News International team to monitor US. Presidential Election

[JohnDubYa]

Just so, I know if Mr. Palasts staff had come up with the numbers they came up with erroneously it would have been refuted, perhaps by someone like you.

Something is true if we are not aware of anyone refuting it? Is that what you are saying?

 

[amp]

No not really.

As I posted DubYa, What Mr. Palast revealed is now public knowledge. It clearly reveals that which you and other Bush supporters refuse to acknowledge, with the help of his brother G. Bush CHEATED in order to get into the presidency. And furthermore, they are attempting to do it again. That is the main reason such objections are made to having observers moniter this coming election.

 

[JohnDubYa]

with the help of his brother G. Bush CHEATED in order to get into the presidency

Exactly what actions did George W. take that would be considered cheating? Or is this just more hyperbole?

 

[russ_watters]

As I posted DubYa, What Mr. Palast revealed is now public knowledge. It clearly reveals that which you and other Bush supporters refuse to acknowledge, with the help of his brother G. Bush CHEATED in order to get into the presidency.

If that's true, isn't it surprising that no one (neither Bush's side, nor Kerry's) is making an issue of it? I mean, if true, it would be huge, wouldn't it? Heck, it would be criminal! Where is the call for impeachment? Where is the call for the arrest of the officials responsible?

The silence of both sides tells me neither takes Mr. Palast seriously. And the silence of the media tells me they don't take him seriously either (of course, if they did, he'd probably have a job...).

 

[kat]

Things that make you go hmmmm

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/224449p-192807c.html

*snips*
Some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both the city and Florida, a shocking finding that exposes both states to potential abuses that could alter the outcome of elections, a Daily News investigation shows.

******

But The News found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters have voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

******
The News' investigation also found:


Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68% are Democrats, 12% are Republicans and 16% didn't claim a party.

 

[plover]

There is no need to do that Russ, Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions. He is right you know. Your cavalier dismissal of an accredited reporter with so weak an argument which seems to be just your opinions may indicate that you would still disagree, that's your right and I respect that.

While I appreciate you finding my points to be compelling enough to serve as support for your own, I must request that you too not put words in my mouth. The statement that Russ "would not consider ... truth [that] doesn't conform to [his] preconceived notions" is not one that I have made.

(I am still waiting for some example of how closely he checks sources he agrees with though... )

 

[plover]

The silence of both sides tells me neither takes Mr. Palast seriously. And the silence of the media tells me they don't take him seriously either (of course, if they did, he'd probably have a job...).

If this is truly what it tells you, then you're amazingly naive, otherwise you're just being disingenuous. Since when have politicians, the media, or the courts been transparent conduits between fact and action? The above statement is on a par with saying that the Republicans do take him seriously, and so endeavor to ensure his voice is not heard. It is not impossible that the situation is as simple as you say, but you have given no evidence that it is, and most real-world situations do not reduce so easily, so reason is not on your side.

Your statements about Palast not working in the U.S. I just find tiresome. For one thing they ignore the fact that, as I stated above, he has worked for mainstream media here, and was considered a credible advocate by a government commission. But even if that were not the case, they exhibit a simplistic xenophobia that, whether or not it accurately reflects your beliefs, does your reputation no honor and your argument no service.

(Caveat delimiting the content of this post omitted in the hope it's not necessary...)

 

[JohnDubYa]

I already posted an obviously biased and subjective quote by Palast. Does not that indicate a seeming inability to investigate objectively?

 

[amp]

No John, Plover I apologize, ", Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions." this statement is my opinion from the responses given to you.

I see Kat seized on the Daily news article on a Double Vote scandal but when I post articles from the NY Times about Floridas' election conspiracy I get boo'ed.

Russ Watters:

...I mean, if true, it would be huge, wouldn't it? Heck, it would be criminal!...

Aint that right!

Where is the call for impeachment?

There was a petition being circulated calling for Bush to be impeached. Not because of Florida but because he I won't say lied, how about deceived the American people and put our soldiers in harms way in doing so.

This quote explains why there wasn't any call for impeachment over the Florida incident.

No. I spoke with Bob Butterworth, State Attorney General, and I asked him why didn´t he present a lawsuit for this fraud against the state? He told me he´s not in charge of the investigation and he cannot arrest anyone. The investigation is in the hands of Katherine Harris. The other people that could do something about it are the US Justice Department, that is John Ashcroft, who got the job because of this theft, or the Supreme Court. Perfect crime. The cops and the criminals are the same people.

This in itself would make it improbable for justice to be served add to that a republican house and senate... well it pretty obvious, for crying out loud

 

[kat]

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

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

 

[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