IRS Scandal explodes. "no evidence that would support a criminal prosecution."

[fskimospy]

lol The "country's newspaper of record" being the title it has awarded to itself.

Factually false. It was first referred to as the newspaper of record by librarians in 1913. Yet another delusion uncovered, haha.

This is still the paper that consistently manages to somehow ignore every conservative book on its own bestseller list, and everyone knows its bias.

The bias of a newspaper is shown through its book review section? This is an intriguing theory on the study of media bias to say the least, lol.

Yet somehow if we point out its very consistent bias we're accusing it of a conspiracy, in spite of its bias being blatantly obvious. Blatant obviousness somehow doesn't seem consistent with a conspiracy.

"All the news that fits, we print."

It never ceases to amaze me how frequently you simply declare things to be blatantly obvious facts without any empirical basis for doing so. When people point this out it's because they are part of the conspiracy, of course.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The NYT newspaper has endorsed every Democratic presidential candidate since Kennedy. Even a couple of public editors freely admit to their liberal bias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf1Z018QS-Y

But hey...what do they know?!?!

JOANNE LIPMAN: Big newspapers used to employ in-house watchdogs to keep them on the straight and narrow and to represent readers. Few do that anymore.
But "The New York Times" does, and theirs is as outspoken as they come. I sat down earlier to talk with public editor Margaret Sullivan as she marks one year on the job.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LIPMAN: Margaret Sullivan, thank you so much for joining us.

MARGARET SULLIVAN, PUBLIC EDITOR "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Thanks, Joanne. Great to be here.

LIPMAN: So let's dive right in. The loudest criticism that we often hear about "The New York Times" -- I don't know if it's the most frequent but it's certainly the loudest -- is that it has a liberal bias. Does it?

SULLIVAN: Well, some of my predecessors have taken that head-on. In fact, Daniel Okrent, the first public editor, once wrote a column -- and I think the headline said something like "Is 'The Times' a Liberal Newspaper?"

And his answer in the lead was, of course it is. And he went on from there. And it got quite a bit of response.

I mean that is obviously something people feel about "The Times," and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that "The Times" reflects its readership, its community. It's an urban paper; it's a New York City paper. I mean that's a reasonable criticism, I think.

LIPMAN: So it is a yes?

SULLIVAN: It's a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it.

 

[werepossum]

The NYT newspaper has endorsed every Democratic presidential candidate since Kennedy. Even a couple of public editors freely admit to their liberal bias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf1Z018QS-Y

But hey...what do they know?!?!

JOANNE LIPMAN: Big newspapers used to employ in-house watchdogs to keep them on the straight and narrow and to represent readers. Few do that anymore.
But "The New York Times" does, and theirs is as outspoken as they come. I sat down earlier to talk with public editor Margaret Sullivan as she marks one year on the job.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LIPMAN: Margaret Sullivan, thank you so much for joining us.

MARGARET SULLIVAN, PUBLIC EDITOR "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Thanks, Joanne. Great to be here.

LIPMAN: So let's dive right in. The loudest criticism that we often hear about "The New York Times" -- I don't know if it's the most frequent but it's certainly the loudest -- is that it has a liberal bias. Does it?

SULLIVAN: Well, some of my predecessors have taken that head-on. In fact, Daniel Okrent, the first public editor, once wrote a column -- and I think the headline said something like "Is 'The Times' a Liberal Newspaper?"

And his answer in the lead was, of course it is. And he went on from there. And it got quite a bit of response.

I mean that is obviously something people feel about "The Times," and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that "The Times" reflects its readership, its community. It's an urban paper; it's a New York City paper. I mean that's a reasonable criticism, I think.

LIPMAN: So it is a yes?

SULLIVAN: It's a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it.

Obviously she's part of the conspiracy.

People like Eskimospy start with the unyielding insistence that they represent the unbiased center and thus those not in lockstep must represent the right wing (30%), far right wing (30%), and ultra far right wing (30%) of the nation. Therefore the New York Times' constant endorsement of liberal Democrats only proves how reasonable and unbiased are they since clearly the Democrat has always been the better candidate by far, even if a majority in 49 states disagree. And if you think that the New York Times stating that the New York Times is a liberal organization means that the New York Times is a liberal organization, why, that just proves that you aren't smart enough to understand their nuanced statement.

