A "Liberal Media" challange

[RightIsWrong]

I challenge anyone and everyone to post liberally slanted NEWS pieces done by the NYT. This excludes their editorial department or any editorial "story" written.

I want to see verification of their news department intentionally writing stories with a liberal slant or conservative bias.

Remember, a negative story is not biased if the facts or claims in the story are true just as a positive story isn't biased if the same is true.

Please show me the err of my ways in believing that their news department is moderate and only interested in reporting verified stories instead of gossip or opinions. I want to be able to make a truly informed decision as to whether or not I buy into the NYT being a "liberal rag".

 

[Farang]

Umm.... http://www.heraldtribune.com/a...581/1011/news&tc=yahoo ?

(not using NY Times link because it requires registration)

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Farang
Umm.... http://www.heraldtribune.com/a...581/1011/news&tc=yahoo ?

(not using NY Times link because it requires registration)

Holy crap! Is that the Crypt Keeper or John McCain?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Farang
Umm.... http://www.heraldtribune.com/a...581/1011/news&tc=yahoo ?

(not using NY Times link because it requires registration)

What is factually inaccurate about that article? Remember, negative doesn't mean biased.

As to why the NYT sat on the story so long....

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp..._content_id=1003713474

The rumors last December had died down after other reports suggested that that McCain and the unnamed woman had hired Washington lawyer/fixer Bob Bennett to strong arm the Times. Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post reported then that Bennett had dealt with specific issues raised in the reporting. Whatever went down, the story never ran. Until tonight.

The relationship from back in 2000 is part of a much longer story on McCain's ethic that carries multiple bylines: Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn Thompson, David Kirkpatrick and Stephen Labaton. Both McCain and the woman deny the reports, so it is interesting what changed to make the paper carry the story, quite prominently, now, at www.nytimes.com.

The Times story on Wednesday night reveals: "Mr. McCain said that the relationship was not romantic and that he never showed favoritism to Ms. Iseman or her clients. 'I have never betrayed the public trust by doing anything like that,' he said. He made the statements in a call to Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, to complain about the paper?s inquiries.

"The senator declined repeated interview requests, beginning in December." The McCain campaign, in response to the story running, now says the Times is engaging in a "hit and run smear." But while it denied McCain had "never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists," it did not specifically deny a romantic affair.

More about the backstory behind the story:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08053/859581-176.stm

Allegations about Sen. John McCain's relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman have resurrected questions over his role in WQED Pittsburgh's controversial, but ultimately unsuccessful, efforts to sell its sister television station WQEX-16 in the 1990s.

The proposed three-way deal involved a license swap between Ms. Iseman's client, Paxson Communications Corp., and Christian broadcaster Cornerstone TeleVision of Wall, which operated WPCB Channel 40.

The transaction called for Channel 40 to assume the noncommercial license of Channel 16 and sell its own commercial license to Paxson for $35 million, split between Cornerstone and cash-strapped WQED. Paxson would gain entry into the Pittsburgh market and Cornerstone would move to Channel 16.

In late 1999, Mr. McCain, R-Ariz., then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and a presidential candidate, wrote two letters to the Federal Communications Commission urging a vote on the sale to Paxson.

As he said at the time, Mr. McCain said again yesterday that he wrote the letters because the commission was taking twice the usual time to review ownership. He said he wrote, not to influence the commissioners' decision, but to tell them to "go forward."

At the time of the Pittsburgh negotiations, Paxson Chairman Lowell Paxson and his associates had contributed almost $16,000 to Mr. McCain's campaign, and the senator had the use of the Paxson corporate jet.

George Miles, president of WQED Multimedia, said yesterday that he had met Ms. Iseman, and that she lobbied hard on WQED's behalf.

"We worked with Bud Paxson, and she worked for him. She helped us with the lobbying to try to get Channel 16 converted [to a commercial license]," Mr. Miles said.

"McCain was really a big friend of ours in this," Mr. Miles said. "Finally, through the good graces of Sen. McCain and his letter, we ended up getting a 'yes.' "

 

[EagleKeeper]

Cherry picking facts to present is the same as a bias.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Cherry picking facts to present is the same as a bias.

