|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
......You don't need to be on fox news to be mainstream, people still read the newspaper or news sources, just because O' Reilly or Limbaugh have popular radio/tv shows, doesn't mean the left doesn't. The New York Times comes to mind as completely liberal, I'd say as slanted in it's reporting of news, if not more so then fox. I'm sure that that statement would be rebutted with the standard, what makes the NY Times so liberal? It's obvious, and can be answered the same way if the question were begged of Fox for its conservative nature; it's in what they choose to report......
|
Would a "completely liberal" newspaper, ever publish this admission?:
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/in...6FTE_NOTE.html
The Times and Iraq
Published: May 26, 2004
Over the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.
In doing so — reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation — we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information. And where those articles included incomplete information or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger information. That is how news coverage normally unfolds.
But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.
The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.
Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.
On Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001, for example, Page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. These accounts have never been independently verified.
On Dec. 20, 2001, another front-page article began, "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." Knight Ridder Newspapers reported last week that American officials took that defector — his name is Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri — to Iraq earlier this year to point out the sites where he claimed to have worked, and that the officials failed to find evidence of their use for weapons programs. It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, <b>but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers.....</b>
.........Still, it should have been presented more cautiously. There were hints that the usefulness of the tubes in making nuclear fuel was not a sure thing, but the hints were buried deep, 1,700 words into a 3,600-word article. <b>Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length</b> on why this evidence of Iraq's nuclear intentions demanded that Saddam Hussein be dislodged from power: "The first sign of a `smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud."
Five days later, The Times reporters learned that the tubes were in fact a subject of debate among intelligence agencies. <b>The misgivings appeared deep in an article on Page A13, under a headline that gave no inkling that we were revising our earlier view ("White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons").</b> The Times gave voice to skeptics of the tubes on Jan. 9, when the key piece of evidence was challenged by the International Atomic Energy Agency. <b>That challenge was reported on Page A10; it might well have belonged on Page A1.......</b>
|
<b>Even with the strength you exhibited in declaring an opinion about the bias of the NY times that is half opposite of my POV, Mojo_....can you see how the preceding admission by the Times editors, dovetails nicely with this "goal", described by L. Brent Bozell III, in 1992?:</b>
Quote:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm
<b>.....8) Help train the next generation.</b>
<b>Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States.</b> A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."
|
Mojo, here's just a few examples of a total of 264....dating back only to June 9, 2004, that indicate you may be wrong about the "liberal bias" of the NY Times. Since the Times offices are located in NYC, home of a population teaming with liberals, a population that polled an evenly divided POV, in aug., 2004, that the US government either had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and decided not to interfere with them or earnestly prevent them from happening....
Quote:
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Released: August 30, 2004
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals .....
|
....wouldn't so many examples of avoidance of reporting of details that would be accurate and portray "non-liberal targets" in a negative light, be an unexpected thing to find out about the NY Times? As I described to Ustwo in another thread yesterday, my posts are meant to counter your resolve. You seem to have tremendous resolve about the NY Times being "completely liberal"....so, considering that, forgive me for not posting all 264 examples of NY Times, less than liberal bias. That would be overkill. The critiscism of the Times, by Media Matters, seems in the spirit of what the 9/11 Commission's former vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, said, just the other day:
Quote:
|
<a href="http://www.leadercall.com/opinion/local_story_260131026.html?keyword=secondarystory"><h3>“Facts are not Republican and they’re not Democrat. They’re not ideological. Facts are facts.”</h3></a>
|
Quote:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topic...henewyorktimes
<ul>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609180002">
<strong>AP, <em>NY Times</em> highlighted Webb's 1979 position on women in combat, ignored Allen's more recent statements</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Monday, September 18, 2006 2:18PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609170002">
<strong>Media uncritically reported Bush's false suggestion that Powell letter compared "the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists"</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Sunday, September 17, 2006 3:52PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609170001">
<strong><i>NY Times'</i> Nagourney uncritically reported Mehlman's baseless comparison between Democratic strategy to nationalize midterms and Republicans' failed '98 plan to do so</strong></a>
<br />Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:40PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609140006">
<strong><em>NY Times</em>' Phillips's revisionist history: "Swift-boating" is "a verb for negative ads"</strong></a>
