New York Times (as if we didn't already know)

[NC994Run]

Hope this isn't a repost

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/22/times-op-ed-rejection-fuels-bias-claims/?icid=100214839x1206036087x1200325193

[calrockx]

I'm a big Obama fan, but I say run the McCain piece.

Maybe Obama's submission was written much better, but still. I'm wouldn't be worried if it ran, and, well, there's something to be said for objective journalism, right?

[oly884]

What I find so funny about people like this is how they can go crazy when the gov listens in to terrorist phone calls but when it comes to things that they don't agree with they have no problem with silencing or suggesting we give up those rights.

News flash New York Times, you can't pick and choose those things.

However....

They have the right to do this. They don't HAVE to be fair. While this may damage their credibility, not that I would even use their newspaper to pick up dog shit, they choose to loose business over it. It's as simple as that. The easiest thing to do is inform as many people that you know about the bias, let them make up their own minds whether that's OK, or not, and let the free market destroy their socialistic bias.

[AxleIke]

A media source with a BIAS?!?!?!?!!

You're kidding!

Not like this is new people. Hard to find unbiased news these days.

[Erich_870]

...well, there's something to be said for objective journalism, right?


Hopefully people will use their little say in the free market to remind these activist news papers and news networks that we expect them to go back to objective journalism. :chair:

Erich

[corax]

A media source with a BIAS?!?!?!?!!

You're kidding!

Not like this is new people. Hard to find unbiased news these days.


that's why I watch Fox News . . . Fair and Balanced, right?












BTW, they got sued for that slogan in '04 by an advocacy group siting deceptive advertising :clap:

[fustercluck]

A media source with a BIAS?!?!?!?!!

You're kidding!

Not like this is new people. Hard to find unbiased news these days.


that's why I watch Fox News . . . Fair and Balanced, right?












BTW, they got sued for that slogan in '04 by an advocacy group siting deceptive advertising :clap:

In the USA you can sue a ham sandwich. What was the result of the adjudication?

[corax]

my bad . . . they didn't sue, the filed a complaint with the FTC. I don't think it got far though. I found this:
FTC Chairman Timothy Muris said, "I am not aware of any instance in which the Federal Trade Commission has investigated the slogan of a news organization. There is no way to evaluate this petition without evaluating the content of the news at issue. That is a task the First Amendment leaves to the American people, not a government agency."

[Bob98SR5]

keith,

what axle is trying to say is that there's media bias on both sides. the democrats/liberals rely on the main stream media. republicans/conservatives listen to talk radio and watch fox news.

reading your post, i have a feeling you do not watch fox news on a regular basis, am i right? it is not the quite media arm of the republican party as most would think except for people like sean hannity. hosts have been openly critical of president bush as of late. do you watch bill o'reilly's show on a regular basis? he is no friend of the president on some very hot topic issues such as immigration, guantanimo bay, etc. not to mention, hannity and colmes does the best job imho of any major cable show of providing two strong minded, but level headed political cable show hosts. i dont see that anywhere on CNN.

as far as the "fair and balanced" line, the origins of that tag line had to do with reporting the news that the mainstream media would not dare to air. so in essence, fox news was providing the balance to the overwhelmingly democratic/liberal slanted news of CNN and the mainstream media

[oly884]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D923IUFO0&show_article=1

[AxleIke]

keith,

what axle is trying to say is that there's media bias on both sides. the democrats/liberals rely on the main stream media. republicans/conservatives listen to talk radio and watch fox news.

reading your post, i have a feeling you do not watch fox news on a regular basis, am i right? it is not the quite media arm of the republican party as most would think except for people like sean hannity. hosts have been openly critical of president bush as of late. do you watch bill o'reilly's show on a regular basis? he is no friend of the president on some very hot topic issues such as immigration, guantanimo bay, etc. not to mention, hannity and colmes does the best job imho of any major cable show of providing two strong minded, but level headed political cable show hosts. i dont see that anywhere on CNN.

as far as the "fair and balanced" line, the origins of that tag line had to do with reporting the news that the mainstream media would not dare to air. so in essence, fox news was providing the balance to the overwhelmingly democratic/liberal slanted news of CNN and the mainstream media



Fair and Balanced would imply to me that the reporting was done with equal weight given to both sides of every issue, with nothing else. A balanced commentary show would explore, and criticize both sides of every issue equally.

