 'break' the story, does it not?

The rest of the media then run around trying to get further information and find other angles etc to make their story different to the first one to break it.

That is how it works, whether you care to believe it or not. I am absolutely right on this. I know, because I've done it. Not with politicians - I am not interested in scandal stories. But I certainly have given 'exclusives' to journalists.

Who 'breaks' the story depends on who the source chooses. It is not up to the media outlet - any fool can see that. Can you?

Perhaps if I was a fool, I could see it...

Let me ask you this:

When is the last time you saw FoxNews break a story critical of a Republican candidate during a critical election?

Do you think no-one ever brings them such a story? And if that were true, why do you think no-one ever brings them such a story.

It's obvious that someone supplied the Times with this story, yes. But then a reporter WROTE the story, and the paper RAN the story.

Any fool can see the difference between the two media outlets. Can you?

I would be interested in proof that FN was ever supplied a scoop that they opted not to investigate.

 

[Vast LWC]

And the same is true the other way around. Go back to the campaign and see how many of the criticisms of Obama were carried by the left leaning media. They avoided fact after fact on a variety of issues that came out to the detriment of Obama. And yet, Fox was the one that was, according to verifiable independent research, the most fair and balanced in their coverage of the two candidates. Exactly equal percentages of time of negative info about Obama and McCain, and the same percentages of positives on both candidates. That's fact. It is an inconvenient truth, but it is the truth.

There were MANY stories run during the campaign season by the Times and other media outlets critical of Obama. The Reverend what's-his-face story, for instance was run 24 hours a day for about a week there when the story broke.

And yes, they did ignore some of the more outrageous stories, but that's not the point. The point is that they DID run the more credible ones.

And there is no comparison between the negative coverage of Obama and the "negative coverage" of McCain.

The only reason Fox ran anything negative about McCain was they thought McCain was too centrist, and they were plugging another more conservative candidate instead. Their "negative coverage" of him consisted of implying that he wasn't radical enough for their tastes, which (in the eyes of the average American) wasn't really a bad thing at all.

The negative coverage of Obama, however, consisted of calling him a "Socialist", a "Fascist", implying that he would destroy the country, implying that he was a racist, etc, etc...

 

[Skull Pilot]

You want a glaring example of the bias of the NYT.

Here you go.

Obama and Calderón Decry Ariz. Immigration Law - NYTimes.com

Not only do we have Obama yet again in the presence of a foreign "leader" denigrating and allowing said foreign "leader" to criticize Americans we have the NYT grossly mischaracterizing the AZ immigration law.

The law makes it a crime in Arizona for noncitizens to fail to carry immigration documents with them, and it gives the police wide authority to stop anyone they suspect may be an illegal immigrant. Proponents said the law was necessary because the federal government had failed to properly guard the border; critics said it opened the door for harassment of all Hispanic people regardless of their citizenship status.

For one it is not against the law not to carry Identification. Once legal status is confirmed, any detainees will be released.

Secondly the AZ police do not have "wide authority" to stop anyone. In fact there is a very narrow set of circumstances where a cop is allowed to ask for identification.

But our so called "leader" once again takes the side of some corrupt fucking foreigner instead of placing his loyalties where they belong.

Obama is a fucking idiot.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yeah.....god forbid you should get opposing viewpoints......you might end up having to change your moniker to Vast Fair and Balanced Conspiracy.

Surely the "Wall Street Journal" would constitute an "opposing viewpoint."

Must I watch talking heads on an opinion network in order to receive a "Fair and Balanced" information flow?

I do tune in as much as I can stand, to both Fox and MSNBC, but, honestly, that consists of watching for 10 minutes at a time before I feel the uncontrollable urge to throw something at the television, and am thus forced to change the channels.

 

[Sherry]

Yeah.....god forbid you should get opposing viewpoints......you might end up having to change your moniker to Vast Fair and Balanced Conspiracy.

Surely the "Wall Street Journal" would constitute an "opposing viewpoint."

Must I watch talking heads on an opinion network in order to receive a "Fair and Balanced" information flow?

I do tune in as much as I can stand, to both Fox and MSNBC, but, honestly, that consists of watching for 10 minutes at a time before I feel the uncontrollable urge to throw something at the television, and am thus forced to change the channels.