<br />Thursday, September 14, 2006 4:34PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609120008">
<strong><em>NY Times</em>, <em>Wash. Post</em> suggested that Democrats spoiled nonpartisan aura of Bush's 9-11 events</strong></a>
<br />Tuesday, September 12, 2006 2:57PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609090008">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> falsely suggested criticism of <em>Path to 9/11</em> and calls for its cancellation coming solely from Clinton administration members, Democratic officials</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Saturday, September 9, 2006 3:42PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609070007">
<strong>Media reports fail to probe 9-11 Commission chairman Kean's role with ABC's factually flawed <em>Path to 9/11</em> miniseries</strong></a>
<br />Thursday, September 7, 2006 4:30PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609050001">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> reported that Bush gave up politics for Labor Day trip to MD, omitted possible reason why</strong></a>
<br />Tuesday, September 5, 2006 1:11PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200609010001">
<strong>Media figures repeat false claim that Armitage role in Plame leak exonerates Libby and Rove</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Thursday, August 31, 2006 9:39PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200608310006">
<strong>Kornblut falsely reported that Bush "did not emphasize signs of progress in Iraq" in Aug. 30 speech</strong></a>
<br />Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:21PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200608300003">
<strong><em>NY Times</em>' Medina "not clear" on reference to Lieberman remarks, when she had reported those remarks herself three weeks ago</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:59PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200608290003">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> claimed that Democrats are "seizing" Katrina anniversary "with something approaching glee"</strong></a>
<br />Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:30AM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200608210005">
<strong><em>NY Times</em>' Kornblut left unchallenged Republican claim that Lamont is "not mainstream America," his victory in Senate race would "show[ ] the extreme nature of the Democratic Party"</strong></a>
<br />Monday, August 21, 2006 5:04PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200608180009">
<strong><em>NY Times</em>, CNN, Fox News uncritically reported GOP suggestion that unwarranted surveillance helped foil U.K. terror plot</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Friday, August 18, 2006 5:43PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200608180002">
<strong>Media outlets uncritically reported Chertoff, Gonzales's push for greater detention authority; ignored administration's previous claims that it already has such power</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Thursday, August 17, 2006 8:51PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200608170008">
<strong>Perspectives on Bush's latest "cut and run" Iraq speech: AP said free of "partisan politics," <em>NY Times</em>, took "kinder, gentler approach" than Cheney's<a href="#correction">*</a></strong></a>
<br />Thursday, August 17, 2006 3:28PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200608170001">
<strong>In reporting Allen's use of derogatory North African word "macaca," most major media outlets ignored Allen's familial ties to region</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Wednesday, August 16, 2006 9:13PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200608160005">
<strong>GOP strategists christen "Democrat [sic] Party" -- and the media comply</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Wednesday, August 16, 2006 7:41PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200608110003">
<strong><em>NY Times</em>' Healy, Medina ignored own reporting, uncritically repeated Lieberman's hypocritical attacks on Lamont over foiled UK terror plot</strong></a>
<br />Friday, August 11, 2006 2:47PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200608090002">
<strong><em>NYT</em>'s Nagourney contradicted his own reporting to suggest Dems in disarray</strong></a>
<br />Wednesday, August 9, 2006 10:21AM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200607280006">
<strong><em>NY Times</em>, <em>Wash. Post</em> obscured Democratic support for minimum wage increase, uncritically repeated anti-wage increase argument</strong></a>
<br />Friday, July 28, 2006 6:55PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200607280002">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> quotes, without challenging, Lieberman supporter alleging "growing tolerance of [anti-Semitic faction] in the progressive community"</strong></a>
<br />Friday, July 28, 2006 11:08AM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200607260008">
<strong><em>NY Times</em>, Nexis add correction to archived Kornblut article</strong></a>
<br />Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:30PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200607240005">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> omits correction from flawed Kornblut article on Clinton speech</strong></a>
<br />Monday, July 24, 2006 2:41PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200607220003">
<strong><em>NY Times</em>, CNN reported Bush signed "fetal farming" ban, failed to note there is no such thing as "fetal farming"</strong></a>
<br />Friday, July 21, 2006 8:29PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200607190003">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> profile of Sen. Graham ignored efforts to strip detainees of habeas corpus rights</strong></a>
<br />Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:31PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200607180001">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> yet to correct false Kornblut report on Sen. Clinton</strong></a>
<br />Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:49PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200607170001">
