# Can the NYTimes' reporting rightly called "ultra-liberal" and dismissed out of hand? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 17, 2006, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710 "2006-10-17T00:17:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2006, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/61 "2006-10-17T22:33:34Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] Yeah, I nearly fell over reading that list: Clinton “ultra-liberal”? Hollings, Reid “ultra-liberal”? The closest that any Senate Democrat ever got to “ultra-liberal” was standing next to the late Paul Wellstone. [/QUOTE] I agree, and I’d still be wary of the “ultra” label. You gotta save that for the few outliers way off in left field, else it loses it’s specific meaning. Ultra- doesn’t mean pretty- or even very-. It means extreme. It means you can’t get any more liberal. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2006, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/62 "2006-10-17T22:37:25Z")
What’s worse, ultraliberal or hyperliberal? The former means, you know, wicked liberal, but the latter is kind of in a class all it’s own, so liberal it _transcends_ the status of “liberal” and enters an entirely new plane. Does one then become so left they do a 180, or must we invoke extra dimensions to truly describe the phenomenon? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2006, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/63 "2006-10-17T22:41:00Z")
[http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=122](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=122) **Many Dems Reject War Resolution** > [@](#): > > A majority of House Democrats on Thursday rejected President Bush’s request for blank-check authority to wage war with Iraq, despite the fact that House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, helped draft the resolution and lobbied for its passage… The Resolution also contained restrictions that would have denied authorization if certain conditions were not met. > [@](#): > > …In other words, the Iraq Resolution was not an authorization to go to war, it was a mandate to follow the standards for war set forth in the War Powers Act. Congress made clear that in 2002, as in 1973, the War Powers Act was, and now is, the law of the land concerning war. Based upon the plain language of the Iraq Resolution, Bush was required by law to meet the conditions of the WPA before going to war with Iraq. He did not. > > The WPA required “clear” evidence of an “imminent” threat by Iraq to the U.S. to justify war… [http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq\_war\_violating\_the\_war\_powers\_act.htm](http://www.themoderntribune.com/iraq_war_violating_the_war_powers_act.htm) The wording on the Authorization required the President to determine the existence of a “clear” and “imminent” threat. Needless(?) to say, no such facts existed. The weasel capacity exists in that the President was authorized to determine such facts at his own discretion, which, in this instance, included utter bullshit. If he were to determine that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were in cahoots with Saddam and posed the aforementioned “imminent threat”, he was entirely empowered to do so. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2006, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/64 "2006-10-17T22:51:49Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] [http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=122](http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=122) **Many Dems Reject War Resolution** The Resolution also contained restrictions that would have denied authorization if certain conditions were not met. [/QUOTE] And of course that’s 100% true. But we’re not arguing about whether or not Democrats voted for/against the war, we’re arguing about whether the vote was, in fact, a vote for war. Your cite calls it just that: a vote for war. Also, we were talking about the Senate in the earlier posts, not the House. Not that it’s all that important, it’s just easier to keep track of Senators since there are few of them. And they tend to have better name recognition as a whole. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2006, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/65 "2006-10-17T23:12:25Z")
Under certain conditions. Conditions that, of course, were not met. The Authorization included the trapdoor of permitting the President to make that determination on his sole discretion. So, even if he were wrong, he was still authorized. You will recall, I’m sure, how strenuously The Leader denied that the resolution was a committment to war, since he was entirely dedicated to “disarming” Saddam by peaceful means if at all possible. Heck, if you can’t believe the President… But this is about the\* NY Times\*, so I recant the hijack and officially shrug. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2006, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/66 "2006-10-17T23:19:08Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Under certain conditions. Conditions that, of course, were not met. The Authorization included the trapdoor of permitting the President to make that determination on his sole discretion. So, even if he were wrong, he was still authorized. You will recall, I’m sure, how strenuously The Leader denied that the resolution was a committment to war, since he was entirely dedicated to “disarming” Saddam by peaceful means if at all possible. Heck, if you can’t believe the President… [/quote] Yes, I do recall. I didn’t believe him for a minute, and I doubt you did either. > [@](#): > > But this is about the\* NY Times\*, so I recant the hijack and officially shrug. Good call (for an ultra-liberal). 😉 ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/67 "2006-10-18T00:39:22Z")
