"The New York Times has a liberal bias"--How Do You Respond?

[Composed Thinker]

How do you respond when someone tells you that The New York Times has a liberal bias?

[Paschall]

1. Ask for evidence

Then scan the NY Times headlines yourself and you'll see that at least some of the editorial staff at the Times has the opposite bias.

[CarlBallard]

2. I remind them

That they woudn't even mention when the Clintons were exhonerated in Whitewater. I also point out that they endorsed Regan, Regan, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Gore in the last 6 elections for 2/3 conservative. Also if I have the paper with me I'll show them stuff. And yell random crap about the mother of whoever just said that.

[Yupster]

59. Please provide a link that shows

the Times has endorsed any Republican for president in my lifetime. I was born in 1959.

I have never remembered the Times to ever endorse a Republican for president. A quick Google search showed me they haven't.

Here's one quick link

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/neuharth/neu068.htm

If this USA Today article by the founder is wrong, and my memory is wrong too, please provide a link.

The amount of just plain factually wrong information posted on DU can be appalling, especially since so many of the readers are younger people who may not instantly recognize the stuff to be untrue from their own memories. Let's try to use links to show that we've at least tried to verify whether what we're posting is correct.

I did a search to see if my memory was right. If it isn't, someone please provide a link to show me that my memory was faulty, which it certainly sometimes is.

[lazarus]

3. you mean after I stop laughing?

because that's usually all I can do.

[BurtWorm]

4. Its editorial page leans liberal.

But they endorsed Pataki, Giuliani and Bloomberg. They went after Clinton relentlessly, not because he wasn't liberal enough for them, but because he had sex in the White House with someone other than his wife. Actually, they went after Clinton from day 1, probably because they thought he was a horndog hillbilly. They also have regularly published the frothings of William Safire, Abe Rosenthal (a former executive editor), Michael Kelly, John Tierney, Andrew Sullivan, etc. And their political reporting is atrociously vapid, as most political reporting is. You could say that the Times' Maureen Dowd invented the style of slasher-reportage, tearing the candidate you're covering down, not for substance, but for style, that has become all-pervasive in US political reporting. In short, the Times is less liberal seeming if you scratch the surface a little.

[The Zanti Regent]

39. Liberal Editorial page?

Please.

William SAFFLIAR, Dowd, 5th Columnist Tom Friedman, Herbert?

None of the above whores are liberal.

The New York TImes is a reactionary piece of crap and whenever you read it you know you are getting "ALL THE GOP PROPAGANDA FIT TO PRINT"!

[BurtWorm]

43. Sorry, but, it leans liberal and Democratic.

Which isn't to say it's always liberal and Democratic. It's just as boneheaded to claim it's reactionary and Republican as it is to claim it's leftist. It is not leftist. It's establishmentarian, DLC-style liberal. Read the actual content of my post to see points of agreement between us.

[FubarFly]

46. DLC-style liberal is an oxymoran. n/t.

[CHIMO]

5. Who Said So

On what authority is the statement made. Then how would one analyze other papers on the same basis.

One has to set a basis for statements.

[LoZoccolo]

7. Yeah make /them/ prove it...

...they'll have you going if you try to prove a negative.

If it degrades into "oh come on" move on to something else.

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com - pretty good book that actually does admit there's some liberal bias in the media in general on issues like gun control and abortion and something else I can't remember, but gives so much evidence of a conservative bias on a bunch of other stories.

[Skittles]

6. ELECTION 2000

I don't think they covered the fact that THERE WERE PROTESTS AT THE INAUGURATION OF KING GEORGE.

[ferg]

8. laughter

I can't help it. I laugh at them.

Anyone who claims the NYT is liberal is absurd and clueless.

[otohara]

9. I Canceled My Subscription

because of their cheerleading for Bush, Invasion and the garbage written by Judith Miller, Tom Friedman.

I received a letter saying they were sorry to lose me over Iraq, but they felt their coverage was fair. I respectfully disagreed.

No more money from this gal.

