Attitudes to the New York Times?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philip_P
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Philip_P

Guest
Love it or hate it, people constantly reference the Times. I wonder, though, how many actually read it? Please indicate whether you acutally read it or not. If you don’t read it, but have strong feelings about it, please explain what you base your opinion on.
 
I didn’t vote because I couldn’t agree with any choice.

My answer? I don’t like the NYT, yet read parts of it online. I think they have a clear bias, and when stated as such that’s acceptable. When it is disguised as objective news, I believe it’s unacceptable.
Maureen Dowd is a particular reason I don’t like the paper.
I prefer the New York Sun. Only costs a quarter, is well written and often covers stories the NYT does not. I suppose I read the papers and online sites, whose commentators reflect my own views most closely. The NY Post for opinion and sports is my #2 paper.

As i said about the NYT, I do read it, as well as parts of the BoGlo, LAT, and WaPo. I don’t want to read only one pov.
 
I would not even line a bird cage with the NYT.

Considering how many of their fiction writers have created, I think they have about the same credibility as the National Enquirer.

I mainly get my news from Fox and the internet.

PF
 
The New York Times still refuses to return the Pulitzer Prize won by its Moscow bureau chief Walter Duranty who covered up the murder of 7 million in the Ukraine by the communists. Duranty even called the reporter who broke the story, Gareth Jones, a liar.

After Duranty returned to accolades in the USA (including a visit to the White House to be honored by FDR), Harold Denny became the Time’s bureau chief. He too lied about the man-made famine and wrote he had feasted on"milk from contented collectivized cows and honey fresh from the hives of Bolshevik bees."

In the 1950s, Times reporter Herbert Matthews visited Fidel Castro in the Sierra Maestra. Matthews grossly over stated Castro’s support, his troop strenght and wrote that Fidel was not a communist, was a friend of the USA, wanted free elections and was not a communist. Matthews got into Cuba by bypassing both top level officials at State and the American ambassador to Cuba. He worked with low level State bureaucrats who supported a take over of Cuba. They knew how to arraign a meeting with Fidel while the government of Cuba and the U.S Embassy did not know where Castro was.

When the Cambodian government of Lon Nol was besieged by the Khymer Rouge, New York Times reporter Anothy Lewis wrote:

“Mass explusions are the only way to start on their vision of a new society. . .The whole bloodbath debate is unreal. What future could possibly be more terrible than the reality of what is happening to Cambodia now? . . .Americans are guilty of cultural arrogance, an imperial assumption, that … our way of life would be better”

Times reporter Sydney Schanberg agreed with Lewis:

“It would be tendentious to forecast such abnormal behavior (mass executions) as national policy
under a Communist government once the war is over.”

Oops…they got that wrong, didn’t they?

In other words, no I do not believe what the New York Times writes.
 
It’s not perfect, but it can be relied on to be wrong 99% of the time. That is enough for me to form a view of the real world.😛
 
I get my news from the local newspaper - The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. You may remember Teresa Heinz-Kerry told their reporter to “shove it” and referred to it as “that conservative rag”. It’s actually a great newspaper!
 
I remember reading a Nicholas Kristof article in which he predicted the next pope( which is now Benedict XVI) would allow priests to marry and in the next couple popes, women would be able to become priests. It’s rather disappointing that people don’t understand the Church is never going to ordain women. It is possible for the Church to change views on the discipline of celebacy for the Latin Rite, but it will probably never happen.

Matt
 
Thanks everyone for your responses thus far. A few comments:
  • For those who don’t read the NYT, please share where you do get your news from. Personally, I read the Times because I find it to be a good source of info. However, I do fear that it doesn’t challenge me intellecutally (i.e. plays into my pre-existing biases). I’m always interested in where other people get their news, and always on the lookout for other news sources to add to my regular reading list in order to broaden and deepen my media sources.
  • Let’s try to keep the focus on News rather than Editorial. David Brooks, Nicholas Kristoff, Maureen Dowd, etc are on the Op-Ed pages, not the news pages. If you have praise or objections of the Times as a News Source, these writers really aren’t relevant.
Thanks again, and keep the votes and commentary coming!
 