[QUOTE=chappachula] This [Wall Street Journal editorial](http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008085#torture) notes that the Times hides stories about cruel tortures by Arab terrorists on page 10. But stories about Abu Ghraib go on page one. [/quote] Just taking a blind guess here, but I’d imagine that’s because the _New York Times_ is a paper situated in the United States, and therefore atrocities committed _by_ its fellow citizens are more newsworthy than atrocities committed by “foreigners”. _E.g.,_ “gunman kills six at Chicago mall” will get coverage in the NYT whereas “gunman kills six at Sri Lanka mall” won’t. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/68 "2006-10-18T00:43:07Z")
Well, of course the _New York Times_ is pro-terrorist. But they are _moderately_ pro-terrorist. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/69 "2006-10-18T00:50:37Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] …Good call (for an ultra-liberal) 😉 [/QUOTE] I interpret this as a gentlemanly effort at polite discourse, and appreciate it as such. Please be advised that I am entirely content with the term “radical”. We have a proud tradition going back to Thomas Paine, and part of that tradition is: we don’t really trust liberals. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/70 "2006-10-18T01:45:32Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > This Wall Street Journal editorial notes that the Times hides stories about cruel tortures by Arab terrorists on page 10. But stories about Abu Ghraib go on page one. > [@rjung](#): > > Just taking a blind guess here, but I’d imagine that’s because the New York Times is a paper situated in the United States, and therefore atrocities committed by its fellow citizens are more newsworthy than atrocities committed by “foreigners”. Moreover, **chappachula** ’s linked WSJ editorial describes this victim of torture by Arab terrorists as a member of an “anti-American” organization: > [@](#): > > Tom Fox, a member of the anti-American Christian Peacekeeper Teams, has been murdered by terrorists in Iraq who held him hostage for more than three months, the New York Times reported on Saturday. On Sunday, the paper carried a follow-up report that Fox “had apparently been tortured by his captors before being shot multiple times in the head and dumped on a trash heap next to a railway line in western Baghdad.” > > The story of Fox’s death ran on page A8; the story of his torture, on page A10. So the WSJ editorialist is complaining that the Times isn’t giving enough prominence to stories about terrorists torturing members of anti-American organizations. But wouldn’t that just encourage sympathy for those nasty anti-Americans? Why does the WSJ editorial page hate America? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/71 "2006-10-18T01:46:09Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] I interpret this as a gentlemanly effort at polite discourse, and appreciate it as such. [/QUOTE] That’s fine, but I meant it as a joke (hence the wink). As I said above, I think the temr “ultra-” isn’t of much use in this instance-- it obscures rather than clarifies what we’re trying to talk about. ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/72 "2006-10-18T03:45:04Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] This seems to contradict your earlier argument that Fox News is open to criticism because they don’t have an established track record. Do you think they’ve got a track record of bias? [/QUOTE] Not really, it seems pretty clear that **What Exit** means a track record as a reliable news source. It’s easy to establish a reputation as an unreliable source: just lie to me once. Establishing a reputation as someone to be trusted takes far longer. ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/73 "2006-10-18T03:56:59Z")
And to clarify, my “not really” refers to your first sentence. I do in fact think they have a track record of bias. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/74 "2006-10-18T04:26:39Z")
> [@](#): > > **John Mace** : Any bias one might find in the NYT is more likely due to the fact that it’s a big city news paper and the reporters have mores consistent with people who live in big cities, and which differ in many ways from the mores one might more typically find in rural areas. Like Edward R. Murrow? ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/75 "2006-10-18T14:47:28Z")