[Composed Thinker]

10. I pretty much agree with what's been said here

I'd like to say that while it's easy to point to something that shows a liberal bias, it's just as easy to point to something that shows a conservative bias. In other words, it's pretty much equal.

What annoyed me in particular was that jerk Joe Scarborough yelling that The Times showed a liberal bias after displaying a piece from its Op/Ed page. Uh, where the hell should an opinion go? Unless it happens to say "News Analysis" next to it, an opinion goes on the Op/Ed page. He was being a jackass, like usual.

[samsingh]

11. have you read it lately?

.

[JanMichael]

12. I'd say...PROVE IT!

Because, quite frankly, that's suspect lately.

[whirlygigspin]

13. Morans

Hitler loved dogs, does that make him a nice person?

[JanMichael]

14. In some people's eyes...Yes.

Sad, no?

[drdigi420]

38. No, makes him worse to me

dogs are filthy creatures

[Robbien]

15. NYT is liberal. Fox is liberal. Limbaugh is liberal.

It's a conspiracy, doncha know?

[alaine]

16. "For or against?" (n/t)

[JackSwift]

17. How about just saying

"I disagree. But if you have a study that proves it, by all means, I'll read it. If you are just parroting something you heard some moron on talk radio say, then get the hell away from me."

[leftyandproud]

18. don't admit it!

I think most of us knows the NYT is on our side, along with the main broadcast news outlets (ABC, CBS, etc) They all hate Shrub...Whatever you do, don't give them the satisfaction of admitting it. You can always point to Faux and MSGOP (Scarborough, Savage etc) to point out the conservative slant.

[prolesunited]

26. You really believe that?

It's a shame that any station that faintly resembles fair and balanced coverage is considered "liberal." To me, news should be neither liberal or conservative. It should simply present the news and alternate viewpoints.

The revocation of the fairness doctrine and corporate media consolidation as destroyed what was once known as the Fourth Estate. There was once a time that the media served as the voice and watchdog for "we the people." They were one more check in the check and balance system conceived by our founding fathers.

There was once a time when news operations were not forced to produce a profit. Entertainment divisions picked up the slack to help provide this public service. That day is long gone. Investigative teams? Bureaus all over the world? Working on in-depth stories for months at a time? Those days are long gone, replaced by corporate news digesters who simply repackage press releases and administration bullet points.

[BeachBuckeye]

35. It never ceases to amaze me!

"I think most of us knows the NYT is on our side, along with the main broadcast news outlets (ABC, CBS, etc) They all hate Shrub..."

Let me ask you, do you work directly for Karl Rove or maybe Hannity or Limbaugh? Pure horse%$*#!

[aquart]

19. Spit out my coffee?

The spontaneous outburst of raucous laughter is hard to control.

[sandnsea]

20. Ask, 'what do you mean by liberal?'

I doubt most freepers would have an answer and if they did they'd be wrong anyway.

Liberal - using intellect and reason to draw conclusions instead of theocratic or other orthodox dogma.

That's my own interpretation because I think that sums up what our Founding Fathers were actually trying to accomplish with the Constitution.

[TreasonousBastard]

21. I never argue with them...

because they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and will simply get defensive. Big waste of everyone's time.

I might, however, agree with them, and ask just what's wrong with being liberal? Never, ever respond to their comebacks with arguments, though, and just say, "That's interesting, but I don't buy it."

I might also say that "The Plan" is for all cities of over 200,00 population to have at least one liberal and one conservative publication, with no further explanation. Let them try to figure it out.

Arguing never works. Pointing out the obvious rarely works. There's a reason our mothers told us never to discuss politcs or religion in polite society.

Note that if you plant a seed, or at least get them thinking about what they've said, they might come around. But, it could take time for them to think it through, and they will never back down if an argument starts.

[Iverson]

22. This is demonstrably false.

I would only bother responding if I suspected that it would not be a waste of time.

The New York Times is a corporation which serves its bottom line first. That is its bias. That is not especially liberal. Neither is cheering on the coup in Venezuela, by the way.