Fox News Fair and Balanced? HA!

I agree that they provide the weight on the right side of the scale to "balance" the leftist mainstream media. They are a heavyweight too.

My point with my post is that ALL news organizations are bogus. Media reporting should be done with a dispassionate recitation of the facts. Any slant or personal commentary, such as the show done by Bill O'Reilly, is essentially an editorial. An opinionated piece with facts, but ONLY the facts that back up your point.

The problem is that most American's are too retarded to know the difference. They take the "facts" presented in a commentary show, and swear by them.

I'm not accusing anyone here of doing that, but I know quite a few in my sphere of experience who do this on both sides of the isle.

Suspect everything, and research for yourself before you form opinions.

With regards to the original topic, who cares? I'm sure someone will carry McCain's piece, all this does is add to the bias at the Times.

[oly884]

keith,

what axle is trying to say is that there's media bias on both sides. the democrats/liberals rely on the main stream media. republicans/conservatives listen to talk radio and watch fox news.

reading your post, i have a feeling you do not watch fox news on a regular basis, am i right? it is not the quite media arm of the republican party as most would think except for people like sean hannity. hosts have been openly critical of president bush as of late. do you watch bill o'reilly's show on a regular basis? he is no friend of the president on some very hot topic issues such as immigration, guantanimo bay, etc. not to mention, hannity and colmes does the best job imho of any major cable show of providing two strong minded, but level headed political cable show hosts. i dont see that anywhere on CNN.

as far as the "fair and balanced" line, the origins of that tag line had to do with reporting the news that the mainstream media would not dare to air. so in essence, fox news was providing the balance to the overwhelmingly democratic/liberal slanted news of CNN and the mainstream media



Fair and Balanced would imply to me that the reporting was done with equal weight given to both sides of every issue, with nothing else. A balanced commentary show would explore, and criticize both sides of every issue equally.

Fox News Fair and Balanced? HA!

I agree that they provide the weight on the right side of the scale to "balance" the leftist mainstream media. They are a heavyweight too.

My point with my post is that ALL news organizations are bogus. Media reporting should be done with a dispassionate recitation of the facts. Any slant or personal commentary, such as the show done by Bill O'Reilly, is essentially an editorial. An opinionated piece with facts, but ONLY the facts that back up your point.

The problem is that most American's are too retarded to know the difference. They take the "facts" presented in a commentary show, and swear by them.

I'm not accusing anyone here of doing that, but I know quite a few in my sphere of experience who do this on both sides of the isle.

Suspect everything, and research for yourself before you form opinions.

With regards to the original topic, who cares? I'm sure someone will carry McCain's piece, all this does is add to the bias at the Times.


Well said, and I agree 100%. I choose to listen to Glenn Beck, but it doesn't mean that I don't research the things that he says. After all, EVERYONE has a bias. I think that the original story is somewhat important in the notion that it will hopefully wake more people up to the idea that there IS a bias (though the polls already show that a good portion of people believe so).

It's not a matter of whether the NYT is right or wrong in doing this, it's up to them and they have to deal with the consequences of biased journalism. What it is about is that people need to wake up and realize that journalism is biased. If anyone can claim that fox, cnn, msnbc, et al. are not biased, then they are too dug into a political party/ideology to ever climb back out of again.

[Bob98SR5]

we are all saying the same thing, ike :) bias exists and those ignorant enough to take one news organization's slanted journalism as gospel is...well...ignorant

[RunnerUp]

while i think what the NYT's did was not a smart move to their credibility, it was their right to do so.

on the news networks, CNN is VERY left wing, and FOX is VERY right wing... thats why i read both online. of course, i only watch FOX as CNN is a bit hard to swallow when i have to watch that liberal mess.

[calrockx]

i see msnbc as fairly left, cnn as more moderate, and fox, well we all know fox.

i usually watch msnbc, but will check out the other two from time to time.
i really like Hardball and Countdown.

[RunnerUp]

have you seen the CNN headlines lately? i dont see how any of their angles could be seen as "moderate". i need to check out MSNBC though, i use to read and watch only BBC news as i saw that as a indifferent view point, though after reading between the lines i saw differently.