That’s ridiculous. That’s like saying that the only people who believe Fox News is “ultra conservative” are those who believe the only reason John Kerry lost the 2004 election was because Diebold technicians stole it from him.
Both the NY Times and Fox News are biased. Anyone who can’t see the truth of that statement is letting his or her own biases get in the way.
I believe the point that’s being made is that both have a bias, but that Fox’s is very much larger. I don’t see anyone claiming that the NY Times has no bias at all, as you seem to be claiming.
Hmm. I don’t know how that “Tha” got in there, but it wasn’t a dig at Renob or anything like that, just a mistake on my part.
Not quite true. The Times doesn’t supress agendas-- it has one of its own.
Editors show their agenda when they decide which stories get prominence.
Take, for example, stories about torture and cruelty.
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.
It’s a judgement call. Editors give prominence to stories which match their own attitudes. This is a natural human tendency–but it would be appropriate for the Times to admit that they are human.
The Wall Street Journal leans to the right. And the NY Times leans to the left.
But only the Times denies it.
Wouldn’t Bricker’s cite suggest otherwise?
I would think it did.
Seems like we all agree that the NY Times is Liberal leaning and the Wall Street Journal is Conservative leaning and that in both cases they are excellent papers. We only seem to be disagreeing on the value of Fox News.
Again, I think people are conflating the editorial pages with the news pages. Few people would deny that the NYT leans left on the editorial pages. The question is: does news outlet “X” make an honest and concerted effort to remain objective in its news reporting or does it, either consciously or not, allow significan bias to creep into its news reporting.
“Clearly the facts have a liberal bias!” 
This has always been my impression of how political bias manifests itself. It’s not so much bias in reporting the facts, which the news orgs protect against, but which still slips through occasionally. It’s the decisions of which stories are newsworthy. I think Daniel Okrent (the former NY Times Ombudsman) does a good job of describing this at the NY Times.
I’m not so sure that’s the case anymore. I think some people deny it, but the editors at the NY Times have been relatively upfront about the fact that they’re human, and their choice of stories is influenced by their value choices. Plus, a news org should report on the stories that interest its audience, and the NY Times seems to admit that its audience is primarily NYC, which leans to the left (on social issues).
Fox News has been around for 10 years now. How long do they need to exist before we can adequately judge their record?
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?
Like you (and apparently an increasing number of people around the world), I get most of my news online. When I just want headline news, I tend to go with CNN. Other than that, I pick up more in-depth reporting by choosing the subject matter, rather than the source of the news. For example, if I want to catch up on Fallujah, I might watch a 60 Minutes story, a PBS program, and some CNN News “We’re At War!!!” coverage. If I want to catch up on the 9/11 Commission Report, I’ll probably read the report, as well as some analysis from the Nation and National Review.
In my experience, Fox News does a pretty good job of getting the facts right. They might emphasize different facts than CNN or MSNBC, or they’ll give prominence to different stories, but they don’t misrepresent facts.
I don’t agree that even the NYtimes editorial pages can be described as “ultra-liberal.” The stances that the page has taken on many political issues, particularly the original run-up to the war, have hardly been in step with what “ultra-liberals” want. I think we’re dealing here with a sort of political conversion disorder, wherein merely being on the liberal side of things automatically makes you an “ultra-liberal.”
Considering that many “ultra liberals” supported the war at the time, I don’t see how the Iraq war is a conservative or liberal issue. Plenty of liberals supported the war – and some still do – and plenty of conservatives opposed it then and many more oppose it today.
Ah. Heaven is going to be great.
Oh. And No.
Good find. That was exactly the article I referred to in my first post.
I don’t either. The whole “ultra” part is just way too subjective, but my they don’t get an “ultra” on my own liberal-o-meter. A “very”, maybe, but not an “ultra”. 
Other than the guy in your OP, though, I don’t believe anyone in this thread is making that argument.
Who are these “ultra-liberals” of whom you speak? Most of the Senators that I’d consider “solidly liberal” did not support the war. I’m thinking of folks like Feingold. In fact, I’d be curious to see who you think is ultra-liberal and why. Let’s keep it to the Senate, if possible, to make it easier. The House always has a few whackos of various stripes.
Here you are:
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
These are all pretty liberal Senators who voted in favor of the Iraq war.
You said ultra liberal, not pretty liberal. Are you backtracking? And some of those Senators are not “pretty liberal” anyway. Most of them are centrists.
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.
Does not accord well with the facts. At the time of the vote, The Leader was swearing up and down that he would exhaust all means short of war to rid Saddam of his invisible pink unicorns of death. He futher asserted that such a resolution would make his determination to avoid war that much more feasible, since it would demonstrate that he had the support necessary to engage in muscular diplomacy. He was, as I’m sure you will agree, lying. Through his teeth, with every breath.
So the claim that these people “voted in favor of the Iraq war” is somewhat shy of candor.
elucidator, do you have any evidence to support your assumption that people were voting to authorize the use of force, not because they wanted to authorize the use of force, but rather because they wanted to avoid using force? Keeping in mind, of course, that it doesn’t count to change your position after the war turned sour.
(I’m not actually arguing. I’m honestly curious if anyone made this argument before or at the time they voted in favor of authorizing the use of force.)
No. It’s pedantic to claim that the vote wasn’t a vote for the war. Are are you going to claim that “no one could have predicted” Bush would actually go to war? I don’t care much for John Edwards’ politics, but at least he was man enough to admit that the vote was a vote for war when he recanted (emphasis aded):
No weaseling for him. No claims that he didn’t vote for a war. He knew what he did, and he admitted it was wrong. Good for him.