Is the National Enquirer better than the New York Times?

[december]

The stock price of the New York Times has actually gone up slightly since the Blair scandal broke. See: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NYT&d=c&t=5d&l=on&z=b&q=l

[45_70]

They are both equal. They are both printed on paper. The content of both can and should be questioned.

[system]

In other words it doesn’t match your world view. Wonderful standards we have.

And now we have December quoting that paragon of journalistic practice, Anne Coulter… well, that is one of the wonderful things about december, his utter lack of self awareness, or even awareness of the stupidity of his actions.

*Originally posted by Evil One
*
**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. **

[Zebra]

Well,

William Saffire, who is case you don’t know is a conservative who writes OP-ED columns for the Times has very nice things to say about the paper in his recent column.

Here’s my reply to their Kulturkampf: For exactly 30 years, I have been supported handsomely for disagreeing with The Times’s editorial page, which is dovish on defense, leftist on economics and (with the exception of civil liberties) resolutely wrongheaded. Never have I been silenced, and conservative thinkers have an ever-fairer shake on the Op-Ed page.

As for news coverage being influenced by editorial policy, I evoke the name of my predecessor: that’s a Krock. On occasion, a leftist slant on a story slips through the backfield, but with conservatives boring from within and fulminating from without, the news side soon straightens itself out. What is “fit to print” is the truth as straight as we can tell it, which is why Times people are so furious at this galling breach.

and then there is this part

To the 375 Times reporters who make up the greatest assemblage of talent and enterprise in the field of gathering and writing the news, I submit this hard line:

Self-examination is healthy but self-absorption is not; self-correction is a winner but self-flagellation is a sure loser.

That makes sense to me.

[Lamar_Mundane]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
And now we have December quoting that paragon of journalistic practice, Anne Coulter… well, that is one of the wonderful things about december, his utter lack of self awareness, or even awareness of the stupidity of his actions.

Actually, that piece was (remarkably) free from the usual knee jerk vitriol she usually spews. This time it was Collounsbury who resorted to the ad hominem attack.

It’s pretty clear that the Times screwed up big time and is trying to weasel it’s way out. The big apology was a clearly crafted piece of spin intended to take the heat off itself and it’s policies and place it squarely on Blair. I don’t see why the left, of which I am a card carrying member, has such a hard time admitting that.

[PhiloVance]

Originally pasted by Collounsbury
**
And now we have December quoting that paragon of journalistic practice, Anne Coulter… well, that is one of the wonderful things about december, his utter lack of self awareness, or even awareness of the stupidity of his actions.

**

Still taking the high road, huh!

[sub]if you can’t shoot down his argument, shoot his source; and rant, rant rant. :rolleyes: [/sub]

[litost]

This is bizarre. No one has realized or pointed out that the OP is a parody.

And, Lounsbury did me without my permission! :eek:

[litost]

And here I thought the style was a give-away. And december actually had the whatever-you-call-it to continue his tactics in this thread. Just surreal!

What the heck… let me re-visit the OP.

(1) So says… Fenton. Just who exactly is Fenton? If you read the article, all you get is an unsubstantiated claim/belief. If you are retired, you have all the time in the world to find something on the wide world web that suits your rabid partisanship.

(2) The black and white nature of the world. “Anti-conservative”, “Anti-Bush” et al. Paint those who criticize your POV as people who reflexively despise you.

(3) The logical fallacy of Bifurcation. Of course, this was meant to illustrate one of many fallacies our friend frolicks in.

Example: The NYT opposed the war against Saddam Hussein (let’s not even get into the rigor implied by the word “opposed”). Saddam Hussein killed 35 million people - rhetorical nonsense.

(Note: In fact, in an earlier GD thread, our friend had posted a cite which quotes someone who claimed that 8 million were slaughtered by Saddam. In a single sentence, while simultaneously agreeing that the the figure was probably wrong, he expressed shock at the magnitude of the number! Don’t bother calling me a Saddam sympathizer - I am covering the fallacy of bifurcation right now)

Ergo, the NYT is for the murder of millions of people by Saddam Hussein.

(4) The tarnishing of “liberals” through the liberal use of non-sequiturs. First, the OP makes a smooth unwritten connection between NYT and “liberal ideas”. Then, the support of mass murder by Saddam Hussein is implictly included in the list of “liberal ideas”. Hence, liberals support the mass murder by Saddam Hussein.

The icing on the cake would be to hark back to the glory days of liberals. This also gives you a chance to mention civil liberties and Blacks, which are equivalents of baseball and apple pie.

(5) The terribly weak attempt at casting this as a debate by providing impotent counter-points.

(6) "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. "

Note the complete absence of correlation between the sentences. Opinion columnists have little to do with objective fact-reporting journalism and that was the point the OP was trying to refute in the first place.

(7) OTOH, POV, I agree, I disagree…
P.S: “Blacks” was supposed to be the brutally obvious hint. In conclusion, methinks I have spent too much time on this

[litost]

Is that the text-book definition of a “thread-killer”?

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by december *
**The stock price of the New York Times has actually gone up slightly since the Blair scandal broke. See: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NYT&d=c&t=5d&l=on&z=b&q=l **

Stock price of Enron was pretty good for a while.