I think this quote about sums it up.
"When I first became an editor here in 1995," said Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, "somebody upstairs on the business side explained to me the basic business philosophy of the Times…. What most papers do when they want to extend their reach is they go out and interview all the people who don't subscribe and say, 'What would you like?' and then they try to dumb down or spice up their paper to pander to that audience. That's what produced the kind of McNuggetization of a lot of local and regional papers in America."The Times' approach was exactly backward," Keller continued. "What they did is focus on the most loyal subscribers and identify their characteristics. And then they went out and tried to find more people who are like those people." The Times, in other words, sees no need to change itself or to serve its customers' wishes. It is in the business of organizing an audience of like-minded people.
And if that was all there was, i wouldn't really have much of a problem with them. I just wouldn't read it. However the Slimes is a very influential news source. Most nightly news stories are picked up from the times, and we know that most people in this country get their news from the major networks.
So you say that's just one mans opinion, however that's not really the case. In fact it's even worse than what Keller says, it's institutional corruption. It's not "fair and balanced" and they push their liberal anti-American agenda in most stories, and especially in the editorials.
Here's what i mean. The list of organizations chosen by New York Times Company Foundation officials to receive over the years grants of thousands, or tens of thousands of dollars, reads like a roll call of the American left. As of 2003 the amount totaled $6,169,980 (2003).
A study by the Media Research Center found that the New York Times Company Foundation and similar tax-exempt foundations associated with the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times evinced a disturbing pattern of promotion by the papers themselves. Leftwing groups given grants by one newspaper's foundation tended also to get unusually heavy and favorable coverage in the news and opinion pages of that newspaper
All the news that's fit to print??? You do the math.
26 comments:
As Zimmerman once sang "cuz the times they aint a changin'"
I am working on a list of different posts related to the theme- are you going to misbehave? :)
ZIMMERMAN!!!!
Don Knotts is STILL Hitler.
Define misbehave
Your correct, the NYT is liberal and supports liberal causes. Actually the grants they have given are usually to progressive causes, to distinguish from just saying left wing. Most "conservitive" causes I see out there are trying to restrict human behavior, not push the boundries of freedom. Of course there are no absolutes.
I was kidding, donkey. Your feedback is appreciated and helpful. I certainly don't have everything figured out. I have very little figured out. But dammit if I don't at least try.
So we have a liberal rag- the right have television media (substandard as it is) and radio...what do we have? The Times and All Things Considered? And Satellite? Air America and Link TV? How can you begrudge us our little pieces?
lily, the left OWNS T.V. Network news is dominated by liberals as is most cable stations like cnn and cnbc. They all take their leads from the newspapers, and THE newspaper of record is the Times. Journalists are only out-lefted by college professors. The Right has one cable station (FOX)which is fair and balanced, and of course they dominate talk radio. And Fox is fair and balanced, it just seems like they're conservative because they're to the right of every other network.
Rhino- I think it is a matter of what you consider to be liberal news. Clear Channel owns most radio and retricts their playlists, we know this. But you think Fox is the only example of right wing media? Of Bush supporting media? When studies were done of individual news casts leading up to the war in Iraq, more than 90% of interviewed 'pundits' were war supporters, coddling Bushco.. Some say the number of people permitted to express dissent on the war was less than 3%.There are many studies of media coverage on issues and consistently, the media reporting is not consistent with a liberal agenda. Talk of the 'liberal media' is outdated, times have changed and just because networks pander to market segments with their programming such as sitcoms, they are not liberal. Showing a gay character does not mean that your news segments have any commitment to opposing views, diversity, dissent, or give a mic to the liberal voice. Categorically they do not. The idea of the liberal media is perpetuated by the myth of liberal Hollywood and the liberal entertainment industry, which is far from a politically active segment.
How can you explain decisions to not even cover many of the marches and protests? Or the slant on Cindy Sheehan? Or even the ways that scandals are hardly covered by MSM? Rhino I think that you know there is a difference between the moronic spewing of people like Coulter and a real, intelligent conservative of which I know many. The idea of the liberal media is pushed by the people that make your side look foolish, because it defies research and numbers. One has to separate the circus part of politics.
When Fox reported about Hillary's plantation comments, despite two comments made on Fox earlier that used Plantation references, do you consider that to be fair and balanced? Or opportunistic, and convenient? I would rather have the values of a right winger over a hypocrite. They bring new meaning to ideological relativism.