[QUOTE=DxZero] I also noticed that nearly everyone is smoking, which seems a bit odd. [/QUOTE] Heaven seems like a great place to light up. I mean, we’re gonna live forever up there anyway! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/76 "2006-10-18T17:11:16Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] Cite? Or is this just an ad hominem? [/QUOTE] Try this – from an [url=]insider. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/77 "2006-10-18T18:05:56Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] Like Edward R. Murrow? [/QUOTE] I don’t know what you mean. Can you clarify, or was that just a joke? ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/78 "2006-10-18T19:01:07Z")
**BrainGlutton** , your link doesn’t work. [QUOTE=Sublight] Not really, it seems pretty clear that **What Exit** means a track record as a reliable news source. [/quote] But that’s not what he said. He said they lack a track record to accurately assess their journalistic integrity. > [@](#): > > It’s easy to establish a reputation as an unreliable source: just lie to me once. Establishing a reputation as someone to be trusted takes far longer. But the New York Times has been wrong – even fraudulently wrong – before. For example, [Walter Duranty](http://www.nytco.com/company-awards-pulitzer-note.html). And [Jayson Blair](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair). And they’ve got that whole [“Corrections” section](http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html) that runs pretty frequently. And of course Janet Cooke of the Washington Post had to return her Pulitzer after it turned out that her reports were fictionalized. And a [USA Today reporter lied in major stories](http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18-2004-03-18_kelleymain_x.htm). And a [Reuters photographer digitally manipulated photos](http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/). All news organizations rely on people, and as such, are subject to their flaws. If your standard is actually that you don’t believe anyone that’s lied to you, then I have to wonder where you’re getting your news from. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/79 "2006-10-18T19:25:33Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] **BrainGlutton** , your link doesn’t work.But that’s not what he said. He said they lack a track record to accurately assess their journalistic integrity.But the New York Times has been wrong – even fraudulently wrong – before. For example, [Walter Duranty](http://www.nytco.com/company-awards-pulitzer-note.html). And [Jayson Blair](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair). And they’ve got that whole [“Corrections” section](http://www.nytimes.com/ref/pageoneplus/corrections.html) that runs pretty frequently. And of course Janet Cooke of the Washington Post had to return her Pulitzer after it turned out that her reports were fictionalized. And a [USA Today reporter lied in major stories](http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18-2004-03-18_kelleymain_x.htm). And a [Reuters photographer digitally manipulated photos](http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/). All news organizations rely on people, and as such, are subject to their flaws. If your standard is actually that you don’t believe anyone that’s lied to you, then I have to wonder where you’re getting your news from. [/QUOTE] Yes, the Times has been wrong, many times. However, they have been right far more often. They have been reliable and they have earned my trust. This is coming from a Pro-Reagan Navy Vet. Fox News has a much smaller track record. So far they have appeared to be very heavily slanted anti-Clinton and Pro-Bush in their short existence. More-so than an objective news agency should be. They have had many inaccuracies and have done nothing to earn my trust. I am not a liberal, as should be obvious. I have made a point of the fact I trust the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal. When reading either publication, I keep in the back of my mind that each is indeed slanted. How about you forget the semantics for a moment and tell me why I should trust Fox News. I have seen no reason to. Jim ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2006, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710/80 "2006-10-18T20:07:39Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > And they’ve got that whole “Corrections” section that runs pretty frequently. Um, the conservatively-oriented _Wall Street Journal_ has one of those too. So does _USA Today_, for that matter. Every reputable news periodical needs to run “Corrections” items frequently, because mistakes always happen, and it’s more journalistically responsible to explicitly acknowledge them than to let them slide. What, you imagine that if a periodical doesn’t print “Corrections” items, that means they never make any mistakes? Dream on! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-the-nytimes-reporting-rightly-called-ultra-liberal-and-dismissed-out-of-hand/376710.md?page=5)