Attitudes to the New York Times?

[Lisa_N]

Digitonomy:

One big difference is that Star and National Enquirer provide mostly personality-driven news coverage. I’ll grant the BBC does this as part of its product, but the difference is that the news is from much more diverse points…

That is true. They do cover world events and have for some time. One of the reasons that we were so shocked about 9/11 is that our foreign press has just disappeared in recent years. The few foreign correspondents such as CNN sold their souls to devils to stay in Bagdhad instead of exposing Saddam’s atrocities.

Digitonomy:

For instance, is today’s story about a call to arrest Kenya’s first lady really legitimate news and a real freedom of press issue, or is it just tabloid journalism dishing dirt about a personality, who the BBC opposes because of sympathy for the other party, a news organisation? I can’t say for sure, but I’d sure rather read about that than the latest Brad Pitt scoop you’d find in the rags you mentioned…

Oh I agree and one of the things that most irks me about our MSM is that they consider entertainment news REAL news. I couldn’t care less about Ben and Jen’s relationship or who got kicked off American Idol.

Digitonomy:

Also, several people endorsed FoxNews. It’s ok as far as it goes, but unfortunately I haven’t found the coverage to be particularly deep compared with NYT or CSM, and I think the scope is quite poor. As an example of the latter, I found no mention of the no-confidence vote which passed against the government of Canada yesterday.

Fox is a different medium than NYT or CSM. There are rarely in depth stories on TV. Just short soundbites. OTOH Fox does provide stories that the MSM tends to bury or hide or spin. I will say one thing, I have not heard of Fox News fabricating stories as with CBS or NYT. I criticize them for their superficial stories and focus on fluff. But I don’t think they 'make it up as they go along.

Lisa N

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Thekla:

Your bias shows with your options.

Lisa N:

Thekla I assume you refer to my post although you didn’t quote it.

I think she meant the poll itself, and it does show a bias, since it does not include self-described liberals or others who think the NY Times is a useless rag.

As in the non-partisan: “It’s like CBS News: Their credibility is shot and their claim to quality is largely hereditary”?

Or the truly liberal: “Would that they were a liberal paper. There are no liberal papers, at least none with a circulation over 50,000.”

Not to be too critical, mind you. Polls are the devil to write… I have not attempted one.

 

[Philip_P]

Yeah, as I admitted in my earlier post, my questions didn’t make any allowance for the liberal take on the Times. I just kinda assumed, on these forums, that there was no point, but I’ll have to try a bit harder next time I make a poll. Of course, this being a self-selecting internet poll, it’s not like it’s got any validity anyway. Kind of like those stupid CNN.com polls.