Skip to main content

View Diary: NYTimes: Oppose Alito (178 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You have a link to that? (none)
    I do not believe you.

    The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

    by Armando on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 08:53:44 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

      •  Since your link does not support (none)
        your assertion, I take you were deliberately untruthful.

        The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

        by Armando on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:15:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ok spinmonster (4.00)
          let's take it slow...

          my assertion is that Media Matters claims the NYT to be conservative.

          Let me wrap it in MMFA's delicate jargon.

          They can be a conduit of "conservative misinformation."

          I'll be fair and say that I sometimes conflate the folks who frequent the MMFA message boards with MMFA itself.

          So I'll extricate, rinse, and spit.

          The NYT serves as a conduit of "conservative misinformation."

          Does this neccesarily make the NYT a conservative newspaper?

          Well, since MMFA doesn't explicitly say so, I'll context-clue the bitch.

          By putting NYT-themed "reports" in the same column as "exposes" on Rush L., Bill O., Michael S., Sean H., etc., I would have to say that yes, MMFA directly implies, through gestalt, the (what I believe unfair) perception that the NYT is conservative.

          Don't call me a liar again.

          •  You don't understand Media Matters (none)
            and its mission obviously.

            Their point is that their reporters make many errors and many of them caused bgy the fear of being charged with liberal bias.

            You said Media Matters called the NYTimes a conservative newspaper and that clearly is false.

            The SCOTUS is extraordinary.

            by Armando on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:27:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Relax (none)
              Might we be just a bit over sensitive here?
            •  He's painting with a broad brush. (none)
              MMFA doesn't and didn't make such an absurd claim.  You're right, mando.  Individual writers for whatever publication can and do fear the liberal media myth.  And this exaggerator is using a single example from an MMFA posting as a the basis of a claim - a false claim worthy of reporting to MMFA in another context - that MMFA said the NYT is conservative.

              The funny thing is, this sort of conflating is exactly what neo-cons do all the time - and what MMFA points out frequently.

              It's also to MMFA's credit that they report the source of false or misleading information ANYWHERE it may appear.  They do their job, and do it very well, thank you very much.

              "We, the people..." [shall] "establish justice!"

              by trupatriot on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 09:37:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Huh? (none)
                And this exaggerator is using a single example from an MMFA posting as a the basis of a claim - a false claim worthy of reporting to MMFA in another context - that MMFA said the NYT is conservative.

                I think i gave you a whole page of "NYT said this guys! Look!"

                If MMFA had Chris Rock say this:

                "Yo'. Neo-con talking points are CRAZY! Like DEMONS! They can POSSESS you, and pop out yo mouf without you even KNOWIN' it. We ain't sayin that everybody who gets that NEO-CON TALKING POINT POSSESSION is a NEOCON. We're juts sayin' that they is been POSSESSED!"

                I'd buy it.

                But they do a shitty job. Read their message boards.

                •  Sorry, my bad, but... (none)
                  ...you stated flatly that MMFA said the NYT is conservative.  It certainly has not.

                  I shouldn't have called you an exaggerator, but you did make an improper conflation and it seems it was made in order to needle Armando.  What you did was no different than saying that because X is among many who have received campaign contributions from Y, and Y pleads guilty to bribery, then ipsofacto X must have been bribed.

                  I didn't click your link originally, and that was wrong and uncharacteristic of me.  But the reason is because I visit MMFA frequently - more than once a day.  And MMFA calls errors no matter from whom they come.  Since the NYT is still the most widely respected and cited newspaper in the land, it's reasonable that they would have many errors posted.  That doesn't make the Times conservative, let alone mean that MMFA is saying it is.

                  Do you know how many editors they must have at the Times?  Probably hundreds - from the board level down to the "lowly" copy editors.  Improper cuts by copy editors to fit a story into the "news hole" (the area left for newsprint after ads are placed on the page) are the most frequent errors - and are almost always accidental.  What occurs more commonly across the industry anymore is merely printing an assertion of a third party; the news media today is more interested in making profits than spending the necessary funds for adequate numbers of fact-checkers.  And I suspect the Times is not immune to this.  But, generally speaking, the Times is more likely than not to issue corrections than, for example, the WaPo; as we've seen with the horrid way they've been handling the multiple falsehoods uttered by their ombudsman, Deborah Howell.

                  And I'll be damned if I won't admit to having made a foolish remark like Howell does.

                  "We, the people..." [shall] "establish justice!"

                  by trupatriot on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:13:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Any chance (none)
                  we could draft him to run for public office?

                  I'm sure he would liven the discourse and possibly even turn it to matters that are relevant to your average person.

            •  Error In Times On Left Coast? (none)
              Link
              If confirmed, Alito would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who supports abortion rights. He would join another conservative justice appointed by President Bush: John G. Roberts Jr., who was confirmed as chief justice in September.