 

[PokerGuy]

The NYT newspaper has endorsed every Democratic presidential candidate since Kennedy. Even a couple of public editors freely admit to their liberal bias.

Yep, even when the country voted in Reagan by a landslide they still endorsed the lefty idiots running against him. The only doubt about the NYT's leanings is with the ultra left wing elitists who view anyone not in complete unison with their ideology as a right winger.

At least some of their editors have been honest about it in the past (perhaps just some slip-ups or moments of lucidity).

Regardless, NYT is garbage and no better of a source than infowars or any other trash site out there. The only difference is that they've been spewing their garbage for longer so they are better recognized.

 

[fskimospy]

The NYT newspaper has endorsed every Democratic presidential candidate since Kennedy. Even a couple of public editors freely admit to their liberal bias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf1Z018QS-Y

But hey...what do they know?!?!

JOANNE LIPMAN: Big newspapers used to employ in-house watchdogs to keep them on the straight and narrow and to represent readers. Few do that anymore.
But "The New York Times" does, and theirs is as outspoken as they come. I sat down earlier to talk with public editor Margaret Sullivan as she marks one year on the job.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

LIPMAN: Margaret Sullivan, thank you so much for joining us.

MARGARET SULLIVAN, PUBLIC EDITOR "THE NEW YORK TIMES": Thanks, Joanne. Great to be here.

LIPMAN: So let's dive right in. The loudest criticism that we often hear about "The New York Times" -- I don't know if it's the most frequent but it's certainly the loudest -- is that it has a liberal bias. Does it?

SULLIVAN: Well, some of my predecessors have taken that head-on. In fact, Daniel Okrent, the first public editor, once wrote a column -- and I think the headline said something like "Is 'The Times' a Liberal Newspaper?"

And his answer in the lead was, of course it is. And he went on from there. And it got quite a bit of response.

I mean that is obviously something people feel about "The Times," and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that "The Times" reflects its readership, its community. It's an urban paper; it's a New York City paper. I mean that's a reasonable criticism, I think.

LIPMAN: So it is a yes?

SULLIVAN: It's a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it.

Interesting that you think that the stance of a paper's editorial page makes the factual reporting on its pages the equivalent of an open ideological advocacy organization.

I'm frankly baffled at how any rational individual could come to such a conclusion.

 

[fskimospy]

People like Eskimospy start with the unyielding insistence that they represent the unbiased center and thus those not in lockstep must represent the right wing (30%), far right wing (30%), and ultra far right wing (30%) of the nation.

It's amazing how much psychological projection is going on here. I've openly stated that I'm a very liberal individual. I do notice that you quite often claim to be the unbiased center while attempting to declare others are ideologically extreme though. The irony here is hilarious.

Therefore the New York Times' constant endorsement of liberal Democrats only proves how reasonable and unbiased are they since clearly the Democrat has always been the better candidate by far, even if a majority in 49 states disagree. And if you think that the New York Times stating that the New York Times is a liberal organization means that the New York Times is a liberal organization, why, that just proves that you aren't smart enough to understand their nuanced statement.

Very interesting how an opinion column by the public editor now stands for what the New York Times states.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Interesting that you think that the stance of a paper's editorial page makes the factual reporting on its pages the equivalent of an open ideological advocacy organization.

I'm frankly baffled at how any rational individual could come to such a conclusion.

You have statements from two NYT public editors that the NYT is liberally biased. As public editors, they're responsibility is not limited to the editorial page as you seem to imply...it encompasses the entire newspaper and all matters related to journalistic integrity. I'm sure that you're quite baffled by their comments as well. You're too funny sometimes.

 

[werepossum]

It's amazing how much psychological projection is going on here. I've openly stated that I'm a very liberal individual. I do notice that you quite often claim to be the unbiased center while attempting to declare others are ideologically extreme though. The irony here is hilarious.

Very interesting how an opinion column by the public editor now stands for what the New York Times states.

lol Dude, I have NEVER claimed to be the unbiased center. I often state that I am a conservative. What I HAVE claimed is to align sometimes with the left and sometimes with the right, as is demonstrated by my posting. However, not only am I much more to the right (I think anyway; silly political tests tend to disagree), but when I am to the left I tend to be just as far from the center. I'm rabidly against civil unions and rabidly for gay marriage. In the oft-repeated Western battle for water between farmers and fish, I'm pro-fish.