I agree. What was left out though if they cherry picked? Baseless claims of bias are bias also.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Dude, any fair minded person can see that the NYT slants their stories. The bias is in which stories they choose to publish, and how those stories are presented. Look at the way fox news presents it's news, and I'm not talking about their opinion shows. If you can see it there, and not in the NYT, then you are just seeing what you want to see.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Dude, any fair minded person can see that the NYT slants their stories. The bias is in which stories they choose to publish, and how those stories are presented. Look at the way fox news presents it's news, and I'm not talking about their opinion shows. If you can see it there, and not in the NYT, then you are just seeing what you want to see.

I would agree with you if they only chose to do stories on negative aspects of the republicans and not of the democrats. But, as can be clearly seen here on their politics main page, that just isn't the case.

Once again, the challenge isn't to provide talking points as evidence of bias. It is to actually show bias in their news stories (not editorials once again).

I'm open to the very real possibility that they are. Just present some evidence and I will readily and openly admit that they are being biased in that instance.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Dude, any fair minded person can see that the NYT slants their stories. The bias is in which stories they choose to publish, and how those stories are presented. Look at the way fox news presents it's news, and I'm not talking about their opinion shows. If you can see it there, and not in the NYT, then you are just seeing what you want to see.

So, your argument is:

- The evidence is so overwhelming, that it's so ovbvious that you don't need to actually provide the evidence in a thread asking for the evidence.

- Because you can cite an organization filled with bias, that's proof the NY Times is too.

- Asking for evidence instead of agreeing with you that it's so obvious that no evidence is needed, is evidence of bias.

 

[Pabster]

It's pretty funny watching people try to deny the NYT bias. Come on guys, give it up. If I can admit that the Washington Times leans right, you can do the same of the hallowed NYT.

In fact, save for some on this forum, people I speak to in 'real life' always say the same thing vis-a-vi bias and the NYT. It's there. (And yes, I speak to liberals.)

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Pabster
It's pretty funny watching people try to deny the NYT bias. Come on guys, give it up. If I can admit that the Washington Times leans right, you can do the same of the hallowed NYT.

In fact, save for some on this forum, people I speak to in 'real life' always say the same thing vis-a-vi bias and the NYT. It's there. (And yes, I speak to liberals.)

I think that you are confusing the editorial sections of the papers and the news sections of the papers.

I have and almost everyone else on here has readily admitted that the editorial section is decidedly liberal in their political philosophy and they write to that bias.

However, that isn't what this thread was inspired by or about. This is in relation to the calls of a hit job by the news department of the NYT. I am looking for directly attributable evidence that the NEWS department is also bias and I will openly admit that they are as well. Until then.....

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster
It's pretty funny watching people try to deny the NYT bias. Come on guys, give it up. If I can admit that the Washington Times leans right, you can do the same of the hallowed NYT.

In fact, save for some on this forum, people I speak to in 'real life' always say the same thing vis-a-vi bias and the NYT. It's there. (And yes, I speak to liberals.)

So, your argument is:

- The evidence is so overwhelming, that it's so ovbvious that you don't need to actually provide the evidence in a thread asking for the evidence.

- Because you can cite an organization filled with bias, that's proof the NY Times is too.

- Asking for evidence instead of agreeing with you that it's so obvious that no evidence is needed, is evidence of bias.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Dude, any fair minded person can see that the NYT slants their stories. The bias is in which stories they choose to publish, and how those stories are presented. Look at the way fox news presents it's news, and I'm not talking about their opinion shows. If you can see it there, and not in the NYT, then you are just seeing what you want to see.

So, your argument is:

- The evidence is so overwhelming, that it's so ovbvious that you don't need to actually provide the evidence in a thread asking for the evidence.

- Because you can cite an organization filled with bias, that's proof the NY Times is too.

- Asking for evidence instead of agreeing with you that it's so obvious that no evidence is needed, is evidence of bias.

The evidence isnt in specific examples. The evidence is in a long pattern of reporting.

I'll challenge you. Provide one specific example of biased reporting by Fox New. I'm talking their news segments, not opinion shows.

