# Is the National Enquirer better than the New York Times? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 15, 2003, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346 "2003-05-15T02:43:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/1 "2003-05-15T02:43:55Z")
So says journalist Peter Fenton: [http://www.ncbuy.com/news/wireless\_news.html?qdate=2003-05-14&nav=VIEW&id=034QWGX6096030514](http://www.ncbuy.com/news/wireless_news.html?qdate=2003-05-14&nav=VIEW&id=034QWGX6096030514) From the article: > [@](#): > > Fenton says the so-called “fabri-gate” scandal was just waiting to happen, and figures it proves the “Enquirer” is still more reliable than the “New York Times.” 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](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. ☹ 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? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Scream\_In\_Darkness](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e8c25b/32.png) [@I\_Scream\_In\_Darkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Scream_In_Darkness)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/2 "2003-05-15T03:02:15Z")
MEXICO has the BEST NEWSPAPERS, but BILL CLINTON STOLE all of the newspapers WITH THE PLEADEANS when he tried to STEAL ALL THE MEXICANS!!! ---
**Author:** ![Zabali\_Clawbane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/ecd19e/32.png) [@Zabali\_Clawbane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zabali_Clawbane)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/3 "2003-05-15T03:15:12Z")
[Link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=617489) Enough already, you’ve gotten your message out. :eek: :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/4 "2003-05-15T04:45:45Z")
I come back to respond to those who read my OP and… sobs uncontrollably ---
**Author:** ![Zenster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/cdc98d/32.png) [@Zenster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zenster)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/5 "2003-05-15T05:55:47Z")
Absolutely. My friend’s parrot refuses to shit on anything else. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/6 "2003-05-15T07:46:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Zenster \* > \*\*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. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 8:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/7 "2003-05-15T08:06:18Z")
> [@](#): > > On top of the deception and lies, the Times often takes anti-conservative and anti-Bush POVs. 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… ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/8 "2003-05-15T08:11:47Z")
Oh wonderous strange. A clone. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by litost \* > \*\*So says journalist Peter Fenton: > [http://www.ncbuy.com/news/wireless\_news.html?qdate=2003-05-14&nav=VIEW&id=034QWGX6096030514](http://www.ncbuy.com/news/wireless_news.html?qdate=2003-05-14&nav=VIEW&id=034QWGX6096030514) 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. > [@](#): > > 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=184036) 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. > [@](#): > > On top of the deception and lies, the _Times_ often takes anti-conservative and anti-Bush POVs. 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? > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/9 "2003-05-15T09:31:19Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/10 "2003-05-15T09:42:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > 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. So nice of you to join us Lib old man, glad you can share your views on my writing. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/11 "2003-05-15T09:52:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/12 "2003-05-15T09:59:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*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. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/13 "2003-05-15T10:07:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > 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 😛 ( 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 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/14 "2003-05-15T10:16:48Z")
> [@](#): > > 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.). Actually, I think the ordinary reader wasn’t duped at all. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/15 "2003-05-15T10:19:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Actually, I think the ordinary reader wasn’t duped at all. \*\* Just in case. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/16 "2003-05-15T10:41:28Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/17 "2003-05-15T11:27:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/18 "2003-05-15T12:15:12Z")
I read the Times for dinner, but I read the National Enquirer for dessert! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/19 "2003-05-15T12:29:33Z")
[Ann Coulter has some zingers.](http://www.anncoulter.org/) > [@](#): > > … A newspaper that employs Maureen Dowd can’t have had an easy time settling on Blair as the scapegoat. Blair’s record of inaccuracies, lies and distortions made him a candidate for either immediate dismissal or his own regular column on the op-ed page. > > The editors have set up a special e-mail address for readers to report falsehoods they discover in Jayson Blair articles. OK, but how about setting up one for Paul Krugman? They ought to claim all those front-page articles predicting a “quagmire” in Iraq were also written by Blair… > > …Instead of being a record of history, the Times is merely a “record” of what liberals would like history to be – the Pentagon in crisis, the war going badly, global warming melting the North Pole, and protests roiling Augusta National Golf Club. Publisher Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger has turned the paper into a sort of bulletin board for Manhattan liberals. > > …the Times… self-investigation of the Blair scandal included copious denials that race had anything to do with it:… > > “Mr. Blair’s Times supervisors … emphasize that he earned an internship at The Times because of glowing recommendations and a remarkable work history, not because he is black. The Times offered him a slot in an internship program that was then being used in large part to help the paper diversify its newsroom.” > > Did Blair write that? If the Times “diversity” program refused to consider Blair’s race, then it wasn’t much of a diversity program, now was it? … > > In one of several feverish editorials supporting the University of Michigan’s race-based admissions program, the Times denounced the Bush administration for imagining “that diversity can be achieved without explicitly taking race into account.” Any diversity program that failed to do so, the Times lectured, was “necessarily flawed.” But then it gets caught publishing Jayson Blair and the Times demurely insists that its own affirmative action program scrupulously ignored race. > > The Times not only expressly took race into account, but also put Blair’s race above everything – accuracy, credibility and the paper’s reputation… He screwed up over and over again and the paper had to print 50 corrections to articles he’d written. > > Despite all this, Blair was repeatedly published on the front page, promoted and sent love notes from the editor in chief, Howell Raines…Raines jettisoned the Times’ famous slogan, “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” preferring the slogan: “The New York Times: Now With Even More Black People!” … > > Raines’ behavior is far worse than the corporate chieftains. He clearly bears the most responsibility for this fiasco, but when disaster strikes … he blames the black kid! So far, Raines’ response has been basically to say: “You try to help these people …” The last paragraph IMHO gets to the root of the problem: > [@](#): > > Think of it in a nonracial context: Suppose the owner of a big company sends his kid to learn the business and tells low-level managers to treat him just like anyone else. The managers curry favor with the boss by reporting that his son is doing great and is a natural genius for this business. So the kid keeps getting praised and promoted, until one day he is actually put in charge of something he has no ability to run. That is cruel. And it’s the story of Pinch Sulzberger, isn’t it? Will the owner of the Times fire himself? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_One](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/45deac/32.png) [@Evil\_One](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_One)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346/20 "2003-05-15T12:32:56Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-national-enquirer-better-than-the-new-york-times/175346.md?page=2)