Note that none of that changes the fact that the New York Times is a far left institution and has been at least since the sixties. And it's worth pointing out that you never note any media with right wing editorial boards and acceptably unbiased factual reporting.

 

[fskimospy]

You have statements from two NYT public editors that the NYT is liberally biased. As public editors, they're responsibility is not limited to the editorial page as you seem to imply...it encompasses the entire newspaper and all matters related to journalistic integrity. I'm sure that you're quite baffled by their comments as well. You're too funny sometimes.

The public editor is simply a position where an individual comments on what he or she thinks about various issues and controversies that come to the paper. They don't actually work in the reporting or editorial parts of the paper, and are in effect opinion journalists that serve a letter responding function as well.

What's funny too is that the "liberal bias" that Orkent complained about was restricted purely to social issues too, he said he was making no judgment on the policy, etc, aspects of the paper. Considering this is definitely not a social issue it seems a bit "funny" to put words in his mouth like that, don't you think?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The public editor is simply a position where an individual comments on what he or she thinks about various issues and controversies that come to the paper. They don't actually work in the reporting or editorial parts of the paper, and are in effect opinion journalists that serve a letter responding function as well.

What's funny too is that the "liberal bias" that Orkent complained about was restricted purely to social issues too, he said he was making no judgment on the policy, etc, aspects of the paper. Considering this is definitely not a social issue it seems a bit "funny" to put words in his mouth like that, don't you think?

A public editor's job is to assure that the publication is being honest and ethical in its reporting. Their opinions have some credibility....no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_editor

Public Editor

The job of the public editor is to supervise the implementation of proper journalism ethics at a newspaper, and to identify and examine critical errors or omissions, and to act as a liaison to the public. They do this primarily through a regular feature on a newspaper's editorial page. Because public editors are generally employees of the very newspaper they're criticizing, it may appear as though there is a possibility for bias. However, a newspaper with a high standard of ethics would not fire a public editor for a criticism of the paper; the act would contradict the purpose of the position and would itself be a very likely cause for public concern.

Many major newspapers in the U.S. use the public editor column as the voice for their Ombudsman, though this is not always so. Public editor columns cover a broader scope of issues and do not have an accreditation process, while in order to qualify as an ombudsman of any standing one must be a member of the Organisation of News Ombudsmen.

At The New York Times, the position was created in response to the Jayson Blair scandal. The Times' first public editor was Daniel Okrent, who held the position from December 2003 through May 2005. Okrent's successor was Byron Calame, who was followed by Clark Hoyt, who held the position for three years. In August 2010, Arthur S. Brisbane assumed the post and held it until 2012, when Margaret Sullivan took the position.[1]

Anyway, you never addressed why this particular newspaper has endorsed every single Democratic presidential candidate since Kennedy. That's quite a coincidental track record for such an unbiased news source as the NYT wouldn't you say?

 

[fskimospy]

A public editor's job is to assure that the publication is being honest and ethical in its reporting. Their opinions have some credibility....no?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_editor

Who said their opinions weren't credible? Doesn't change the fact that it's a single individual's opinion.

Anyway, you never addressed why this particular newspaper has endorsed every single Democratic presidential candidate since Kennedy. That's quite a coincidental track record for such an unbiased news source as the NYT wouldn't you say?

I was unaware that the editorial page endorsements were the same thing as the news pages. For example, for many years the WSJ had a rabidly right wing editorial page along with unbiased actual news sections.

 

[Fern]

As I said back in May (post #213):


And now we learn that in the majority of cases, the IRS will no longer attempt to enforce the laws restricting political activities. This was posted a couple of days ago, but has been buried in the pages of childish ego-stroking that is now drowning this thread. Corruption wins again:


Do you suppose the usual players will express their outrage at another example of the Obama administration ignoring laws? After all, they claim it's about the principle, not naked partisanship. Perhaps Boehner will add this to his lawsuit? /s

Neither of the bolded claims you made are correct.

The IRS is merely streamlining the application process as is mentioned in the article you quoted:

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen told Time that about 80 percent of charitable groups seeking tax exemption will go through a simplified application process. Groups that report total assets lower than $250,000 and an income of less than $50,000 can pay a $400 fee and fill out a three-page form to automatically be eligible to receive tax-deductible donations.