Herman and Chomsky do a fine job of unveiling the New York Times in their book Manufacturing Consent.

The only way to lose this argument is by letting the right frame the terms of the debate and giving all their underlying assumptions a free pass.

[zbdent]

23. "Did the Washington Times/Rush Limbaugh/Sean hannity

tell you to say that, or did you actually think for yourself for a moment? Have you read the NYT?"

[Jacobin]

24. I wish it did. It doesn't anymore

They've signed on for the PNAC adventure....thinking it will serve Israel's long term interests.

BTW, do these same people admit that Faux is a Nazi Network?

[Northwind]

25. Reality has a liberal bias

[robbedvoter]

29. Ha!ha! Wonderful!

[Warren Stuart]

27. Whitewater and Love Canal

The Whitewater investigation started 1992 after an NYT article in which "unanswered questions" were raised about the issue. This gave the first Bush White House cover to pursue these baseless allegations. Resulting in an 8 year 80 million dollar witch hunt that in which no charges were brought against the Clintons.

The propriety of raising these "unanswered questions" stretches the limits of journalistic ethics. But none more so than the disgraceful Love Canal episode.

This was a case in which Al Gore was giving a talk to High School students in New Hamnpshire, and discussed his role in the environment. He mentioned that it was a High School student who first got him started in this area. This was the famous "Valley of the Drums" in (I believe) Boone Tenn. This student had asked him what could be done. Since he needed a precedent to go by, he had to find one. He didn't have to look hard he "found a place in New York called Love Canal".

Clearly he was referring to the precedent, not the actual cleanup project. and referring to Boon Tenn. he stated "that was the one that started it all"

His words got cut and cropped to reflect a completely different meaning, the word "that" in "that was the one..." was changed to "I" implying that he was the one who discovered Love Canal. Which was flat out false. The High School students from New Hampshire mounted a protest against this obvious journalistic fraud. The Times did eventually print a retraction buried within the paper.

Furthermore they claimed that "it was just one word" (where have we heard this type of defense lately?). One word that completely changed the meaning of what Gore had said.

Interestingly, one of the authors of this smear campaign was promoted to Washington Bureau Chief (Richard Berke), I guess with the NYT, it pays to be a white liar. Journalistic ethics only applys to minorities.

On edit: I just can't type today

[Nazgul35]

28. Tell them....

they'll know what a left-wing media looks like when the Guardian USA shows up this winter! When America gets the woll ripped away from it's eyes....

:evilgrin:

[Q]

30. My response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=121473&mesg_id=121473

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftchick]

42. you too?

*

[NashVegas]

32. You Say "I WISH the NYT was Liberal"

"Then I wouldn't have had to go to the Guardian if I wanted the facts about the attempted coup in Venezuela.

Then I wouldn't have to go to the BBC to read about US corporations trying to patent life forms that have been around for thousands of years.

Then I wouldn't have to go to Democratic Underground to find out how dirty our man in Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi, is.

Then I wouldn't have to go to IndyMedia.org to find out an anti-war protest the NYT said was attended by 'thousands' was actually attended by hundreds of thousands.

Then I wouldn't have had to wait for 3 university researchers to put out a press release to tell me something is very fucked up in the rush to implement no-paper-trail electronic voting machines.

Then I wouldn't have to go to Zmag to find out a respected institution like Coca Cola is hiring mercenaries to kill off union organizers in 3rd world contries."

etc, etc.

Then for fun, read the columns by various NYT editorialists and separate them into liberal/conservative/just plain idiot (think: Dowd) categories.

[Khephra]

33. Last time I heard someone say that

I burst out in uncontrolable laughter.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stuart]

37. I respectfully disagree

I thought this was a legitimate thread, these are issues that need to be discussed and repeated. I don't know what you mean by backhand smear. Either you must work for the NYT, or there is a history that I am not aware of.

