Skip to comments.New York Times Public Editor Admits Paper Has Liberal Bias
Posted on 08/18/2013 1:46:47 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
New York Times Public Editor Admits Paper Has Liberal Bias By Noel Sheppard Created 08/18/2013 - 4:26pm
NewsBusters readers certainly don't have to be told that the New York Times has a liberal bias, but when the paper's public editor admits it on national television, one has to take notice.
With that in mind, grab some peanuts, popcorn, or Cracker Jacks and take a gander at Margaret Sullivan on CNN's Reliable Sources Sunday marvelously telling us what we already know (video follows with transcript and commentary):
JOANNE LIPMAN: Big newspapers used to employ in-house watchdogs to keep them on the straight and narrow and to represent readers. Few do that anymore.
But "The New York Times" does, and theirs is as outspoken as they come. I sat down earlier to talk with public editor Margaret Sullivan as she marks one year on the job.
LIPMAN: Margaret Sullivan, thank you so much for joining us.
MARGARET SULLIVAN, PUBLIC EDITOR "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Thanks, Joanne. Great to be here.
LIPMAN: So let's dive right in. The loudest criticism that we often hear about "The New York Times" -- I don't know if it's the most frequent but it's certainly the loudest -- is that it has a liberal bias. Does it?
SULLIVAN: Well, some of my predecessors have taken that head-on. In fact, Daniel Okrent, the first public editor, once wrote a column -- and I think the headline said something like "Is 'The Times' a Liberal Newspaper?"
And his answer in the lead was, of course it is. And he went on from there. And it got quite a bit of response.
I mean that is obviously something people feel about "The Times," and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that "The Times" reflects its readership, its community. It's an urban paper; it's a New York City paper. I mean that's a reasonable criticism, I think.
LIPMAN: So it is a yes?
SULLIVAN: It's a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it.
Ah, we'll ignore the nuance and just take that as a yes, Margaret. Thanks for confirming it.
Gee, I hadn’t noticed...since I don’t read their rag of a newspaper.
I don’t mind a newspaper having a liberal bias. So long as they keep it to their opinion/editorial pages.
Need I say more about the NYT?
Nice that she gave the answer in pure unadulterated Liberalspeak, thereby clearly illustrating the gobbledygook that comprises the essence of leftist thought.
And this is the so-called paper of record. I like how Sullivan kind of sheepishly admits that it is biased. She caveats it with “nuances”.
It’s a commie left wing propaganda tool, and everybody with half a brain knows it.
The Slimes has not endorsed a Republican for president since freaking Eisenhower. No, no bias here, move along...
It’s a commie rag for sure
Wha . . . . . !!??? Say it ain't so!!
(I wonder if the NYT will stop their own presses for this non-news story?? All they have done is acknowledge what the rest of America already knew!)
You insult commie rags ,, Pravda (and RT.com , Russia Today) are far more accurate in their portrayals of both left and right.
Lie, damned lies, statistics, ... and NYT copy.
It is one thing for journalism to be in perennial opposition to the sitting political administration, a gadfly,"comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" as that smirking, self-congratulatory bit of cant goes. That is not the case here. The NY Times is, on the contrary, an Orwellian Ministry Of Truth that covers for the sitting administration, ridicules and represses its critics, and acts at no point as an honest broker, not even when it deigns to notice the numerous and systematic outrages of this criminal regime. It doesn't need an ombudsman, it needs to go broke and go away.
You know, I think this paper is having buyers remorse regarding the way this country is going, particularly when the administration started going after the journalists. First we had the unflattering portrait of the Clinton Foundation, and now this. At first I thought they were merely trying to pave the way for a non-Hillary candidate for the next election, but now I’m thinking that even the NY Times writers are deeply disturbed about the current events. You know they have sources the rest of us don’t. I think the CNN interview today was a signal that things may change.
Well duuugh.. if you ONLY hire liberal moonbats and keep an eye open for any that might veer away from the moon..
And if they do, fire them.. with the threat you’ll never work in this town again.. (implied or actual)
Finding a conservative there would be like talking of the weather with David Brooks who just told you the rain is warm today after pissing all over your leg..
NYT biased? No way! She’s go to be lying.