News International team to monitor US. Presidential Election

[amp]

Yeah, who is more credible the Daily News (tabloid) or the N.Y. Times?

I'm sorry...what was the date that Ashcroft took his position?

I forgive you, let's not let it happen again. :blush: :shy:
It was some time after the election, notably when these questions were starting to be raised.

 

[plover]

and er...com'on the NYT... Or hadn't you heard the old grey lady has fallen?

How do you conclude that the New York Times is not one of the most credible papers in the U.S.? (which is not the same thing as being perfect...)

If your response is "Jayson Blair", mine is "Stephen Glass". Anyone can make a mistake. Come back when they start making a habit of fraud.

If your answer is "Fox News tells me so!", you probably won't get a response because I'll be laughing too hard...

[As I don't know Kat's actual reasoning, the following may or may not be related to the above.]

My impression is that right-wing people who call the NYT leftist have never read what actual leftists have to say about it. It seems to me they piss off both sides equally, a fairly good sign that there is no consistent bias (which is not the same thing as never being biased).

The right gives the appearance that anyone who publishes stories they disagree with can be labelled "liberal media", and thus lay out a system where "balanced" corresponds to "never saying anything a conservative wouldn't like". Clearly there are those on the left that do the mirror version of this, but (at least as regards leftists in journalism) there are, as a rule, far fewer trying to convince people that media best described as "centrist" are "conservative".

 

[kat]

Yeah, who is more credible the Daily News (tabloid) or the N.Y. Times?


I forgive you, let's not let it happen again. :blush: :shy:
It was some time after the election, notably when these questions were starting to be raised.

The timing would seem to be crucial to your assertion. What was the date? Or don't you know?

 

[kat]

How do you conclude that the New York Times is not one of the most credible papers in the U.S.? (which is not the same thing as being perfect...)

If your response is "Jayson Blair", mine is "Stephen Glass". Anyone can make a mistake. Come back when they start making a habit of fraud.

I find them no longer credible. So, if that's all I have on a story I won't buy it until I review actual documents or research further myself. On serveral occasions I've found their facts to be inaccurate so, therefore I won't assert it as a credible story until I've checked it further. I think that's an intelligent way to approach any media's report. I hope that you also do the same, otherwise you're probably buying a bunch of B.S. without ever realizing it.

If your answer is "Fox News tells me so!", you probably won't get a response because I'll be laughing too hard...

I watched Fox for a short while back in the early 90's when it first aired. I haven't watched it since..in fact I seldom watch tv..many times only an hour or two a month, if that.

 

[plover]

I find them no longer credible. So, if that's all I have on a story I won't buy it until I review actual documents or research further myself. On serveral occasions I've found their facts to be inaccurate so, therefore I won't assert it as a credible story until I've checked it further. I think that's an intelligent way to approach any media's report.

Fair enough, I suppose. Though this doesn't, in the end, precisely answer the question I asked -- i.e. is the New York Times less credible than other national U.S. newspapers?

I'm not an enthusiastic reader of the NYT (though I imagine my previous post could be read to imply the reverse). I mostly only look there when directed from other sources. As a rule though, it strikes me as a reasonably neutral ground to start discussions from. I've never found any compelling reason to regard it as untrustworthy or consistently biased.

I would be curious to know on what issues you found them to be inaccurate, and why you consider your experience to imply something systematic rather than a statistical fluke. I expect all news sources to make mistakes. Moving a widely accepted source like the NYT from the usual category of "fallible" to "untrustworthy" (or even just "unacceptably inaccurate on a consistent basis concerning issue X") takes fairly strong evidence.

(Oh -- and you're unlikely to hear me contend that avoiding TV should be considered a bad idea... )

 

[kat]

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.

 

[amp]

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.

 

[JohnDubYa]

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.

 

[plover]

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.

 

[kat]

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