What times/shows do you tune in to watch??

 

[Vast LWC]

You want a glaring example of the bias of the NYT.

Here you go.

Obama and Calderón Decry Ariz. Immigration Law - NYTimes.com

Not only do we have Obama yet again in the presence of a foreign "leader" denigrating and allowing said foreign "leader" to criticize Americans we have the NYT grossly mischaracterizing the AZ immigration law.

The law makes it a crime in Arizona for noncitizens to fail to carry immigration documents with them, and it gives the police wide authority to stop anyone they suspect may be an illegal immigrant. Proponents said the law was necessary because the federal government had failed to properly guard the border; critics said it opened the door for harassment of all Hispanic people regardless of their citizenship status.

For one it is not against the law not to carry Identification. Once legal status is confirmed, any detainees will be released.

The article does not say that, it says "makes it a crime in Arizona for noncitizens to fail to carry immigration documents" which is true. According to the law, it's a misdemeanor, whether the person is a legal alien, or not.

Secondly the AZ police do not have "wide authority" to stop anyone. In fact there is a very narrow set of circumstances where a cop is allowed to ask for identification.

"Wide Authority" is a subjective interpretation, thus not a lie.

And, contrary to what you may believe, there are loopholes in the wording of the law that do in fact allow law officers "wide authority" to do just that. You should check out one of the threads on the subject.

But our so called "leader" once again takes the side of some corrupt fucking foreigner instead of placing his loyalties where they belong.

Obama is a fucking idiot.

The president had a problem with the Arizona law long before he met with Calderon. Trying to be diplomatic with the president of our closest neighbor by pointing out that they are in agreement about a stupid-assed law is not in any way "misplaced loyalties".

Maybe, to use your own language, the "fucking idiots" in Arizona should think of the implications of what they're doing next time they make a law.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yeah.....god forbid you should get opposing viewpoints......you might end up having to change your moniker to Vast Fair and Balanced Conspiracy.

Surely the "Wall Street Journal" would constitute an "opposing viewpoint."

Must I watch talking heads on an opinion network in order to receive a "Fair and Balanced" information flow?

I do tune in as much as I can stand, to both Fox and MSNBC, but, honestly, that consists of watching for 10 minutes at a time before I feel the uncontrollable urge to throw something at the television, and am thus forced to change the channels.

What times/shows do you tune in to watch??

It varies from day to day. Over the past few weeks I've watched Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews.

But it's between work and taking care of my kid, so the paper is better for me, as I can read it on the train.

I do often go to both Fox's and MSNBC's web sites to check out their stories of the day.

 

[Sherry]

Surely the "Wall Street Journal" would constitute an "opposing viewpoint."

Must I watch talking heads on an opinion network in order to receive a "Fair and Balanced" information flow?

I do tune in as much as I can stand, to both Fox and MSNBC, but, honestly, that consists of watching for 10 minutes at a time before I feel the uncontrollable urge to throw something at the television, and am thus forced to change the channels.

What times/shows do you tune in to watch??

It varies from day to day. Over the past few weeks I've watched Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews.

But it's between work and taking care of my kid, so the paper is better for me, as I can read it on the train.

I do often go to both Fox's and MSNBC's web sites to check out their stories of the day.

If you want a panel with more balanced commentary, try FOX News Watch which airs Saturday at 2:30pm and 11:30pm.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You want a glaring example of the bias of the NYT.

Here you go.

Obama and Calderón Decry Ariz. Immigration Law - NYTimes.com

Not only do we have Obama yet again in the presence of a foreign "leader" denigrating and allowing said foreign "leader" to criticize Americans we have the NYT grossly mischaracterizing the AZ immigration law.

The law makes it a crime in Arizona for noncitizens to fail to carry immigration documents with them, and it gives the police wide authority to stop anyone they suspect may be an illegal immigrant. Proponents said the law was necessary because the federal government had failed to properly guard the border; critics said it opened the door for harassment of all Hispanic people regardless of their citizenship status.

For one it is not against the law not to carry Identification. Once legal status is confirmed, any detainees will be released.

The article does not say that, it says "makes it a crime in Arizona for noncitizens to fail to carry immigration documents" which is true. According to the law, it's a misdemeanor, whether the person is a legal alien, or not.

