The New York Post competes with the NY Daily News and Newsday. The New York Times and the New York Post appeal to two distinct groups with, I would guess, little overlap.
Can someone explain to me why “liberal” is such a dirty word nowadays? It seems like all a candidate- generally Republican- has to do to discredit their opponent is to dismiss them as “liberal”.
I’m gettin’ pretty tired of it.
Again, this was not FOXNEWS!!! It was a local Fox affiliate doing the nighty news during the newcast talking about a story on the front page of the NYTimes. His segment featured that story, which he then said consider the source, and then some video from the Ohio RNC saying it was all lies. The End. Then, sports.
It is no more appropriate to dismiss the NY Times out of hand for its liberal bent than it is to dismiss Fox News out of hand for its conservative bent. Of course, many liberals on this board seem fine with the latter.
The Times has a large body of journalists, a handful of which may have political agendas, but they have editors that try to suppress the agendas.
Fox has a large body of political hacks with agendas, a handful of which may be journalists, but they have producers that try to suppress the journalism.
One has a long tradition of Journalistic integrity and the other is a handful of years old. Dismissing the Wall Street Journal for being conservative would be wrong. Dismissing Fox News for being conservative and without any proven credentials or worth is appropriate.
Jim
Cite? Or is this just an ad hominem?
So Fox News doesn’t have integrity because they’re not old enough? How exactly does age create journalistic integrity? At what age will they become credible?
And MSNBC isn’t too old either. So would it be ok to dismiss them as a liberal organization? Or does this theory only apply to allegedly conservative news organizations?
I’m not sure dismissing any story containing verifiable information from any source merely because of the source makes much sense. It’s tantamount to accusing the source of fabrication. It just strikes me as a dumb thing to say all around if the content of the story can be corroborated. Is it that kind of story we’re talking about?
It is common knowledge that the Times has a lot of journalists, and that some of them have an agenda is only to be expected from human nature. It is standard editorial procedure to try to eliminate biases from journalistic work.
It is common knowledge that Fox News was created to advance the political agenda of Rupert Murdoch. The political bias of Fox is well documented in many sites such as this one.
Yeah, that site seems real credible.
I fully admit that Fox News is biased towards the GOP but I also marvel at folks who don’t think that the NY Times, the Washington Post (to a lesser extent than the Times), CNN, and other news agencies are liberal. I guess I attribute it to folks recognizing bias when someone disagrees with them, but when a news source supports their political views, they think there is no bias because that organization is just reporting the “truth.”
Fair enough. And I agree on all points.
I don’t believe that is common knowledge. Do you have some support for that idea?
There are plenty of biased sources to which I can point that “document” the biases of the NYTimes. For example, this one. Neither your site or this one appears to be big on their own journalistic integrity or objectivity, and I don’t think either site’s analysis is particularly credible.
Not what I said, age does not create journalistic integrity; it just gives us the ability to appraise it and show a record of accomplishment. I do not foresee an age where Fox News becomes credible. Do you?
Is MSNBC liberal? I have no clue; I do not watch it or know many people that watch it. I watch some CNN, but mostly I get my news from online. CNN and NY Times are my principle sources. BBC is probably third on my list. When I watched Fox, I found them less trustworthy and objective then the Network news and I stopped trusting those years ago. CNN does a fair job of being objective; I cannot say the same for Fox.
Jim
You aren’t separating reporting from editorial content. Fox News has a larger dose of on-air editorializing.
Just FYI, I’ve been purposely writing Fox in my post, not FoxNews. However, you can’t expect a thread which is even tangentially about journalistic bias to not bring FoxNews into the fray.
In this area, you can’t really compare the NY Times to Fox, then, since by nature TV lends itself to more editorializing during news reporting. If you look at CNN, though, I’d say that its reporters do as much on-air editorializing as Fox.
The NY Times is unashamedly liberal on its editorial page and I’d say that its reporting also reflects a liberal slant. I’d say it’s comparable to the Washington Times, which is unashamedly conservative on its editorial pages and its reporting relects a conserative slant. That’s not to say that the reporting of either is worthless. Both papers have some great reporting, but often you need to read both of them (as well as the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal) to get the full flavor of what’s going on.
“Great reporting” from the Washington Times? For instance…?
In terms of their coverage of politics, the Washington Times often has much better information than either the Washington Post or the NY Times. Their Capitol Hill coverage is much more detailed.
The only people who believe the New York Times is “ultra-liberal” are the folks who believe the war in Iraq can be won if all Americans simply believe hard enough.
Related funny: What Right-Wingers See When They Read the New York Times. 