 

[Atreus21]

The allegation of a liberal media slant is not leveled by an analysis of what they report and how they report it. It is leveled by analyzing what they do NOT report, and why. Take notice that, since the successes in the aftermath of the surge in Iraq, news from the front has slowed to snail's pace. We hear little to nothing about the emergence of the "Awakening" movement, consisting of Iraq civilians and former insurgents, which has been so instrumental to our success. It used to be that all we heard were about deaths. All we still hear about is deaths, largely, except that they've been hugely reduced, and hence the amount of coverage has been reduced.

That implicates bias to me.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The allegation of a liberal media slant is not leveled by an analysis of what they report and how they report it. It is leveled by analyzing what they do NOT report, and why. Take notice that, since the successes in the aftermath of the surge in Iraq, news from the front has slowed to snail's pace. We hear little to nothing about the emergence of the "Awakening" movement, consisting of Iraq civilians and former insurgents, which has been so instrumental to our success. It used to be that all we heard were about deaths. All we still hear about is deaths, largely, except that they've been hugely reduced, and hence the amount of coverage has been reduced.

What do you want them to report. Nothing happened. No one cares that nothing happened.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The allegation of a liberal media slant is not leveled by an analysis of what they report and how they report it. It is leveled by analyzing what they do NOT report, and why. Take notice that, since the successes in the aftermath of the surge in Iraq, news from the front has slowed to snail's pace. We hear little to nothing about the emergence of the "Awakening" movement, consisting of Iraq civilians and former insurgents, which has been so instrumental to our success. It used to be that all we heard were about deaths. All we still hear about is deaths, largely, except that they've been hugely reduced, and hence the amount of coverage has been reduced.

What do you want them to report. Nothing happened. No one cares that nothing happened.

Nothing happened? The war about which they've been moaning for 4 years has finally turned a corner and they think that nothing happened?

That's precisely my point. They wish that nothing had happened. They wish that nothing had changed.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The allegation of a liberal media slant is not leveled by an analysis of what they report and how they report it. It is leveled by analyzing what they do NOT report, and why. Take notice that, since the successes in the aftermath of the surge in Iraq, news from the front has slowed to snail's pace. We hear little to nothing about the emergence of the "Awakening" movement, consisting of Iraq civilians and former insurgents, which has been so instrumental to our success. It used to be that all we heard were about deaths. All we still hear about is deaths, largely, except that they've been hugely reduced, and hence the amount of coverage has been reduced.

What do you want them to report. Nothing happened. No one cares that nothing happened.

Nothing happened? The war about which they've been moaning for 4 years has finally turned a corner and they think that nothing happened?

That's precisely my point. They wish that nothing had happened. They wish that nothing had changed.

Search results on NYT for "Awakening Movement"

They sure have a lot of stories about something that they haven't reported on.

 

[Mxylplyx]

I guarantee you the overall tone of reporting on the economy is going to improve substantially once a democrat is in office, even if the numbers arent as strong as they were at points during Bush's term. Reporting on the economy has been one major point of bias during a Republican administration IMO.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
I guarantee you the overall tone of reporting on the economy is going to improve substantially once a democrat is in office, even if the numbers arent as strong as they were at points during Bush's term. Reporting on the economy has been one major point of bias during a Republican administration IMO.

Once again....reporting factual bad news is not biased. It is reporting the facts. What is the good economic news over the last 2+ years that you feel that they have buried or not reported?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The allegation of a liberal media slant is not leveled by an analysis of what they report and how they report it. It is leveled by analyzing what they do NOT report, and why. Take notice that, since the successes in the aftermath of the surge in Iraq, news from the front has slowed to snail's pace. We hear little to nothing about the emergence of the "Awakening" movement, consisting of Iraq civilians and former insurgents, which has been so instrumental to our success. It used to be that all we heard were about deaths. All we still hear about is deaths, largely, except that they've been hugely reduced, and hence the amount of coverage has been reduced.

What do you want them to report. Nothing happened. No one cares that nothing happened.

Nothing happened? The war about which they've been moaning for 4 years has finally turned a corner and they think that nothing happened?

That's precisely my point. They wish that nothing had happened. They wish that nothing had changed.