Secondly the AZ police do not have "wide authority" to stop anyone. In fact there is a very narrow set of circumstances where a cop is allowed to ask for identification.

"Wide Authority" is a subjective interpretation, thus not a lie.

And, contrary to what you may believe, there are loopholes in the wording of the law that do in fact allow law officers "wide authority" to do just that. You should check out one of the threads on the subject.

But our so called "leader" once again takes the side of some corrupt fucking foreigner instead of placing his loyalties where they belong.

Obama is a fucking idiot.

The president had a problem with the Arizona law long before he met with Calderon. Trying to be diplomatic with the president of our closest neighbor by pointing out that they are in agreement about a stupid-assed law is not in any way "misplaced loyalties".

Maybe, to use your own language, the "fucking idiots" in Arizona should think of the implications of what they're doing next time they make a law.

I read the law I and saw nothing charging a misdemeanor for not carrying I.D.

If one has no I.D. he will be given a reasonable opportunity to produce those documents.

And why don't we demand that Mexico open its borders instead of imprisoning Americans who are there illegally?

The Mexican President id a fucking hypocrite.

Immigration Reform? Let's Try Mexico's Immigration Law!

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it's noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
# in the country legally;
# have the means to sustain themselves economically;
# not destined to be burdens on society;
# of economic and social benefit to society;
# of good character and have no criminal records; and
# contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:
# immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
# foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
# foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
# foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
# foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
# those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Poblacion, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

And in not enforcing our laws, our so called leader is not honoring his oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If his actions are indeed the "best of his ability" then maybe he should be called a retard.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you want a panel with more balanced commentary, try FOX News Watch which airs Saturday at 2:30pm and 11:30pm.

I will try it out. I'm really open to any media source, as long as they're not more opinion than fact.

It's not really the bias that I have an issue with, it's the prioritizing of opinion over factual information.

That's why I have th same issue with MSNBC.

 

[Sherry]

If you want a panel with more balanced commentary, try FOX News Watch which airs Saturday at 2:30pm and 11:30pm.

I will try it out. I'm really open to any media source, as long as they're not more opinion than fact.

It's not really the bias that I have an issue with, it's the prioritizing of opinion over factual information.

That's why I have th same issue with MSNBC.

Well that is a show which takes current events and a panel of regulars discuss the issues. It reminds me of some of the more reasonable debaters from both sides on this site. For straight news try 6pm weeknights for the first half hour with Brett Baeir. At 6:40 the panel comes in and then it becomes opinion programming.

 

[Vast LWC]

I read the law I and saw nothing charging a misdemeanor for not carrying I.D.

I don't blame you for not seeing it, because you have to sift through the legalese:

Sec. 4. Section 13-1509, Arizona Revised Statutes, as added by Senate
Bill 1070, section 3, forty-ninth legislature, second regular session, as
transmitted to the governor, is amended to read:
13-1509. Willful failure to complete or carry an alien
registration document; assessment; exception;
authenticated records; classification
A. In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of
willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document if the
person is in violation of 8 United States Code section 1304(e) or 1306(a).

If one has no I.D. he will be given a reasonable opportunity to produce those documents.

No, they will be arrested and detained until they produce said documents:

From Section 3-B:

Any person who is arrested shall have the person's immigration status determined before the person is released.

And why don't we demand that Mexico open its borders instead of imprisoning Americans who are there illegally?

The Mexican President id a fucking hypocrite.

Immigration Reform? Let's Try Mexico's Immigration Law!

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it's noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
# in the country legally;
# have the means to sustain themselves economically;
# not destined to be burdens on society;
# of economic and social benefit to society;
# of good character and have no criminal records; and
# contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:
# immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
# foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
# foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's internal politics;
# foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
# foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
# those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Poblacion, or General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

And in not enforcing our laws, our so called leader is not honoring his oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If his actions are indeed the "best of his ability" then maybe he should be called a retard.

That article is false.

Here is the Mexican Constitution, in full:

1917 Constitution of Mexico

Just as an example, let's take the author's very first reference:

Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

Article 32 of the Mexican constitution ACTUALLY states:

Article 32. (14)Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.

In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of pratique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.

Which literally has nothing to do with what the author of the blog you reference implies.