Nascent groups at the application stage will not have any activity yet so there is nothing to audit.

And the IRS has not said that they won't audit or enforce the rules.

This IRS change only involved simplifying the application process.

Fern

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Who said their opinions weren't credible? Doesn't change the fact that it's a single individual's opinion.

These are 2 people that were extremely close to the inner workings of the paper and all public reactions/objections to articles for years. To marginalize their credibility as "a single individual's opinion" is intellectually dishonest imo.

I was unaware that the editorial page endorsements were the same thing as the news pages. For example, for many years the WSJ had a rabidly right wing editorial page along with unbiased actual news sections.

I didn't say they were the same thing. However this unbroken chain of political endorsements is indicative of a long history of entrenched bias within the paper's culture. If you want to believe that the NYT does not have a liberal bias...go for it. It's quite clear that I'm not going to convince you otherwise despite the facts I offered. Or, for that matter, it's unlikely that you'll be able to change my opinion on this as well....so we're just wasting each other's time imo.

 

[ivwshane]

These are 2 people that were extremely close to the inner workings of the paper and all public reactions/objections to articles for years. To marginalize their credibility as "a single individual's opinion" is intellectually dishonest imo.


I didn't say they were the same thing. However this unbroken chain of political endorsements is indicative of a long history of entrenched bias within the paper's culture. If you want to believe that the NYT does not have a liberal bias...go for it. It's quite clear that I'm not going to convince you otherwise despite the facts I offered. Or, for that matter, it's unlikely that you'll be able to change my opinion on this as well....so we're just wasting each other's time imo.

Or they realized just how crappy every republican presidential candidate has been for years. You call it bias, most people call it reality.

 

[fskimospy]

These are 2 people that were extremely close to the inner workings of the paper and all public reactions/objections to articles for years. To marginalize their credibility as "a single individual's opinion" is intellectually dishonest imo.


I didn't say they were the same thing. However this unbroken chain of political endorsements is indicative of a long history of entrenched bias within the paper's culture. If you want to believe that the NYT does not have a liberal bias...go for it. It's quite clear that I'm not going to convince you otherwise despite the facts I offered. Or, for that matter, it's unlikely that you'll be able to change my opinion on this as well....so we're just wasting each other's time imo.

I'm sorry to hear that you think describing two people's opinions as their opinions is intellectually dishonest. I personally would find attempting to use someone's statements about a paper's approach to social issues as a statement about their policy reporting when the individual explicitly disavowed such a comparison to be intellectually dishonest. What do you think?

 

[Bowfinger]

Neither of the bolded claims you made are correct. ...

They are perfectly correct within the context of the application process. That is clearly what I was talking about, and is indeed what this entire controversy is about: proactive enforcement of those laws during the application process to ensure applicants are truly eligible for 501(c)(4) status.

 

[Bowfinger]

In yet, in another amazing coincidence, they say the same thing.

No, they don't. They touch on some of the same things. They do not say the same thing. That you cannot tell the difference shows why you are so easily duped by propaganda.

 

[Bowfinger]

The "inappropriate criteria" were supposed to be a shortcut to manage the increased workload from Tea Party apps, were they not?

First, I still don't see what that has to do with Lerner's drive crashing almost a year before the investigations and lawsuit. It seems like you were just looking for a cheap shot at me, but I may still be missing your point.

That said, I don't know what the IRS stated about the reasons for their BOLO targeting. The "shortcut to manage increased workload" may be a widespread assumption rather than an official IRS position. I will, however, point out that workload has at least three components: volume of applications, effort required to assess, and number of resources (agents) available to do the work.

Clearly the assessment process for these political applications was much more work than the typical application. We also know from the TIGTA report that that department was short-handed, with only a single agent remaining at one point. (The report did not document why that was, nor how long they were so understaffed.) In other words, even if the raw volume of applications was about the same, the workload per agent may have been dramatically higher. But this is all speculative, and I'm not sure if it addresses your point (since I'm still not sure what you were driving at).

 

[TerryMathews]

First, I still don't see what that has to do with Lerner's drive crashing almost a year before the investigations and lawsuit. It seems like you were just looking for a cheap shot at me, but I may still be missing your point.