Search results on NYT for "Awakening Movement"

They sure have a lot of stories about something that they haven't reported on.

Conceded. I didn't know they'd reported on the Awakening movement to that extent, or that most news outlets had.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The allegation of a liberal media slant is not leveled by an analysis of what they report and how they report it. It is leveled by analyzing what they do NOT report, and why. Take notice that, since the successes in the aftermath of the surge in Iraq, news from the front has slowed to snail's pace. We hear little to nothing about the emergence of the "Awakening" movement, consisting of Iraq civilians and former insurgents, which has been so instrumental to our success. It used to be that all we heard were about deaths. All we still hear about is deaths, largely, except that they've been hugely reduced, and hence the amount of coverage has been reduced.

That implicates bias to me.

Here's one. straight from the NYT. If you just type "awakening" into their search engine you will literally find dozens of articles referencing them.

I guess you see what you want to see.

I can link you literally dozens of articles from the NYT that discuss the awakening movement and the recent reduction in violence. Sure they report on bombings and deaths. What I don't understand is what you are expecting them to report otherwise... a front page headline saying "fewer bombings and deaths!" every week? They have had dozens of articles about daily life in Iraq, about the political situation there, etc... etc. The reason why they don't report more on political progress in Iraq and things like that is because there has been none.

If you guys can't tell the difference between the reporting of the new york times and the reporting of FOX news then I can't help you. You will see what you want to see. As always, FOX's problem is that they blur the line between news and editorial. It is not that what they report is factually wrong, it is that you never know when the host is telling you something factual or his own opinion. This is not true of the NYT.

I know this won't stop the right's bashing of the NYT as it is one of their favorite boogeymen, just trying to interject the voice of reason here.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I know this won't stop the right's bashing of the NYT as it is one of their favorite boogeymen, just trying to interject the voice of reason here.

So lefties love to bash Fox News, and righties love to bash NYT.

Glad we got that straightened out.

 

[Atreus21]

For some reason, my computer keeps reposting a previous response. Back in a moment.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The allegation of a liberal media slant is not leveled by an analysis of what they report and how they report it. It is leveled by analyzing what they do NOT report, and why. Take notice that, since the successes in the aftermath of the surge in Iraq, news from the front has slowed to snail's pace. We hear little to nothing about the emergence of the "Awakening" movement, consisting of Iraq civilians and former insurgents, which has been so instrumental to our success. It used to be that all we heard were about deaths. All we still hear about is deaths, largely, except that they've been hugely reduced, and hence the amount of coverage has been reduced.

What do you want them to report. Nothing happened. No one cares that nothing happened.

Nothing happened? The war about which they've been moaning for 4 years has finally turned a corner and they think that nothing happened?

That's precisely my point. They wish that nothing had happened. They wish that nothing had changed.

You see what you expect to see and assume it is bias because it matches your preconceptions. That is not a liberal bias. It is the media business' bias for ratings. "If it bleeds, it leads." Bad news sells papers.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The allegation of a liberal media slant is not leveled by an analysis of what they report and how they report it. It is leveled by analyzing what they do NOT report, and why. Take notice that, since the successes in the aftermath of the surge in Iraq, news from the front has slowed to snail's pace. We hear little to nothing about the emergence of the "Awakening" movement, consisting of Iraq civilians and former insurgents, which has been so instrumental to our success. It used to be that all we heard were about deaths. All we still hear about is deaths, largely, except that they've been hugely reduced, and hence the amount of coverage has been reduced.

What do you want them to report. Nothing happened. No one cares that nothing happened.

Nothing happened? The war about which they've been moaning for 4 years has finally turned a corner and they think that nothing happened?

That's precisely my point. They wish that nothing had happened. They wish that nothing had changed.

You see what you expect to see and assume it is bias because it matches your preconceptions. That is not a liberal bias. It is the media business' bias for ratings. "If it bleeds, it leads." Bad news sells papers.

Agreed.

The other thing to consider is the separation between the news and opinion of a paper. For example the Wall street journal opinion pages & editorials are strongly towards the right, their news reporting is factual and actually one of the better ones out there.

I believe NYT is similar in that their opinion pages & editorials lean strongly to the left; their news reporting is factual and good.