Philip we invariably disagree although I think we are not disagreeable about it. FWIW I USED to subscribe and became disgusted not only with the liberal bias but the number of scandals (Jayson Blair etc) convinced me that this paper had seen better days. They need to clean house to regain their reputation.

I get my news from a variety of sources. Our local paper is also very liberally biased. I listen to Fox News of course! Plus I read a lot of different publications.

Lisa N
 
40.png
Thekla:
Your bias shows with your options.
Click to expand...
Thekla I assume you refer to my post although you didn’t quote it. Since I didn’t list the publications you have NO IDEA what I read. But I will definitely say that my bias against the NYT has a lot more to do to its loss of credibility with the made up stories, plagarism and burying of pertinent stories. This is not journalism, it’s propaganda.

As to other sources of news I watch EWTN’s the World Over I guess that’s biased too. I read the New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, Reason, and many other publications from a variety of perspectives. So I get both sides. I used to listen to PBS but gave up during last year’s election. So don’t worry I’m not living in a right wing bubble.

Lisa N
 
I was responding to the pollster and the available options. They reminded me of asking the question, “How do you think the government is doing?” and offering “poor” and"terrible" for the options.

Thekla
 
40.png
Thekla:
I was responding to the pollster and the available options. They reminded me of asking the question, “How do you think the government is doing?” and offering “poor” and"terrible" for the options.

Thekla
Click to expand...
How would you word the questions?
 
It is LeftWingWacko dominated, and not worth reading, unless you feel like you want your intelligence insulted, and your values insulted…
 
there’s no option for a right-wing/conservative slant. “No, I don’t read the Times because they are too right wing - too cozy with government and corporations.”

For example, the Times has repeatedly allowed Judith Miller to “report” as news, government propaganda. Even when exposed, she hasn’t lost her job and the Times has never apologized for their collaboration.
 
The paper sucks, remember that they dissed the new Holy Father the day that he was elected. Lack of respect for the Church is a garuntee to lose my reader status.
 
40.png
marty1818:
I remember reading a Nicholas Kristof article in which he predicted the next pope( which is now Benedict XVI) would allow priests to marry and in the next couple popes, women would be able to become priests.
Matt
Click to expand...
The hits keep coming from Nicholas Kristol at the New York Times:

The Pope and AIDS
NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
May 8, 2005

Let’s hope that Pope Benedict XVI quickly realizes that the worst sex scandal in the Catholic Church doesn’t involve predatory priests. Rather, it involves the Vatican’s hostility to condoms, which is creating more AIDS orphans every day . . .

Click here for full text (registration required)
 
I don’t read it as a rule, but when referenced I sometimes read specific articles. Last night Drudge reported that the Times was going to have an article today that said only 21% of it’s readers think the articles are accurate or correct. I guess most people don’t believe what they read there. I wasn’t sure if the article would be considering that much of this is due to BIAS, and left leaning politics of the writers. Either way, I don’t waste my time on the Times.
 
Thank goodness for the internet, otherwise, I would have never learned the parts of the story that the NY Times leaves out or how they take things out of context. The NY Times still sets the agenda for what stories TV and local papers focus on, but now we have the resources to refute what they present as gospel truth. Their monopoly has been broken for people who do have access to other forms of news.
 
Yes…the internet is wonderful. For decades, the three broadcast network’s Evening News programs were taken from the front page of the New York Times. If you were in the East, you knew what Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather would say at dinner time when you read the Times over breakfast.

Know a guy who worked in CounterIntel during the 50s and 60s. Studied Soviet propaganda in depth. His take was the media in America was far more advanced than Tass or Pravada. Soviet citizens read those papers between the lines, to see what was not reported not what was.

The American MSM propaganda worked because few knew it was propaganda. It was the “commonly accepted wisdom.” Only now are Americans reading the New York Times the way Russians read the news from the Communist Party house organs.

I read the Times everyday to see what the anti-Christian, pro-abortion, pro-higher tax, pro-centralized control main stream left is putting out.

What is fun is to track stories the Times runs to their source. Often the CPUSA, World Socialist Web Site, Counterpunch to The Nation will float ideas and months or even a year later, the New York Times will be reporting it as fact.

During the Elian affair one could read Granma, the official news outleft of the Communist party of Cuba, on Tuesday and then see a rewritten version of the same article in the New York Times on Thursday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top