Reagrdless, there is a consistent pro-Republican bias in the media today and to claim that the NYT is a liberal paper is ludicrous. One Paul Krugman does not make up for the rest of the slanted reporting and editorializing that the Times commits.

Jason Blair (remember him?) gets canned for minor embellishments, while Richard Berke gets a promotion for major flatout lies.

I find your analogy puzzeling, what does deodorant have to do the the NYT?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftchick]

50. I am always suspicious when the thread starter refers to aWol as

"the president" .... :puke:

[Ripley]

40. Yeah, that's why they covered up the Monica story.

Not.

[Gringo]

44. "What an idiotic thing to say. Who told you that, Rush?"

The Times bashed Clinton for NOTHING as much as all the other RW media whores. The fact that they have an occasional story favorable to our side is NOT a liberal bias. Hell, The Nation doesn't even have a liberal bias anymore!

I'd encourage the person who said it (assuming they're over 30 and have some sense of the long-term trends going on) to just look around, and see what 22 years of GOP and GOP lite policies have done to this country, ask where all the high paid jobs went, ask how much debt he's in, and if he thinks his job is anywhere near as secure as his father' was. I'd also remind him that the most prosperous years in this country's history were all built on liberal democratic policies, and took place under a top tax rate of 70%. I'd encourage him to think for himself and not swallow the phony conventional wisdom hook, line and sinker.

I'd also loan him my copy if Howard Zinn's book "A People's History of the United States" as a starter.

[Redleg]

45. Get new friends who won't ask the typical repuke questions.

Have them give you the results of a scientific study showing NYT's bias. A few anecdotes just don't cut it.

[grasswire]

48. I've heard it explained like this:

The NYT does support in its pages certain social and policy positions considered "liberal" on matters such as such as global warming. For that, it could be considered left leaning (although it's a stretch).

But its specific reporting for the last three WH administrations has been deeply skewed. Skewed against the Clinton administration and in favor of the Bush administration.

[Redleg]

54. I believe Eric Alterman said there is a left-leaning bias

on social issues and a right-leaning bias on economic issues.

[Composed Thinker]

56. People who say these things aren't really friends

They are people whom I argue with on another, non-political board.

[9215]

49. What liberal has it lauded lately? n/t

.

[poskonig]

51. The liberal establishment, maybe.

They clearly aren't "liberal" on foreign policy and economic issues.

[jagguy]

52. I usually say

duh

its been that way for generations.

not a popular sentiment around here but if viewed objectively its true. they are even more liberal than the Washington Post.

[legin]

53. this is actually a sore point for me just now

When the terrorism futures market thing came up, I took a visit over to Freerepublic to see what they were saying and i was actually pleasantly suprised to see that there was a sizable number over there who were also against it. There were of course those who supported it because it was a 'free market solution' to a problem, kind of in a way that made me wonder that if Hitler could have managed to work a 'free market solution' angle into the Holacaust perhaps Hitler might have had a bit more support for his ideas.

Some of the pro-futures market people had written articles to post as threads over there, to be met with far from universal praise.

Just as i am about to leave, slightly glowing as my belif in human nature has been slightly restored, up goes a thread featuring an article from some Berkley economist, saying almost exactly the same things as the pro-future market freepers had been saying, printed in the New York Times.

[legin]

55. This is the creep

Hal R. Varian:
http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/

This is the 'could have been written at freerpublic' article:
http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/people/hal/NYTimes/2003-07-31.html

[Ein]

57. "Give me an example."

That usually works.

[Yupster]

58. My response would be

No %$#$%^ Sherlock.

The NY Times has been the liberal paper in New York since I grew up there in the early 60's. The News and Post were considered the conservative ones.

The New York Times presidential endorsements in my lifetime might be a hint. I was born in 1959. Since then, the NY Times has endorsed,

1960 - Kennedy
1964 - Johnson
1968 - Humphrey
1972 - McGovern
1976 - Carter
1980 - Carter
1984 - Mondale
1988 - Dukakis
1992 - Clinton
1996 - Clinton
2000 - Gore