              Even if Alito and Roberts prove to be staunch antiabortion votes, a bare majority of justices would still support the core principle of a woman's right to end an unwanted pregnancy. But a retirement or illness among the more liberal justices could change that balance.

              There seems to be differing views on whether Kennedy is a vote to overturn Roe. That bold statement (in a news article) doesn't seem to reflect that.

            •  not understanding (none)

              Point by point

              Their point is that their reporters make many errors

              (not the point of media matters)

              and many of them caused bgy the fear of being charged with liberal bias.

              This makes absolutely no sense, and is completely divorced from reality.

              Since the NYT is CONSISTENTLY charged with liberal bias, and has been seen as a liberal newspaper for pretty much ever, this is a non-statement.

              How could the NYT make "errors" to correct a percieved "liberal bias."

              There are facts, and there are non-facts. Either the NYT is

              1. PURPOSEFULLY MISREPORTING FACTS
              2. INVENTING  "FACTS"
              3. CORRECTLY REPORTING FACTS

              There is no other option.

              You've created a very tricky little idea, and I'm going to crack it open.

              If the NY TIMES is PURPOSEFULLY MISREPORTING FACTS because it DOESN'T WANT TO BE PERCIEVED AS LIBERAL, then, it may as well be a CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA NEWSPAPER.

              If the NY TIMES is INVENTING "FACTS"  because it DOESN'T WANT TO BE PERCIEVED AS LIBERAL, then, it may as well be a CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA NEWSPAPER.

              If the NYT is CORRECTLY REPORTING FACTS, IRREGARDLESS OF HOW PEOPLE ON EITHER POLAR EXTREME OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, then it is neither conservative nor liberal.

              Based on you're assertion that they are "mak(ing) errors (because of) fear of being charged with liberal bias

              THEN the NYT is CONSISTENTLY LYING.

              Which, by your own definition, would make it a conservative newspaper.

              It doesn't matter if they are at heart conservative or not.

              It's like saying that Nazi soliders only killed Jews to fit in.

              •  I think you are overstating the case (none)
                There is truly a disconnect between the Editoroal side of thre NYT, and the news side.  However, it seems that the news desk let the so called expert reporters, like Miller, create an aura of knowledge about themselves that let the editors give the Millers free reign to commit false reporting.  The NYT problem is that they allowed this clearly dishonest and driven reporter say things repeatedly without editorial oversight or investigation.  The real question, I submit, was whether this was laziness, agreement with her agenda or over reliance on her reportorial history.  At some point, well before it occurred to the Times, it should have been obvious that Miller was not an honest reporter on Iraq and the WMD.

                Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

                by StrayCat on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 08:11:39 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  not understanding (none)

              Point by point

              Their point is that their reporters make many errors

              (not the point of media matters)

              and many of them caused bgy the fear of being charged with liberal bias.

              This makes absolutely no sense, and is completely divorced from reality.

              Since the NYT is CONSISTENTLY charged with liberal bias, and has been seen as a liberal newspaper for pretty much ever, this is a non-statement.

              How could the NYT make "errors" to correct a percieved "liberal bias."

              There are facts, and there are non-facts. Either the NYT is

              1. PURPOSEFULLY MISREPORTING FACTS
              2. INVENTING  "FACTS"
              3. CORRECTLY REPORTING FACTS

              There is no other option.

              You've created a very tricky little idea, and I'm going to crack it open.

              If the NY TIMES is PURPOSEFULLY MISREPORTING FACTS because it DOESN'T WANT TO BE PERCIEVED AS LIBERAL, then, it may as well be a CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA NEWSPAPER.

              If the NY TIMES is INVENTING "FACTS"  because it DOESN'T WANT TO BE PERCIEVED AS LIBERAL, then, it may as well be a CONSERVATIVE PROPAGANDA NEWSPAPER.

              If the NYT is CORRECTLY REPORTING FACTS, IRREGARDLESS OF HOW PEOPLE ON EITHER POLAR EXTREME OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, then it is neither conservative nor liberal.

              Based on you're assertion that they are "mak(ing) errors (because of) fear of being charged with liberal bias

              THEN the NYT is CONSISTENTLY LYING.

              Which, by your own definition, would make it a conservative newspaper.

              It doesn't matter if they are at heart conservative or not.

              It's like saying that Nazi soliders only killed Jews to fit in.

              •  But, your leaving out the 4th possibility: (none)
                4.  THE TIMES IS STAFFED BY HUMANS, WHO ARE KNOWN TO MAKE MISTAKES, AND DO MAKE MISTAKES.

                How many people review a typical national news story for the Times?  Easily a dozen or more.  There's the reporter(s) gathering the basics, writing, editing,  there's those seeking comments, editing, follow-up, editing, quote confirmations, editing, multiple drafts, more editing, then still more editing,...

                At each stage is an opportunity for an error.  Since not all editors are looking for the same things at each stage, errors slip through, and will continue to slip through.

                "We, the people..." [shall] "establish justice!"

                by trupatriot on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 11:28:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site