Public Editor NYT: Progressive world view bleeds through the NY Times.

[Parkbandit]

“WHY on earth would you want this job?”

Two years ago, I set out to answer this question in my inaugural public editor column — if only because so many people at The New York Times had asked it. Now, as I complete my term and hand the baton to the incoming public editor, Margaret Sullivan, I want to take a second look at it.

Back then, I viewed The Times as a deeply resourced news organization that was challenged to recreate itself in an environment that was smashing old media and vaulting new forms to prominence. I saw myself as something of a coroner, called in to autopsy flawed news articles that drew complaints.

What I’ve seen has surprised me. Not so much the occasional corpse in text but the deeper changes reshaping what I hesitate to call merely “the paper.”

In these two years, The New York Times Company has been transformed, shedding most of the assets that once made it a diversified corporation. When About.com is sold, the Times Company will be back to the basics: The Times itself, the Paris-based International Herald Tribune, and two New England papers, The Boston Globe and The Telegram & Gazette in Worcester, Mass.

Through this, The Times has maintained an unmatched investment in journalism, even as the company’s profitability remains in doubt (the last quarter saw a loss of $88 million). I conclude that Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the company chairman and the publisher of The Times, is betting the farm that strong journalism is an essential asset that cannot be shed.

The company’s survival mantra calls for expansion in the international, video, social and mobile spheres. What is so exceptional and surprising to me, a career veteran of long wars between newspapers’ business and newsroom camps, is how thoroughly The Times’s newsroom appears to have bought in to this strategy.

No doubt, the mortal threat is clear enough now to be a motivator. But for journalists at The Times, the opportunity to flood the Web with content is a compelling one in its own right. Encouraged by the company to exploit social media, many Times journalists have become extraordinarily prodigious publishers on Twitter, some with thousands of posts to their credit.

Consider this sign of the froth that surrounds social media: A few weeks ago on NYTimes.com (http://nytimes.com/), a Times editor conducted a serious video interview with a BuzzFeed writer about the day Twitter was down for an hour or two — and the political, journalistic and (dare I extrapolate?) metaphysical implications thereof.

The emphasis on social and mobile media means that Times material appears far from the home base of NYTimes.com (http://nytimes.com/), not to mention the distant shores of the Old Country, print. For journalists, this presents tantalizing new opportunities to build a personal audience, while for the company it is a way to follow readers where they are going.

The result is an oddly disaggregated New York Times of hyper-engaged journalists building their own brands, and company content flung willy-nilly into the ether.

Observing this dynamic, I responded with columns emphasizing that, as the digital transformation proceeds, The Times should more forcefully communicate its brand values — its high standards, commitment to accountability, etc. — by publishing those standards more prominently and communicating directly with readers on an NYTimes.com (http://nytimes.com/) reader portal of some kind. Fortifying core beliefs and expressing them, I believe, secures the anchor in a time of change like this. It reinforces those standards to the staff and gives the reader reasons to trust The Times.

Two years ago, when I wrote my “why on earth” column, I suggested that the pace of change called for a re-emphasis on “transparency, accountability, humility.” Looking back now, I think The Times could do better with these.
The Times is hardly transparent. A reader still has to work very hard to find any Times policies online (though some are tucked away there), and there is still no place where Times editors speak on the issues. As for humility, well, The Times is Lake Wobegon on steroids (everybody’s way above average). I don’t remember many autopsies in which, as we assembled over the body, anyone conceded that maybe this could have been done differently.
The strong suit, though, is the corrections desk, led by Greg Brock, where thousands of errors are somehow adjudicated every year. This is a powerful engine of accountability, unmatched by any other corrections operation I have seen, and a potential foundation element for a portal where The Times could prominently display “transparency, accountability, humility.”

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.

Stepping back, I can see that as the digital transformation proceeds, as The Times disaggregates and as an empowered staff finds new ways to express itself, a kind of Times Nation has formed around the paper’s political-cultural worldview, an audience unbound by geography (as distinct from the old days of print) and one that self-selects in digital space.

