Skip to comments.NY Times Pledges ‘Unbiased Political Reporting’ (LIARS! They'll still lick Obama's shoes)
Posted on 04/25/2012 3:46:46 AM PDT by tobyhill
In an unprecedented move, New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane took to the pages of his newspaper on Sunday to pledge to the reading public that they would do a better job vetting the president. Yes, you read that right: the New York Times is now channeling Andrew Breitbart. Heres what he wrote:
The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the presidents record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?
Brisbane admits that critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. He admits that The Times basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obamas election in 2008. (That phrase, in and of itself, constitutes significant pro-Obama bias, of course he uses it twice in the course of the article.) But, he says, the bias wasnt purposeful: I think [our reporters] see themselves as aggressive journalists who dont play favorites.
Finally, he says, The warm afterglow of Mr. Obamas election, the collateral effects of liberal-minded feature writers these can be overcome by hard-nosed, unbiased political reporting now.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
They are in love with Obama AND Romney (their puppet).
Their toughest question for Obama will be, “Master, should I lick the left cheek, or the right?”
Well there such an easy veracity test. The NY Times demands full release of Obama’s academic, passport and SS records and demands it daily on page 1 or edtorial until it is done.
Anything less is a just scamming the readers.
And Hitler saw himself as a gift to humanity.... so what. It is results not intentions that matter.
I think [our reporters] see themselves as aggressive journalists who dont play favorites.
Of course they do, and that’s a real knee-slapper! They’re blinded by their bias.
Reporters? Ha! I think he meant to say Democrat-talking-point “repeaters”.
If they would just find his "REAL BC" then that would be enough!!
At least the left retains a sense of humor! They’re headquarters in NY has always benn the branch office of the DNC!
“They are in love with Romney....”
The NYT is probably so comfortable with Romney as the GOP nominee, so sure that he won’t stray far from Obama’s agenda if he wins the WH, that they’re willing to rock Obama’s boat a little bit now. No real danger to the progressive agenda.
Oh, I’m sure they would make a big show of it, starting on November 7th if Obama won. Since Romney is going to win, though, it is only a theorhetical exercise.
But...but..but... the NYT is not biased. Jon Liebowitz and all the people on MSNBC said so.
This is a move by NY Times to sanitize their future reporting of Obama.
Whenever the Times reports of the “greatness” of the One and are criticized for bias, they will simply say that they promised objectivity and scrutinty and they are delivering with they now say Truth about Obama. It will be the same crap only through a “new” lense.
The same paper who hide the slaughter of 6 Million Jews and later had to admit so years later.
(gasps for breath)
The Old Gray Whore is near death. The cancer is terminal.
The announcement by the editor that a glimmer or truth would be published is admission that he can see the grave. He is making every effort to rescind Grim Reaper’s the writing on the wall.
There can be no more superficial firings and page size trimmings to reduce costs. The costs are mounting faster than can be accommodated by reduction. There is only one choice. Increase readership and thus advertising.
Obama must be thrown under the bus. Readers will love to see the blood and squished guts. To hell with progressive America!! The Times bordello and presstitutes must be saved.
LEAKING AMERICAN SECRETS TODAY
LEAKING AMERICAN SECRETS IN THE PAST
The nyt is a complete waste of trees. I pledge to never buy a copy or read any of it on the internet.
Next thing you know, the United Nations will be cracking down on genocide.
my Democrat uncle told me years ago the New York Times was a Democratic rag sheet
Ben Shapiro is an anti-birther.
What they are licking IS NOT HIS SHOES.
I once had acquaintance with a guy from some country in Africa who had emigrated with his wife and kids..........none of them had birth certificates
“OJ Promises Wife-Killing Days Are Over”
They will be drinking slurpee’s in hell when this comes true.
Bwaa haa haa. That's a good one. You should've saved that for the official Friday silliness thread. Seriously, how could they even say such a thing with a straight face? Oh yeah, years of practice at bald-faced lying.
The NYT wouldn't know unbiased reporting if it came up and bit them in their liberal/socialist/fascist agenda-pushing backsides.
“Pinch and Obama sittin’ in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.”
I’m not sure it’s lying. It may be delusion.
Exactly. Once our actual "choice" has been eliminated, they are free to do whatever they want.
translation: so you can invest your full-faith and trust in our forthcoming 22 weeks of attacks on Romney...
This was reported in the New York Times. And I won't bother to watch the Times, until there's evidence of change. Just do it.
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.