lily, i don't care about sitcoms, i don't watch them. I'm talking about news/talk shows. The liberal media is no myth. This is a popular topic here, especially with me. You mention Cindy Sheehan, she got so much coverage it was ridiculous, you mention run up to war, when everyone in congress was in favor of going to war, you don't mention dan rather, you mention ann coulter, she's a satirist, and a good one at that. And when she has a BEST SELLING book, how much time does she get with katie and matt? oh but if she was maureen dowd, she would get 3 days. Lily if you want to challenge me on this, i could give you examples all day long, you mention protest marches like it's only the libs who march. EVERY YEAR there is a pro life march in washington, i have NEVER seen ANY coverage of it. Have you? I read about it in Investors Business Daily or i would never have known, apparently they get over 5 thousand people every year. Shall i keep going? how about these tapes of saddam talking about his wmd programs? how about his former air force chief saying they moved the weapons weeks before the invasion? how about the lack of coverage of ABLE DANGER? Why isn't anyone looking into the fact that Jamie Gorelick (clinton whitehouse) is on the 9/11 commission and she's the one responsible for squashing Able Danger info? More you say? Ok, how about the fact that every news magazine had Cheney on the cover a week and a half after a hunting accident, and in the mean time, Iran is building nukes? How about the news shows? Russert (i like him) worked for democrats, Mathews (worked for dems) Stephonopolous(sp) do i even have to say it? Do we really believe that George S. isn't biased? I could go on, i could give you #'s from studies done regarding the frequency of quotes from liberal vs conservative think tanks, etc. but this comment is already too long. Needless to say, the liberal media is no myth.
My point was that I don't consider this to be liberal! Matthews? Are you kidding? Perhaps I should clarfy and not use 'liberal media' but rather, say there is an absence of TRUTH based media. I think it is just as important to report on marches on the right as the left, but you can't say Fox is really fair and balanced. They are about entertainment. I listened to Rush for years, not because I like him but because I sincerely do want to hear both sides and I want this from my media as well. Whether or not media is liberal or not, it is still dumbed down entertainment and fails miserably as a conduit of dissemination of facts. Covering non-liberal pandering Democrats does not make a news organization liberal in my view. It makes them pandering as well. Look at how CNN has changed with opinion polls- suddenly Lou Dobbs is 'asking the tough questions". Look, I'm not a defender and I am a pretty cynical person actually. Liberal is liberal, low brow is low brow. Covering the Vice President shooting somebody is partisan, or sensationalistic? Is covering Jessica Simpson is partisan? Or just stupid? I say its stupid, and I used to blame the media but now I blame the people that can't get enough of it.
News is news in some cases based on the public's appetite for more crap. When you talk about liberal media, apparently you mean people mostly in the center, like Lieberman. Your examples are of people that are centrist Democrats, not liberals. I don't consider Matthews to be a liberal, see what I mean? I don't consider John Kerry to be a liberal, but you are using liberal to describe everyone along a spectrum from Demo-centrist to communist to lunatic. That's part of the trouble. You use 'liberal' as an attack word but cite examples that are not about liberals or their causes.
(As an aside,I think we know that Saddam had weapons because as the jokes goes, we saved the reciepts.)
I am not a Republican or a Democrat, and I am not particularly thrilled with either side and that is where I differ- when you say "Clinton did this" or invoke Stephanopoulisycophant- you are equating liberal media with any coverage that is not extreme right. Thats like saying Kucinich and Kerry are the same-one is a liberal, and one is not. You cannot talk about coverage of Democrats and call that the liberal media. These people are hardly discernible from your centrists. Put Whitman next to Lieberman, and they could be running mates.
Rhino,
I am not sure whether you actually read the New York Times regularly, but if you do, I think you would have to agree the actual CONTENT can hardly be described as "left wing." It is far more often aligned with the corporate and administration interests than may be aware. Judith Miller, some lefty, to be sure, right?
A small local tidbit: The Times has been criticized quite vehemently on its ties to the developer of its new office tower on 8th Avenue, designed by Renzo Piano, and developed by Forest City Ratner Companies. Ratner is commencing a massive mixed-use development in Brooklyn with Frank Gehry as the architect and which will have as a cornerstone a stadium to house the Nets (the franchise having bought by Ratner) to Brooklyn.
The community in Brooklyn is virulently opposed to this, but The Times, in protecting it's patron, Ratner, appears to be doing its best to keep that fact under wraps.
And on the subject of marches, not covering 5,000 is not the same things as NOT covering 100,000!! And not covering global days of protest, with thousands around the world. One of the last demonstrations in DC, they ran clips of the ANSWER stage, which had 1/50 the attendance of the UFPJ stage. Why? Because ANSWER people stand there and rant like irrelevant crazies and it hurts the activist cause. They did not decide to show that stage all day because of a desire to report news. It was done to specifically highlight the idiots in a movement versus the rational speakers. These are the types of bias examples I refer to. Skewed coverage on issues, not just who is on their payroll and who gets time with Matt and Katie. The choices about what they present. Talking about Cindy Sheehan's catering versus the issue.
I think I am pretty attentive to what you say, and have not been dismissive of you simply because of what I suspect to be your bias. But on the matter of 'liberal media' I do think its a myth because your supportive examples are decidedly non-liberal. People use 'liberal media' to appeal to certain demographics for a reason. "Liberal" has a connotation, its not said to characterize as much as it is spewed like a slur. The right have used it to evoke an image that we would be wise to challenge and reclaim with some rationality.
Lily lets take a look at what they have to say themselves......