That said, I don't know what the IRS stated about the reasons for their BOLO targeting. The "shortcut to manage increased workload" may be a widespread assumption rather than an official IRS position. I will, however, point out that workload has at least three components: volume of applications, effort required to assess, and number of resources (agents) available to do the work.

Clearly the assessment process for these political applications was much more work than the typical application. We also know from the TIGTA report that that department was short-handed, with only a single agent remaining at one point. (The report did not document why that was, nor how long they were so understaffed.) In other words, even if the raw volume of applications was about the same, the workload per agent may have been dramatically higher. But this is all speculative, and I'm not sure if it addresses your point (since I'm still not sure what you were driving at).

What I'm driving at is that they implemented the new criteria during a period when application volume was down.

Either, just like with the HDs, they knew somehow that they would have a problem in the future or application volume had nothing to do with the new criteria.

It is an amazing coincidence, predicting the future twice no?

 

[Bowfinger]

Then it appears that we both agree that Lerner lied and deliberately misled Congress/public and that Jhhnn is full of shit.

I agree Lerner lied sometimes, intentionally making misleading comments. You did a good job of documenting this with your second pair of links.

Jhhnn's claim was, "Lerner's 'lies' are pure distortion." IMO, that is largely accurate since most of the "lies" attributed to Lerner have been supposition, innuendo, or comments made by other people (e.g., the "two rogue agents" quote has frequently been attributed to either Lerner or Obama depending on the target du jour, yet neither said it). Nonetheless, I agree "pure" distortion is an overstatement. Like most good smear campaigns, there is some small kernel of truth behind the wild accusations. There are legitimate examples of Lerner dishonesty buried among all the partisan noise.

 

[Bowfinger]

What I'm driving at is that they implemented the new criteria during a period when application volume was down.

Either, just like with the HDs, they knew somehow that they would have a problem in the future or application volume had nothing to do with the new criteria.

It is an amazing coincidence, predicting the future twice no?

Ah, I get you now. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't have a factual answer for that. Without more data about the timing and nature of the incoming applications, all we can do is speculate.

 

[mirageracerx]

IRS would never lie about anything.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm sorry to hear that you think describing two people's opinions as their opinions is intellectually dishonest. I personally would find attempting to use someone's statements about a paper's approach to social issues as a statement about their policy reporting when the individual explicitly disavowed such a comparison to be intellectually dishonest. What do you think?

Another Public Editor comments on the NYT bias:

Arthur Brisbane (NYT Public Editor 2010-12)
"I also noted two years ago that I had taken up the public editor duties believing “there is no conspiracy” and that The Times’s output was too vast and complex to be dictated by any Wizard of Oz-like individual or cabal. I still believe that, but also see that the hive on Eighth Avenue is powerfully shaped by a culture of like minds — a phenomenon, I believe, that is more easily recognized from without than from within.

When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism — for lack of a better term — that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.

As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects."

This opinion is not only shared by a majority of public editors for the NYT, Bill Keller (former Executive Editor) admitted the paper was "socially liberal" and A. M. Rosenthal (another former Executive Editor who's considered a legend at the paper) said he "felt the need to steer The Times to the right to compensate for the leftward political leanings of some staff".

 

[fskimospy]

Another Public Editor comments on the NYT bias:

This opinion is not only shared by a majority of public editors for the NYT, Bill Keller (former Executive Editor) admitted the paper was "socially liberal" and A. M. Rosenthal (another former Executive Editor who's considered a legend at the paper) said he "felt the need to steer The Times to the right to compensate for the leftward political leanings of some staff".

So now you're just repeating yourself while providing evidence from the same people that you want to use as judges of the paper's position that the NYT is consciously unbiased about governance related things. You also have not explained why you attempted to use the public editor's statements as evidence of a policy bias when he explicitly disavowed such a thing. (intellectual dishonesty)

Regardless, all this stemmed from a hilarious attempt to equate the paper of record in the US with an extreme, openly right wing blog. That's a transparently stupid comparison.

 

[TerryMathews]

Ah, I get you now. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't have a factual answer for that. Without more data about the timing and nature of the incoming applications, all we can do is speculate.

You do recognize the parallel now?