It’s a huge success story — it is hard to argue with the enormous size of Times Nation — but one that carries risk as well. A just-released Pew Research Center survey found that The Times’s “believability rating” had dropped drastically among Republicans compared with Democrats, and was an almost-perfect mirror opposite of Fox News’s rating. Can that be good?

“Why on earth would you want this job?” The answer is: I thought two years ago it would be interesting, and two years later, I can say that it certainly was.

And one final note: many thanks to Joseph Burgess, my assistant, who ably helped me fulfill the duties of the public editor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/success-and-risk-as-the-times-transforms.html?_r=4&smid=tw-share

I bolded my favorite part. There's also a "rebut" from the Executive Editor, basically saying "nut uh" on Politico.

[4a6c1]

"A just-released Pew Research Center survey found that The Times’s “believability rating” had dropped drastically among Republicans compared with Democrats, and was an almost-perfect mirror opposite of Fox News’s rating."

Since "Fox News Crowd" is synonymous with 'bullshit from the right' for Everywhere and Everyone, I would say this is an acheivement. They're probably not winning any awards for objectivity, which I'm guessing is your beef. (lol?)

[Back]

Trying to compare FOX News, which has won zero journalism awards (Peabody, Murrow, Pulitzer), with the New York Times is like trying to compare... well, Fox News and the New York Times (multiple awards over the years.) Its insanity to even think they are in the same category. Crazier still you are probably going to try to stupidly argue that the award bodies (Peabody, Murrow, Pulitzer) are all leftist slanted organizations.

"Reality has a well known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

[Latrinsorm]

This is actually an interesting point, and I hope you're willing to think about it PB... is what people believe necessarily what is actually the case? Specifically, if Republicans express a measurably lower "believability rating", does this necessarily mean that a "'progressive' world view bleeds through the NY Times"?

[Tgo01]

Crazier still you are probably going to try to stupidly argue that the award bodies (Peabody, Murrow, Pulitzer) are all leftist slanted organizations.

Obama's Nobel peace prize.

/thread

[Warriorbird]

Let's throw out a random unrelated insult and claim it means something like Republicans.

/thread

[Tgo01]

Let's throw out a random unrelated insult and claim it means something like Republicans.

/thread

My "insult" was random and unrelated?

I said /thread already!

[Warriorbird]

My "insult" was random and unrelated?

I said /thread already!

Pretty much. Obama has not a damn thing to do with the Times's viewpoint.

[Tgo01]

Pretty much. Obama has not a damn thing to do with the Times's viewpoint.

His winning the Nobel peace prize has everything to do with showing that even the awarding of Nobel prizes can be slanted politically speaking.

[crb]

Saying organization X has legitimacy despite political bias because it has won awards from organizations that also exhibit that same political bias is a fallacious point.

I believe that is what Tgo01 was trying to say, and he would be correct.

I also certainly cannot remember Fox having to issue huge retractions or explain fake manufactured stories like the NYT has. People will point to opinion shows like O'Reilly or Hannity or something, and ask to compare them to Brian Williams. More accurately would be to compare them to Pat Buchanan, when he was on MSNBC. An opinion pundit is not an anchor or a journalist and is not portrayed as such. Fox's actual news anchors, such as Bret Baier or Shephard Smith, and the other actual journalists, certainly try to keep things fair and balanced... though if your idea of fair and balanced is left of center, then obvious someone down the center will seem to be to the right of you.

I remember watching a GWB SOTU on MSNBC and when Bush was done Lester Holt, an anchor, proceeded to give the Democratic response while waiting for the actual Democratic response by listing all the things he thought Bush lied about. That is actual bias in reporting.

[Warriorbird]

His winning the Nobel peace prize has everything to do with showing that even the awarding of Nobel prizes can be slanted politically speaking.

TR won in 1906, Elihu Root won in 1912, Cordell Hull won in 1945, Henry Kissinger won in 1973, Yasser Arafat won in 1994, Al Gore won in 2007...

Comparing the Times to a political award crafted by the guy who invented dynamite is deeply questionable and just designed to stir people up, much less to Fox or any of the News Corp affiliates. If it were MSNBC, one might concede your point. It isn't.