<strong>Kornblut falsely reported that Sen. Clinton criticized Democrats for "wasting time"</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/audio.gif" alt="This article has audio." />
<br />Monday, July 17, 2006 12:45PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200607140002">
<strong>Media outlets report on strength of Bush economy, ignore earlier reports that deficit numbers were inflated</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Friday, July 14, 2006 9:14AM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200607110007">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> profile of Sensenbrenner ignored Democratic criticism of his controversial antics</strong></a>
<br />Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:47PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200607050002">
<strong><em>For</em> them before he was against them before he was for them: <em>NY Times</em>' Stolberg ignored Bush's alleged flip-flop on House immigration provisions</strong></a>
<br />Wednesday, July 5, 2006 2:59PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606300009">
<strong>Media coverage of Iraq debate steeped in GOP talking points</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Friday, June 30, 2006 5:31PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606290006">
<strong><em>Wash. Post</em> reported White House claim that terrorists were tipped off by <em>NY Times</em> report; didn't note administration statements on efforts to track terrorist finances</strong></a>
<br />Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:03PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606230004">
<strong>Media left out polling data in reporting Dems' claims of public support for withdrawal from Iraq</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Friday, June 23, 2006 3:19PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606220003">
<strong>In coverage of GOP announcement, print media ignored felony provisions in House immigration bill</strong></a>
<br />Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:41AM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606200009">
<strong>Major print outlets repeated GOP's "cut and run" criticism of Democratic calls for Iraq withdrawal, ignored public support for pullout</strong></a>
<br />Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:45PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606160003">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> article on Rove misrepresented McClellan denials</strong></a>
<br />Friday, June 16, 2006 12:14PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606150006">
<strong>Media highlighted Democratic split on Iraq but ignored Republican dissent</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:00PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606120008">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> public editor Calame: "[C]heapened" feedback from <em>Media Matters</em> readers goes "straight into a folder"</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Monday, June 12, 2006 3:42PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606070001">
<strong><em>Wash. Post</em>, other outlets ignored relevant statistics to frame problem of congressional travel as wholly bipartisan</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Wednesday, June 7, 2006 11:56AM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606040002">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> public editor Calame: Part of "worthwhile" Healy article "should have gone in the trash can"</strong></a>
<br />Sunday, June 4, 2006 4:23PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606020009">
<strong>In its cropping of AP's misleading Reid follow-up, <em>NY Times</em> compounded distortions</strong></a>
<br />Friday, June 2, 2006 2:22PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606010010">
<strong><em>NY Times</em> editorial linked Reid's attendance at boxing matches to crimes committed by Cunningham, Abramoff</strong></a>
<br />Thursday, June 1, 2006 3:50PM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200606010004">
<strong>Author of <em>NY Times</em> Clinton marriage article acknowledged that amount of time Clintons spend together is "pretty similar" to that of other congressional families</strong></a>
<img src="http://mediamatters.org/static/images/tv.gif" alt="This article has video." />
<br />Thursday, June 1, 2006 11:59AM</li>
<li><a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200605310006">
<strong>Major newspapers ignored Bush's deception on treasury secretary's departure</strong></a>
<br />Wednesday, May 31, 2006 5:51PM......</li>
</ul>
|
You ought to read the NY Times, more often, Mojo. It contains a great deal of original reporting, and a great deal of domestic national political coverage and reports filed by foreign correspondents on the Time's staff. It's reporting is balanced enough to draw legitimate criticism from both liberal and conservative spectrums. It was caught red handed, just 3 years ago, and it's editors finally admitted it,
Quote:
|
.....willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States
|
....caught repeating the intentional contrivances of a US presidential administration committed to a preemptive war of aggression, as the NY Times helped it to publicize the "facts" that had to be "fixed" around the policy.
....the trouble with that was, the reporting of the Times, was not reporting of "facts", it was the unquestioning, prominent display on the front page of the Times, of whatever the administration wanted to publicize to "support the foreign policy objectives of the United States".
That isn't a "really liberal" thing for the Times to have done.....for so many months. It mislead people, all over the world, who trusted the news reporting of the Times. Not very liberal, not very American, but it meshed with Mr. Bozell's goal, and he bragged in that same 1992 speech, that 90 percent of the references to the "liberal media" that appeared in the press, were the result of his MRC's ( www.mrc.org ) "research"....(translation - "influence")
I don't think that it's as cut and dried as you make it sound, Mojo. IMO, the NY Times, as time passes, exhibits fewer and fewer redeeming qualities, as a source for reliable news reporting, but as far back as I've been acquainted with it, Fox "News" exhibits none.
Last edited by host; 09-19-2006 at 12:24 AM..
|