Africa/Middle East going crazy-er

[shally]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Joe Lieberman is pushing for that internet shutdown and the bill(S773) was DOA in the last congress. It never got to a vote or even out of committee. TYRANNY!!!!!.

Really: do some basic googling. Please.


As for Egypt: looks like Mubarak is done.

not so sure of that.. if Iran's regime survived, egypts might as well if the army backs moubarak out of fear of the islamists taking over..

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by Toadslayer

Seriously? That would be like me telling you that FOX news doesn't skew conservative and then having you give me examples. (too easy) I will save you the time and admit they do.

My guess is that you won't be able to. Like many Americans without much media savvy you believe the stuff on the last page (columns, editorials) is what a newspaper is, when the opposite is actually true.

I'm not aware of how many layoffs the Times has done recently, but as of a few years ago the paper had an editorial staff somewhere in the neighborhood of 2,000 reporters and editors working at dozens of bureaus throughout the world. I would guess less than 40 of those people had jobs related to opinion work.

I'm talking straight news. And the Times is better than anyone.

[Toadslayer]

Originally Posted by Fathead

You aren't capable of providing an actual news article that is "skewed a little too liberal"? You made the claim, you provide the facts.

How about allowing moveon.org to place a full page ad hammering Gen. David Petraeus calling him david betrayus? That seemed just a little liberal to allow an huge ad from moveon.org

How did that surge work? Yep that's right, it worked great.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

The White House and Congress is obviously the country's most important political story. Even the Post's national security series (which I've only seen pieces of) comes out of the Washington beat. I guess I'm speaking in terms of all components of news.

I just took a glance at the Times' Pulitzer list for the last decade and along with it's coverage of 9/11 (which might be the most amazing collection of journalism in history, given the obstacles the paper faced) you had:

-An investigative piece on death and injury faced by American workers
-Contamination Chinese ingredients which find their way to consumer products
-a cover-up of fatal railway accidents
-a series about race in America
-the abuse of the mentally ill in state-regulated homes

And that's just the stuff which won the big award.

And the Post has won 3 out of the last 5 international reporting Pulitzers, the domestic pulitzer for Va Tech, the public service one for Walter Reed, for Dick Cheney's influence on security policy in recent years, 3 commentary pulitzers in a row and on and on and on lol.

The Post and NYT are 1 and 1a.

Originally Posted by Toadslayer

How about allowing moveon.org to place a full page ad hammering Gen. David Petraeus calling him david betrayus? That seemed just a little liberal to allow an huge ad from moveon.org

How did that surge work? Yep that's right, it worked great.

This is just ridiculous. So, your proof of the reporting bias of the NYT is that they ran a liberal ad?

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by Toadslayer

How about allowing moveon.org to place a full page ad hammering Gen. David Petraeus calling him david betrayus? That seemed just a little liberal to allow an huge ad from moveon.org

Your complaint here is with the publisher and the advertising department.

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

And the Post has won 3 out of the last 5 international reporting Pulitzers, the domestic pulitzer for Va Tech, the public service one for Walter Reed, for Dick Cheney's influence on security policy in recent years, 3 commentary pulitzers in a row and on and on and on lol.

The Post and NYT are 1 and 1a.

I thought we were talking domestic, which is why I didn't mention Kristoff's amazing work in Darfur.

We'll have to agree to disagree. And this is coming from the biggest Post homer in the world.

[Toadslayer]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

This is just ridiculous. So, your proof of the reporting bias of the NYT is that they ran a liberal ad?

No, it's ridiculous to not admit the bias of the editorial portion of the Times doesn't spill over into the hard news reporting. That is the first one that popped into my head, and you can't seriously tell me that the paper doesn't have a left of center view on the world.

[justinskins]

FWIW, I don't think of the Post as a national newspaper in the same way the Times is.

Also, what has been said of the NYT can also be said of the WSJ. Highly slanted editorial page, first-class professional reporting. Fox News, on the other hand, often lets politics dictate its coverage.

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by Toadslayer

No, it's ridiculous to not admit the bias of the editorial portion of the Times doesn't spill over into the hard news reporting. That is the first one that popped into my head, and you can't seriously tell me that if the paper doesn't have a left of center view on the world.

When you say "paper" here you mean columnists and the ownership. That is not the same thing as the reporters and editors.

The straight news is completely separate from the opinion stuff.

[Toadslayer]

Originally Posted by cal_junior

When you say "paper" here you mean columnists and the ownership. That is not the same thing as the reporters and editors.

The straight news is completely separate from the opinion stuff.

Is there a conservative journalist working for the NYT?

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Also, what has been said of the NYT can also be said of the WSJ. Highly slanted editorial page, first-class professional reporting. Fox News, on the other hand, often lets politics dictate its coverage.

An excellent point. I'm pretty illiterate when it comes to finance and I'm a registered Democrat, but I still read the WSJ here and there because it has such extremely talented writers.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by Toadslayer

No, it's ridiculous to not admit the bias of the editorial portion of the Times doesn't spill over into the hard news reporting. That is the first one that popped into my head, and you can't seriously tell me that if the paper doesn't have a left of center view on the world.

The editorial page is separate from the reporting and from the business side. And until you can show an example The New York Times, thanks to the clearly silly reporting by Judy Miller, never corrected the record for their cheerleading for the run up to the Iraq war(and all of Miller's reporting was false or was directly fed to her by the Bush White House to get the WMD claims in the NYT). But I'm sure that just their famous liberal bias.

When you were asked to show an example of this, you try to claim that an advertisement is proof. Anything approaching intelligent discussion is a bridge too far with you. Either you're trolling or you're completely clueless. I don't care which. In any event, I'm done wasting my time with your nonsense and would encourage the rest of the posters in this forum to stop feeding your trolling.

[cal_junior]

Originally Posted by Toadslayer

Is there a conservative journalist working for the NYT?

There would be no way of knowing based on their work, but I'm sure there are quite a few. I'd be willing to wager 100 or so.

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by justinskins

Also, what has been said of the NYT can also be said of the WSJ. Highly slanted editorial page, first-class professional reporting. Fox News, on the other hand, often lets politics dictate its coverage.

Before Murdoch bought them, yes. Their reporting is now just a function of the editorial page now.

Originally Posted by cal_junior

There would be no way of knowing based on their work, but I'm sure there are quite a few. I'd be willing to wager 100 or so.

Matt Bai.

[Toadslayer]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

The editorial page is separate from the reporting and from the business side. And until you can show an example The New York Times, thanks to the clearly silly reporting by Judy Miller, never corrected the record for their cheerleading for the run up to the Iraq war(and all of Miller's reporting was false or was directly fed to her by the Bush White House to get the WMD claims in the NYT). But I'm sure that just their famous liberal bias.

When you were asked to show an example of this, you try to claim that an advertisement is proof. Anything approaching intelligent discussion is a bridge too far with you. Either you're trolling or you're completely clueless. I don't care which. In any event, I'm done wasting my time with your nonsense and would encourage the rest of the posters in this forum to stop feeding your trolling.

Thanks for your opinion. lol

How about not running the ACORN scandal story
How about not running the Van Jones story
How about the overwhelming percentage of positive stories on Obama and the overwhelming percentage of negative stories on Bush
How about you show more examples of nonliberal bias than the runup to the Iraq war when EVERYBODY in the world thought that Iraq had WMD's

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2009/10/...ew-york-times/

http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/

I could go on. I guess I was being too lazy to prove something that was overwhelmingly obvious.

Whatever, I won't mind being on your "won't reply black list."