EDIT:

CRB, your memory is clearly your memory here. Note that your "example of bias" involved MSNBC. They're on the same level as Fox. It's also funny when I can see exactly where you got your talking point from, Roger Ailes's laughable "We've never taken a story down because it was wrong."

[Tgo01]

Comparing the Times to a political award

I didn't compare The Times to anything. My goodness at this point I can only guess that you don't actually read posts before replying.

[Warriorbird]

I didn't compare The Times to anything. My goodness at this point I can only guess that you don't actually read posts before replying.

"I'm going to attempt to misdirect the discussion now!"

You made a point about political awards somehow being political to forward a viewpoint about the New York Times somehow being equivalently biased to Fox. It was CRB level ludicrous.

You even drew them together in a post.

[Tgo01]

Gather 'round everyone as I show the step by step process of Warriorbird creating his strawman.

First WB has to read the thread title "Oh a post by Parkbandit about the New York Times, this should be a great place to distort what people in the thread are saying."

Then we have a post by Back where he remains on topic yet talks about something totally unrelated to the original post.


Crazier still you are probably going to try to stupidly argue that the award bodies (Peabody, Murrow, Pulitzer) are all leftist slanted organizations.

Notice here Back is talking about award bodies, NOT The Times (he was trying to show how The Times was a legitimate news source based on these awards though.)

Then I come along and I quote just this part of Back's post because that is all I am referring to with my response.


Obama's Nobel peace prize.

Note the context similarities here. Back is referring to award bodies, I am referring to an award (and hence the award body that bestowed Obama with said honor.)

Here is WB's responses to me referring to an award/award body.


Pretty much. Obama has not a damn thing to do with the Times's viewpoint.


Comparing the Times to a political award


You made a point about political awards somehow being political to forward a viewpoint about the New York Times somehow being equivalently biased to Fox.

Notice with this quote now that he is 100% fabricating my point. The other two quotes were pretty lawlworthy I'll admit but this quote is like the holy grail among strawmen. Where have I ever mentioned anything at all about the New York Times or Fox news or tried to make any connection between the two? All I mentioned was Obama's Nobel peace prize.

My favorite part in WB's carefully crafted strawmen is this quote where he attempts to accuse the victim of his strawman attack to be the one attempting to "misdirect the discussion."


"I'm going to attempt to misdirect the discussion now!"

I hope you all have had as much fun in learning about WB's strawmen tactics as I had in demonstrating them to you.

[~Rocktar~]

Good try.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?74726-Public-Editor-NYT-Progressive-world-view-bleeds-through-the-NY-Times&p=1449175#post1449175

So you agree with him that award bodies can be biased? That's his point, good going, way to find common ground.

[Parkbandit]

"A just-released Pew Research Center survey found that The Times’s “believability rating” had dropped drastically among Republicans compared with Democrats, and was an almost-perfect mirror opposite of Fox News’s rating."

Since "Fox News Crowd" is synonymous with 'bullshit from the right' for Everywhere and Everyone, I would say this is an acheivement. They're probably not winning any awards for objectivity, which I'm guessing is your beef. (lol?)

Fox News is to the Republicans as NY Times is to the Democrats.

I didn't think it was that hard for anyone to figure out.. but whatever.

[Parkbandit]

Trying to compare FOX News, which has won zero journalism awards (Peabody, Murrow, Pulitzer), with the New York Times is like trying to compare... well, Fox News and the New York Times (multiple awards over the years.) Its insanity to even think they are in the same category. Crazier still you are probably going to try to stupidly argue that the award bodies (Peabody, Murrow, Pulitzer) are all leftist slanted organizations.

"Reality has a well known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

Given that most of the "journalists" are part of the liberal media, is that really a surprise?

Personally, I wouldn't give Fox News an award anymore than I would give MSNBC or the NYTimes an award.

[Warriorbird]

Personally, I wouldn't give Fox News an award anymore than I would give MSNBC or the NYTimes an award.

