# Do all cities have openly biased newspapers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175 "2005-05-23T22:05:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/21 "2005-05-24T19:48:36Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Do all cities have openly biased newspapers? Eh, you say “bias,” I say “editorial policy.” 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/22 "2005-05-24T19:51:13Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > “Sovereignist”? That the same thing as secessionist? Secessionist = We want our own new country. Sovereignist = We want our own new country but we’ll still accept transfer payments from the _old_ country. I’m sure there are subtleties I’m missing, though. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/23 "2005-05-24T19:59:13Z")
Not all cities have openly biased newspapers. Some of them are secretive about it. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/24 "2005-05-24T21:45:52Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Secessionist = We want our own new country. > > Sovereignist = We want our own new country but we’ll still accept transfer payments from the _old_ country. That’s not how I understand it at all. To me (and I guess most Quebecers), secessionist = sovereignist (or sovereigntist) = separatist = independentist. It’s all a question of what impression you want to give. Federalists say that independentists are separatists out to break Canada, independentists say they are sovereignists who want to make Québec’s sovereignty a reality. It means the same thing, there’s just a different ring to it. As for wanting payments from the old country, I’d kind of like a cite for this. You may be referring to the old concept of “sovereignty-association”, but as far as I know, this meant keeping some links between Canada and an independent Québec. This might mean economic links (such as a common currency), but I never read it as meaning that Canada would have to give unearned money to Québec. This said, **matt\_mcl** is right, among Montreal’s newspapers, _Le Devoir_ is known to be sovereignist while _La Presse_ is known to be federalist. I read _Le Devoir_ (not because of its editorial position, but because it’s also known as Québec’s best newspaper), and the bias is visible. It mostly remains in the editorial pages, though, which is good. In Ottawa, the three major newspapers are the _Citizen_, the _Sun_ and _Le Droit_. The _Sun_, like every other Sun Media newspaper in the country (such as the _Toronto Sun_, mentioned earlier) is a right-wing populist tabloid. _Le Droit_ has a mostly pro-Franco-Ontarian position, understandable since it started as French Ontario’s “battle” newspaper. As for the _Citizen_, I understand they are mostly a regular, centrist newspaper. _Le Droit_ and the _Citizen_ tend to clash on occasion, but mostly because one is a French and the other an English newspaper, which really has an influence on their ideological position. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/25 "2005-05-24T22:28:03Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Meanwhile, the Post doesn’t even make you wait to get to the editorial page; they just put their bias right into the front page by making up stories and headlines that aren’t really news. At least five or six times in the last year they’ve come out with an inflammatory headline that was not actually related to anything that happened on this planet. In July 2000, one of their columnists referred to protesters as “faggots,” outside of quotation marks, on the front page. Then there was that period in 2002 where they were trotting out all of these instant experts on the front page saying how converting to the US dollar and joining the US would be so wonderful, as if this was a major topic of current discussion, when literally nobody else was the slightest bit interested in any such measure. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/26 "2005-05-25T02:52:33Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > Interestingly, I would have said it’s the unofficial paper of the NDP! I believe the Star has supported the Liberal Party in every single federal election held in the paper’s history, even in 1984 and 1988 when they had John Turner leading the party. Supporting the candidacy of John Turner in 1984 is roughly equivalent to supporting the captaincy of Joseph Hazelwood on March 25, 1989. I believe, though I am not certain, that they have also supported the Liberal Party in almost every Ontario PROVINCIAL election ever held, even back when Bill Davis, arguably the greatest premier in the history of Canada, was running the PCs, while the Liberals were led by a succession of nincompooops. As for the Post, two guesses as to who they always support in their short history. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/27 "2005-05-25T15:04:58Z")
The NY Times is conservative?! The Boston Globe is moderate?! It never ceases to amaze me how people can not see the blatant liberal bias in these papers. They don’t even try and hide it, really. Trying to claim they are moderate is silly. Trying to claim that they are conservative is insane. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/28 "2005-05-25T15:11:21Z")
Detroit has two papers. The Detroit News is biased toward Republicans, although to their credit they did not endorse Bush for president in 2004, preferring to endorse nobody. The Detroit Free Press is biased toward Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/29 "2005-05-25T19:23:14Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > It never ceases to amaze me how people can not see the blatant liberal bias in these papers. They don’t even try and hide it, really. Trying to claim they are moderate is silly. Trying to claim that they are conservative is insane. Funny, I was going to say something similar about your claims of “blatant liberal bias.” If the _New York Times_ and the _Boston Globe_ were blatantly liberal rags, focused solely on destroying all things Republican/conservative, the [Downing Street Memo](http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memo.html) would have been plastered on the front page on May 2nd with a headline in 144-point type screaming “BUSH TWISTED INTEL FOR IRAQ WAR” – instead of being quietly buried and ignored, as they did… The notion of a “liberal media” is a lie concocted by conservatives, used solely to bludgeon the media from reporting the _truth_ – which conservatives hate because it shows them in the most unflattering light. ---
