The New York Times is a biased, conservative rag. Whether it's Clinton tabloid coverage, lies about Iraq, or fake reviewers with ties to the Bush administration trashing books critical of Bush, the New York Times routinely spews conservative propaganda.
Sure a reader can usually find two paragraphs on the editorial page and a columnist or two who write articles that could be labeled as liberal or moderate. However, the rest of the New York Times sections on news-related, political issues might as well be written by Karl Rove or Ken Mehlman. News outlets like Buzzflash, the Village Voice, Oped News, are fairly liberal. The New York Times is not.
A few weeks ago I challenged a group of conservatives to go get me any random New York Times newspaper and I'll find at least ten instances of bias against non conservatives in it. When I was done with page three, the lone conservative left over didn't want to look at my markups. So I decided I would play this game with today's New York Times. Keep in mind that some of what is printed would be okay if it appeared as an editorial. Regretably, they pass off their Republican talking points as straightforward news.
I first started with a misleading article titled "Surprising Jump In Tax Revenues is Curbing Deficit" by Edmund Andrews. Here the article uses the editorial phrase "Bush tax cuts" when in reality Bush's plan raised middle class taxes and only cut taxes for people in the top 1%. The headline of the article leaves the impression that Bush is reducing the deficit but buried in the pages is that the deficit will be 300 billion dollars if the projections are right. Amazing how the New York Times could describe that as a reduction when we had surpluses under Bill Clinton. This article also claims that we've had "almost five years of economic growth" as if the writer listens to Sean Hannity's lies and reprints them. Excuse me but this economy has not grown. It sucks. Get out of your ivory tower and hit the streets.
Next I turn to an article titled "US To Negotiate Russian Storage of Atomic Waste" by David Sanger and Jim Rutenberg. Here the writers editorialize by calling Senator Schumer a "regular administration critic." But that's minor. The article claims that Bush is opening up discussions to deal with storing repository nuclear fuel giving the impression that Bush is on top of this issue. However, they fail to mention that Bush is the one who cut funding for this program in 2001. The article then claims that Bush "concluded an accord with India which requires a more intensive nuclear review." Again, that's a lie best suited for the editorial pages. The deal with India does the opposite.
Next, the Times engages in bias in an article titled "Leftist Predicts Unrest Without Complete Recount of Mexican Election." The title of this article suggests that Mr. Obrador is a crazy lefty when an argument can be made that he's a centrist. However, both labels are editorials. Next, the Times blatantly lies about what Mr. Obrador said. Mr. Obrador describes his movement as "a peaceful movement" and predicted that if votes weren't counted there would be "instability." Mr. Obrador never said "unrest" a word that implies radicals rioting in the street. To reinforce this label, the Times calls him a "firebrand leader of the leftist Democratic Revolutionary Party."
The false labels continue in James McKinley's article "Mexico faces its Own Red-Blue Standoff." Again Obrador's party is labeled "leftist" but the party of Calderon, which many consider extreme right wing is labeled "right leaning." The terms right leaning or left leaning imply moderation while terms like rightist or leftist imply extremism. But that doesn't stop the New York Times.
The New York Times world news section then shows bias in an article titled "Pope Visits Spain, Flash Point for Church-State Tensions." Here the writer uses the phrase "Europe's long slide into secularism." Again that's editorializing. I would call it, "Europe's prospering rise into secularism."
"His Hipness John G Roberts" by Linda Greenhouse has the writer describing Mr. Roberts as "direct, straightforward, free of legal jargon." I would call him obfuscating, slick, and full of legal misrepresentation. The point isn't whether you agree with me or Ms. Greenhouse. This should not be passed off as news.
I could scrupulously search every article of every New York times paper to find examples of bias. But are there enough hours in the day for such a tedious task?