I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith....I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism....You want diversity in the newsroom, not because of some quota, but because you have to have diversity to cover the story well and cover all aspects of a society. And you don’t have religious people making the decisions about where coverage is focused. And I think that’s one of the faults.”
— Former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a journalism professor at George Washington University, on CNN’s Reliable Sources, March 27, 2005.
“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times
“Does anybody really think there wouldn’t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS’s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?”
— Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS News, as quoted later that day by Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball.
“The notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it’s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things. The seeds of its demise were sown with the best of intentions in the late 1960s, when the AMMP [American Mainstream Media Party] was founded in good measure (and ironically enough) by CBS. Old folks may remember the moment: Walter Cronkite stepped from behind the podium of presumed objectivity to become an outright foe of the war in Vietnam. Later, he and CBS’s star White House reporter, Dan Rather, went to painstaking lengths to make Watergate understandable to viewers, which helped seal Richard Nixon’s fate as the first President to resign. The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.”
— Newsweek’s chief political reporter, Howard Fineman, “The ‘Media Party’ is over: CBS’ downfall is just the tip of the iceberg,” January 11 , 2005
Anita, this one's for you.....
“Of course it is....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.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”
...and they closed down my favorite hatter (and dozens of other local businesses) when they used eminent domain to claim the block across from Penn Station for their new hq. Bastards!!!
...thats right I have a hatter. you got a problem with that
All the girlz love Warren...A.K.A. The Rhino...
Rhino, stop hating on the NY Times...you know it's our secret guilty pleasure...
Donkey, I am sorry to hear about your hatter but at least you have such luxurious locks that it was a shame to cover them up in the first place...count youself lucky & remember to always support your local private all male gym.
Why would anyone have a problem with a hatter? I'm quite sure Abramoff had a hatter. Do you have a haberdasher as well?
Now at the risk of going off too far in the wrong direction, think about a person who defines the environment for example as a liberal issue and talks about a center. There are economic arguments that right wingers have been increasingly embracing that pertain to conservation, in fact, some of the most productive efforts on local easement and green zone work I have been involved with were initiated by tight fisted republicans. But they were able to see the financial benefits in reasonable ways. One huge flaw in these discussions is the idea that if one is on the left or right that there is some sort of monopoly on universal global problems. A person that thinks it makes good sense to dump in a river is not a liberal or a conservative, they are simply an ass with no sense of civic or human obligation.
Would you say there is room for some ideological overlap with some of these issues?
Hippies have luxurious locks. This sounds suspicious. Next you'll say Donkey works at Goldman Sachs and entertains Corzine while discussing the waterfront.
Lily, i don't know how we got on the subject of donkey dumping in a river, however when i talk about enviro whacko's i don't mean people who are against polution. I also don't think that's the point. The point is that there is a liberal media bias, and all your lefty spin and trying to distract from the point won't change that. The people in the media admit that they're liberal/left of center. I have more quotes, and i have more research but the point is that it's not a myth to the people reporting the news, and i think they would know best.
hippies don't wash their hair
Dont hate Baldilocks just cuz I got good dome. What can I say, Im a hairy ass.
Mia,
Cocktails will be served at 6. Evening attire please.
But of course I am of the understanding that I determine cocktails because you like to defer power gratuitously to further the ruse that you care about my input when you in fact, don't care in the slightest.
OK, Rhino. I will consider what you have said. In the end I will disagree with you, but I will consider it. I think that the media has changed in recent years and that some of your points are more indicative of the media over the years as opposed to the present. I also think the news cycle has changed with the 24 hour news format and internet news. I think there is less concern for following the 'lead' of authority like the Times and more concern with constant updates even when none are to be had. We have too much news but not enough relevance/ quality and these planted pundits on all sides have to go. Asking people with a preset agenda to comment on whats transpiring is ridiculous, we can practically watch their wheels spinning to achieve the proper theatrics.
I also get the impression you are maybe a few years older than I am and have more recollection of the liberal media you speak of. Just an assumption. I have to read about Nixon, I didn't live it. So this is a biased account of biased accounts, crazymaking at best.
Lily, you're right about the news cycle, but take a look at the quotes. they're all recent. And i have more. To me the most telling are the ones i hear form guys who are admitted liberals and proud of it, like jonathan alter of newsweek. The main stream media bias is there.
And by the way, i may be older than you, but in my defense i'm very immature.
As long as you animals are legal, its all good. After 25, it doesn't much matter.
But how long do gadflies live? Especially in light of hemlock suppositories?
Perhaps the better question is not how old the animals are at the Aurora...but if they are unionized?
ummmm, i think zed is hitting on us. Hey Zed Donkey, warlike and I will be at a charity event tonight, Its a good cause. If you would like to stop by i'll be happy to buy your ticket. The info is at Hopeforchris.com I'm going to be out of touch for a while, but if you're interested let me know here and i'll leave a ticket for lily at the door.
Oh and zed if you want to bring another commie with you, i'll leave 2 tickets.
Post a Comment