International team to monitor US. Presidential Election

In summary, thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives wrote to the UN Secretary-General asking for observer teams to monitor the U.S. presidential election in November. The OSCE will be the first such team to be present for a U.S. election.
  • #106
Plover-I can't say that I've done an in depth comparision study that would allow me to say, honestly, that there is a definative and consistent bias in regards to X.

I will say that because such an overwhelming % of reporters admit to being liberal and so vehemently against Bush bundled with outragiously partisian behavior by reporters in at least one situation that I know of, in a venue that they would normally take care to remain non-partisian...that it would be negligent to not take care and review what's being reported to make sure that it's not tainted by...at best a subconscious bias and at worst a purposeful bias(I would suspect the reasoning to...be..for the good of man kind) .

As for whether the NYT is less credible...
I think there was a time that the integrity of the NYT was at a very high level. I don't feel that's the case. I think it's been on a down hill slide for some time now. So I think it's less credible then the the paper that was lovingly and respectably called the "Grey Lady" but I don't find it LESS credible then other news sources as I don't feel ANY of them are overwhelmingly credible and all stories should be approached with the attitude of a doubtful thomas.

The fall of the grand lady makes me a bit bitter...I personally feel it's really and I think we should all be outraged.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
Unfortunately, most papers have fallen short of impartial objectivity but the Times has from my POV provided views from BOTH sides of the fence. I usually read just the editorial pages and the op-eds and I see names like Brooks, Safire, Krugman, O'Dowd which sort of balances things out as you read perspectives from Reps and Dems.
 
  • #108
To those on the Left, "both sides of the fence" means "heavily Left" and "sometimes moderate." The political leanings of a newspaper are not dictated by the op-eds, but rather the reporting of events.
 
  • #109
JohnDubYa said:
To those on the Left, "both sides of the fence" means "heavily Left" and "sometimes moderate."
*sigh* See [post=297063]post #102[/post] above.
The political leanings of a newspaper are not dictated by the op-eds, but rather the reporting of events.
Well, the two sections can certainly have different slants, c.f. The Wall Street Journal, but characterizing a paper solely by either can mislead.
 
  • #110
amp said:
Unfortunately, most papers have fallen short of impartial objectivity but the Times has from my POV provided views from BOTH sides of the fence. I usually read just the editorial pages and the op-eds and I see names like Brooks, Safire, Krugman, O'Dowd which sort of balances things out as you read perspectives from Reps and Dems.

Well, it would seem that Times "public editor" or Ombudsman would disagree...

THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?
By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004, Sunday


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.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63
 

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
82
Views
17K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
29
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top