NYTimes admits liberal bias; pledges to change

L

Leftwith

500+ Posts
Wow! This one caught me off guard.
eek.gif


I have to applaud the Times for this. Has this kind of admission ever happened before? Let's hope they mean it!
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
While I think this is a ploy I also think they, the NYT, have left themselves exposed

so I guess time will tell

the other question is will the other media outlets who are so in deep also " come out"?
 
6721, I think maybe the NYT is just the first to see the writing on the wall. The days of hoodwinking the public with liberal BS are over. Americans are onto the game and have had enough.

Read the comments section at Yahoo every time they feature a Dem fluff piece. It's vicious.

Look at how the crowds erupted every time Gingrich took it to the lib dorks from CNN and the other networks.

The natives are fed up and are getting restless. The lib media turds have to see this.
 
Too little too late. They have irreversibly damaged their brand as the paper of record. Truly tragic.
 
There is bias inherently in the media. I applaud the NY Times for attempting to be unbiased. If only more media would take the same approach.
 
Yeah, the ol liberal NYT is poisoning the well for everybody else:

During the past several months of the Republican primary campaign, presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney received a mix of positive and negative coverage, while President Barack Obama got "consistently negative" coverage, according to a new study from Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The PEJ study, which examined coverage from the period between Jan 2 and April 15, found that "Obama's negative coverage exceeded positive coverage in 14 or 15 weeks studied, while positive coverage outweighed negative coverage for Romney in six of the 15 weeks and was fairly evenly divided in four more."
The Link
 
Satchel,

That's apples to oranges and you know it. You have to compare President's to other coverage of Presidents as they both have a record. Compare GWB 2007 vs Obama 2011? Or Senator Obama 2008 vs Romney 2012. You will see a huge difference in pos vs neg coverage of those two comparison.
 
A link? No it's common sense. BHO has a horrible record and anything the mainstream media reports is going to be negative even though they will try to spin it the best they can for him. But it still goes down as a hegative story. Just no way around it.
 
Fox is always doing self assessment. Yep, everything they do is "fair and balanced."

I think it clear that the New York Times and others erred in giving Obama a pass on inexperience the last time around. He's a bright and articulate, but he lacked the seasoning and experience for the job. I do however think that some of the adjectives describing him, "Socialist" and "worst ever" "horrable" should be subject to some intellectual scrutiny rather that being obvously self-evident. For all the talk of his community organizing, he appears to me to be working to score political points from the left, but govern from the center. His health care plan, featuring individual responsibility, preservation of private insurance, etc., was inteneded to be much more appealing to conservatives than what Clinton proposed. For all Ted Nugent's hysterical theater, Obama's posed no threat to gun ownership and expansion of the welfare state has coincided, unfortunately, with lots of people being out of work and underemployed because of underlying economic conditions, not some grand scheme for income redistribution.
 
Crockett, do you share your account with someone else? One day I'm agreeing with you, and the next day - like today - I'm in disbelief. So much fail in your post.
wtf.gif
 
I never said that. The NY Times has become an American institution - the newspaper of record. One would expect the highest journalistic integrity and standards from such an institution. As of recent, they have failed and failed fantastically. Now they admit to their failure. That's great but does not reverse the harm already done to their reputation and more importantly to their brand.

If the Times wants to be regarded at the same level as MSNBC and Fox News then congrats- they have succeeded.
 
The NYTimes is a for profit company and they are seeing that holy **** how much money is Fox making? They see the writing on the wall and there is an untapped market in the world of conservatism.
 
Leftwith -- I'm an independent thinker and a passionate student of history. I'm pleased to know that at least sometimes you think my posts sensible
 
Watching Reliable Sources on CNN right now. Not a single word about this. Truly pathetic. A show based on evaluating the reliability of the media does not even mention that the public editor of the NYTimes admits bias.
 
When a POTUS promises to get unemployment at a certain % and promises to reduce our deficit he assumes that responsibility
and when he doesn't delivers he has the mantle of failuere

BO can't have it both ways. he can't promise things and then when he fails he can't say nor can his supporters say, well that isn't the Pres fault.
 
The New York Times has already endorsed Barack Obama for this election cycle. They have endorsed the Democratic nominee every year since 1960. Over fifty years and not one Republican worth endorsing? I'll believe their desire to end their bias when I see it. I suppose admitting their bias is a start, but it is certainly not something that demonstrates any results as yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top