**Author:** ![Cynical\_Optimist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Cynical\_Optimist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cynical_Optimist)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/30 "2005-05-25T19:34:40Z")
> [@modernhamlet](#): > > Boston has 2 daily papers, the Glob and the Herald. > > They’re both fairly middle of the road, with the Globe leaning a bit more left than the Herald. The big difference is that the Globe targets white-collars, the Herald, blue-collars. > > Then there’s the Metro (free, ~15 page commter paper). Basic AP reports and local fare. Not sure what impact its recent arrival is having, but I’m guessing the “real papers” are not pleased… The Glob is right, but you misspelled the Horrid. 🙂 You forgot the _Phoenix_, although that’s understandable. The paper is occasionally referred to as the _Fuck Us_ because much of their advertising revenue comes from the escort services, hotel masseurs, & “men’s health” clubs. Nobody actually reads the paper itself, they use it as a cover for the “Adult Entertainment” section in the same way a wino conceals his bottle in a paper bag. It may look nicer that way but they’re not fooling anyone. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2005, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/31 "2005-05-25T19:41:13Z")
Ahem. There \*are \* a few folks who read “The Straight Dope” in the Phoenix, too. Don’t be dissin’ the sponsors, now, it ain’t good for business. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/32 "2005-05-27T15:03:40Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > The NY Times is conservative?! > > The Boston Globe is moderate?! > > It never ceases to amaze me how people can not see the blatant liberal bias in these papers. They don’t even try and hide it, really. Trying to claim they are moderate is silly. Trying to claim that they are conservative is insane. Errmmm . . . interesting . . . Here’s how an actual leftist, Alexander Cockburn, views the _Times_ – from his “Beat the Devil” column in _The Nation,_ 5/30/05: > [@](#): > > JOIN THE 14 PERCENT CLUB! WE WON! > > Sign here to become a member of the 14 Percent Club. Twenty bucks plus shipping and handling gets you the T-shirt. Credentials for membership derive from a recent study from the Pew Research Center disclosing, in the words of Katherine Seelye of the _New York Times_ on May 9, that "45 percent of Americans believe little or nothing of what they read in their daily newspapers. . . . When specifid newspapers were mentioned, The Times fareda about average, with 21 percent of readers believing all or most of what they read in The Times and 14 percent believing almost nothing. > > Chalk up another victory for the left. We’ve gbeen at it for thirty years at least, saying that most things in the _Times_ are distortions of reality or outright lies, and here is a robust slice of the American people agreeing with us. > > \ > > On the matter of constructive versus constructive criticism, I’ll always opt for the latter. Keep it simple, like “US Out of Iraq Now.” My only quibble with Chomsky down the years has been the implication in all of his trenchant criticisms of the _Times_ that somehow the paper should be getting things right, and that it would be better if it did so. This has always seemed to me to be a contradiction in terms. The role devised by the _Times_ for itself was to be the credible organ of capitalism (“newspaper of record”), with reports and editorials premised on the belief that US capitalism can produce a just society in which all can enjoy the fruits of their labor in peaceful harmony with their environment and the rest of the planet. > > The evidence is in. The case is proved a million different ways. American capitalism can’t do that. It’s produced by an unjust society run by a tiny slice of obscenely rich people (including those controlling the _New York Times_) with a vested and irreversible interest in permanent war and planetary destruction. Given those premises, how can the _Times_ ever get it right? Why would we want the _Times_ to get it right? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/33 "2005-05-28T03:44:09Z")
Allegations of “bias” become hopelessly confused when people indiscriminately use the word to describe both news reporting and opinion (the latter in the form of columns and editorials which are clearly _expressions of opinion._) Does the paper twist facts or selectively report them to create a particular impression? Can you easily tell what side the reporter is on? Then it is “biased” or “slanted”, and therefore unprofessional. Does the paper express a firm opinion through its editorials, or have columnists with strong feelings about particular issues? Then it (or they) are opinionated, and possibly annoying and wrong-headed. But this should not be defined as “bias”. I don’t know how many times I have read aggrieved letters to the editor from people who _just can’t understand_ how so-and-so could possibly have panned a certain musical act, or criticized a politician who is Working For Our Families. “How can you say that in the paper?” Because they _own_ it, twit. Confine your beefing to what’s really critical - the content of the news section. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2005, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175/34 "2005-05-28T12:12:23Z")
From the seventies- there have been some changes since: London’s Daily Papers: The Times is read by the people who run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by the people who think they should be running the country. The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country. The Telegraph is read by the people who think this country should be run like it used to be. The Express is read by those people who think it still is. The Morning Star is read by the people who think that this country should be run by another country And the Sun is read by those people who don’t care who runs the country, so long as she’s got big tits. 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-all-cities-have-openly-biased-newspapers/305175.md?page=1)