Is the National Enquirer better than the New York Times?

So says journalist Peter Fenton:
http://www.ncbuy.com/news/wireless_news.html?qdate=2003-05-14&nav=VIEW&id=034QWGX6096030514

From the article:

I agree. The once-reputable publication has fallen to very low standards. I think Howell Raines should resign. The latest in the list of egregious mistakes is from Maureen Dowd’s column which can be seen here: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184036

On top of the deception and lies, the Times often takes anti-conservative and anti-Bush POVs. In the recent war against terror, they frequently criticized Bush for liberating Iraqi people from a madman who had killed 35 million of his own people. Apparently, the Times doesn’t think Iraqi lives are worth very much :rolleyes: So much for liberal ideas. Liberals who once fought for civil liberties and rights of Blacks are now openly supporting tyranny and mass murder of innocent lives. :frowning:

OTOH, some argue that the Blair incident is a freak incident. They also argue that opinion columnists can afford to be biased and that it doesn’t reflect on the newspaper. I disagree. Journalism is all about being objective and reporting the facts.

So, what do you think? Should Howell Raines take the blame for the decay of the newspaper and resign? Is the National Enquirer a better newspaper? What can we do to improve the once-glorious institution, the New York Times?

MEXICO has the BEST NEWSPAPERS, but BILL CLINTON STOLE all of the newspapers WITH THE PLEADEANS when he tried to STEAL ALL THE MEXICANS!!!

Link

Enough already, you’ve gotten your message out. :eek: :dubious:

I come back to respond to those who read my OP and…
sobs uncontrollably

Absolutely.

My friend’s parrot refuses to shit on anything else.

That may be true Zenster but we do not why. It could be that your parrot is not the discerning kind. I would tend to believe that.

The bulk of the problem, in my opinion, is that politics and political activists spend most of their time trying to make their opponents look bad and not a whole hell of a lot of time trying to make themselves look good. This results in a whole lot of people that, in my opinion, represent the absolute scum of society arguing over which scum is worse.

There’s a reason I hate politics…

Oh wonderous strange. A clone.

Anyone making that comparision or claim is a bloody drooling idiot, and the same for agreeing with it.

The Times made a big ass mistake, and had the balls to live up to it in ugly detial.

The Enquirer is a worthless rag.

You are aware… no probably not… of the difference between opinion columns and reporting. Two different items. A fine example is found in the Wall Street Journal which has very fine reporting, but one of the most abyssymal opinion pages this side of 19th century yellow journalism.

As for Dowd, eh, I don’t like here one bit. Yammering cow, but her editing of Bush’s statement was clearly in the realm of, from her Opin. Col. realm, trying to show the ‘real’ essence. I find it stupid, but it’s not a reflection on Times reporting or even all that much on the Opin. Page. Overdone hyperventilating on this is pure stupidity.

Awww, poor baby. Well, on top of one case of egregious fraud, what lies and deception do we have on the part of the Times?

Regardless, the Times is not a conservative paper, and has little love for Bush, so what the fuck do you want?

What the fuck are you blithering on about you mindless git? What fucking war on terror?

Primo, the NYT was sadly pro-war although they at least argued for it in the context of a UN resolution and wider backing than it got.

Second, what the fuck are you yammering about in re 35 milloin dead Iraqis. The total fucking population of Iraq is but in the 20-30 millions range, there has never been enough Iraqis to make up that number, hell in the 1980s there were but 15 millions or so. Bloody made up hand waving oh my god chicken little numbers.

Finally, the Times has not criticized Bush for having toppled Sadaam, they have critiqued the piss poor lead up to the war, the lack of clear regional diplomatic strategy etc., but not the war or “liberation.”

What I think is you need a fucking reality check.

Although ubiquitous and gratuitous cursing, third-grade spelling and grammatical skills, and sloppy coding often are effective at grabbing attention and soliciting guffaws from drunken peers, they do precious little to advance the merits of an argument.

Granted, the 35 million number is obviously incorrect, but so is the assertion that because the Times finally owned up to its negligence, it is therefore trustworthy. Also, your statement that the Enquirer is a “worthless rag” is unsupported. In fact, it is often the case that publications willing to pay sources can provide the most accurate news first.

So nice of you to join us Lib old man, glad you can share your views on my writing.

It’s a judgement, Lib, a judgement. I find the Times to be a hell of a lot more honest than most new sources, and its mea culpa goes to that overall judgement. There is a difference, my dear Lib, alhtough I know it escapes you, between a judgement and a assertion of verifiable fact.

Now should you have a truly analytical review of the Times’ reliability then perhaps we might have something to discuss.

Right Lib, right. Well, nice shot at attempting to parody me. Stupid, but nice.

In any case, I feel absolutely no need to support my assertion that the National Enquirer is a worthless rag.

You should at least qualify the assertion, since it is demonstrably false. The Enquirer is a highly profitable enterprise, and is worth a great deal to its shareholders, its employees, and its readers. Stupid is as stupid does, I reckon.

Nice response Lib, nice response. Clealry I need to define worthless, as the ordinary reader might have been duped into thinking I was speaking to its profitability or the service it provides to its sub-literatre readership (in the main, although as an amusement in boring supermarket lines I grant there is a wider worth.).

So let me rephrase so as not to dupe the average reader:

The National Enquirer is a highly profitable but journalistically worthless rag of interest only to the sub-literate, the morons and those with arch senses of humor, as well as to those simply interested in bilking the ignorant of their money.

…and to those of us looking for pictures of young starlets while sitting bored at work :stuck_out_tongue: ( the mother of one of my co-workers’ has a subscription - we have a steady supply of this trash - Star, as well ). It’s no Maxim, but any port in a storm ;).

  • Tamerlane

Actually, I think the ordinary reader wasn’t duped at all.

Just in case.

Well, you’ve come a long way, but one other thing you might want to clear up is the bean-headed notion that the Times suddenly and valiantly owned up to its error like some champion of integrity. The fact is that the Times repeatedly — over the course of years — ignored dozens of infractions, lies, blunders, and fabrications from its reporter before owning up. It wasn’t until editors threatened to blow the whistle and resign and massive damage had been done that the unethical hacks upon whom you heap your unqualified praise decided to attempt spinning their woes into a mea culpa.

Well, my dear Lib, my reading of the situation differs from yours. Given your unique bizarro world in which you live, I remain confident my reading is rather closer to reality.

I read the Times for dinner, but I read the National Enquirer for dessert! :smiley:

Ann Coulter has some zingers.

The last paragraph IMHO gets to the root of the problem:

Will the owner of the Times fire himself?

As far as intellectual honesty goes, the Enquirer is better. It knows that it is a celebrity gossip rag and doesn’t pretend to be anything else. The Times pretends to be objective politically when anyone who has a working knowledge of political ideology and current events can clearly see otherwise. I could spend the time finding examples, but it would be a waste of time. Those who need to see the message most are lost in a defensive ideological haze and will stubbornly remain so despite any information that is presented to them.