(09-28-2014 11:02 PM)john01992 Wrote: and again you are a clueless idiot if you legitimately believe the NYT is far left.
I guess the public editor of the New York Times is an idiot as well then.
Me ----> <---- JohnnyZero
again, you are an idiot.
@ you
You are incapable of admitting you are wrong. Even when the public editor of the very paper in question says on video that the New York Times has a liberal bias you continue to defend your erroneous claim that they don't. You are like the three year old caught with chocolate icing all over their hands and face insisting they didn't sneak a piece of cake.
But just to pile on, let's see what one of her predecessors as public editor said about it.
In a piece called : THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? written in 2004 by Daniel Okrent he has this to say:
Quote:OF course it is.
The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.
I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
Quote:Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.
Across the gutter, the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish -- but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act).
Quote:But it's one thing to make the paper's pages a congenial home for editorial polemicists, conceptual artists, the fashion-forward or other like-minded souls (European papers, aligned with specific political parties, have been doing it for centuries), and quite another to tell only the side of the story your co-religionists wish to hear. I don't think it's intentional when The Times does this. But negligence doesn't have to be intentional.
The gay marriage issue provides a perfect example. Set aside the editorial page, the columnists or the lengthy article in the magazine (''Toward a More Perfect Union,'' by David J. Garrow, May 9) that compared the lawyers who won the Massachusetts same-sex marriage lawsuit to Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. That's all fine, especially for those of us who believe that homosexual couples should have precisely the same civil rights as heterosexuals.
But for those who also believe the news pages cannot retain their credibility unless all aspects of an issue are subject to robust examination, it's disappointing to see The Times present the social and cultural aspects of same-sex marriage in a tone that approaches cheerleading.
I guess that makes two New York Times public editors that are idiots too.
hey buddy, next time you cite a source, do a little bit of background research. the guy you are citing started working for the NYT just MONTHS before that article and ended up working at the NYT for only a year and a half.
<---- JohnnyZero
@ you
