Posted on 07/24/2004 7:30:15 PM PDT by NavySEAL F-16
OF course it is.
The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left - and there are plenty - generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.
I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Is the New York Times a liberal paper??
Is Kerry a moron?
Is Michael Moore fat?
Does Hillary have piano legs?
Does slick willy have no morals?
Is Bush going to win in November?
Any more questions?
you can use
username: freeper123
password: freeper123
I don't know that he was really defending it. He was exposing the bias and admitting to it, and he noted that other papers with similar ideology were willing to cover the negative side of gay marriage, while the Times wasn't.
Given that the article is appearing in the Sunday "Week in Review" section, I think Okrent deserves some credit for being so blunt and accurate about the Times' bias.
Let's just all say at once: "The NYT is a partisan rag with an axe to grind. The country is demonstrably worse off because of policies it has championed. The NYT has no claim whatever to our loyalty, our subscription dollars, and certainly not our patronage."
thats why when his time is up, he is out of there. he is a bit too honest.
Does Sandy Berger have a paper fetish?
Interesting - but I will only read the excerpt. I refuse to give the NYT even my click (them and the LAT!)
They are nothing but slime journalism, as accurate or less then the Star - even the Enquirer gets some things right!
DKK
Like what color is the White House and who's buried in Grant's Tomb?
That must be why he's leaving on vacation!
I don't know that he was really defending it.
He certainly gave enough excuses for the liberalism of the paper and no solutions to correct the bias.
If the DNC closed down their NYTimes and just used Instant Messaging to tell the networks how to spin the news, they'd have more money for cigarettes and booze for their get-out-the-vote efforts.
Surprisingly fair article. The NYT is almost unreadable.
Absolutely !!!
Well, they didn't hire Okrent to see to it there's no bias - they hired him to try to insure the Times gets at least a few of its' facts straight!
And on this point, he's got it right: the NYT IS biased.
There's no need for them to apologize for that, just like there's no need for me to EVER buy or read their paper.
But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world.
Translated - "it's a Noo Yawk thing, you wouldn't understand." Which is fair enough but a little hard on those New Yorkers who don't fit that rather confining little mold. Presumably they subscribe to the Post or the Wall Street Journal.
It is, in essence, a confession of parochialism from a newspaper with much wider pretensions. It isn't news, but at least the fellow is honest about it, and I think, correct.
Obviously most feel that liberal rag's are not informative, but are a biased output to promote what their ideals are.
Perhaps the reason behind the cutbacks and loss of jobs is a true showing as to how the public appreciates "The Times".
I will buy and read the final edition of the extremely liberal NY Times, and the way it is going that will probably be very soon.
It isn't really surprising that the New York Times defends its liberal bias, when you believe that your purpose is to indoctrinate the world so that it worships liberalism what other position could he take?
And if NO conservatives bought these rags and did not pay for advertising in them, many would go out of business. So who's to blame for the partisan press kicking conservatives around every day?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.