I don't understand why it's so difficult to distinguish Fox News and MSNBC from the NYT.

[Parkbandit]

I don't understand why it's so difficult to distinguish Fox News and MSNBC from the NYT.

You are making that painfully obvious. You don't understand.

Hey, just curious.. but who was the last Republican President candidate endorsed by the New York Times. I mean heck.. since it's the unbiased news source you want it to be, it should almost be 50/50 in the past say.. what.. 40 years?

[Warriorbird]

You are making that painfully obvious. You don't understand.

Hey, just curious.. but who was the last Republican President candidate endorsed by the New York Times. I mean heck.. since it's the unbiased news source you want it to be, it should almost be 50/50 in the past say.. what.. 40 years?

Do we need to do a little lesson on what is opinion and what isn't? I think it is rather more telling about the Republican Party that the Times hasn't endorsed them since Eisenhower than about the NYT.

[Back]

It all leads to the obvious conclusion. The Republican party is divorced from reality and has been for many years.

[Parkbandit]

Do we need to do a little lesson on what is opinion and what isn't? I think it is rather more telling about the Republican Party that the Times hasn't endorsed them since Eisenhower than about the NYT.

Wait.. They endorsed candidates like Carter, Mondale and Kerry?

And so, the writers of the NY Times have the opinion that clearly slants left.. but we should just pretend they are unbiased in their reporting.

Ok.

Talk about not being grounded in reality. Hey, maybe Fox News is 'Fair and Balanced' after all!

[Tgo01]

Wait.. They endorsed candidates like Carter, Mondale and Kerry?

And so, the writers of the NY Times have the opinion that clearly slants left.. but we should just pretend they are unbiased in their reporting.

Ok.

Dude they won awards. They don't hand those out to biased news sources.

[Parkbandit]

Dude they won awards. They don't hand those out to biased news sources.

Lulz

[Warriorbird]

Dude they won awards. They don't hand those out to biased news sources.

Get back to me when you understand the differences between political endorsements, the opinion page, and actual reporting. I'm sure willfully sticking your head in the sand is fun though.

[TheEschaton]

Saying organization X has legitimacy despite political bias because it has won awards from organizations that also exhibit that same political bias is a fallacious point.

I believe that is what Tgo01 was trying to say, and he would be correct.

I also certainly cannot remember Fox having to issue huge retractions or explain fake manufactured stories like the NYT has. People will point to opinion shows like O'Reilly or Hannity or something, and ask to compare them to Brian Williams. More accurately would be to compare them to Pat Buchanan, when he was on MSNBC. An opinion pundit is not an anchor or a journalist and is not portrayed as such. Fox's actual news anchors, such as Bret Baier or Shephard Smith, and the other actual journalists, certainly try to keep things fair and balanced... though if your idea of fair and balanced is left of center, then obvious someone down the center will seem to be to the right of you.

I remember watching a GWB SOTU on MSNBC and when Bush was done Lester Holt, an anchor, proceeded to give the Democratic response while waiting for the actual Democratic response by listing all the things he thought Bush lied about. That is actual bias in reporting.

Just because Rush and formerly Glenn Beck never EXPLAINED their false stories in the past doesn't mean they were false. They were just brazenly unapologetic. At least the NYT apologizes when it's found out.

[TheEschaton]

Gather 'round everyone as I show the step by step process of Warriorbird creating his strawman.

First WB has to read the thread title "Oh a post by Parkbandit about the New York Times, this should be a great place to distort what people in the thread are saying."

Then we have a post by Back where he remains on topic yet talks about something totally unrelated to the original post.



Notice here Back is talking about award bodies, NOT The Times (he was trying to show how The Times was a legitimate news source based on these awards though.)

Then I come along and I quote just this part of Back's post because that is all I am referring to with my response.



Note the context similarities here. Back is referring to award bodies, I am referring to an award (and hence the award body that bestowed Obama with said honor.)

Here is WB's responses to me referring to an award/award body.







Notice with this quote now that he is 100% fabricating my point. The other two quotes were pretty lawlworthy I'll admit but this quote is like the holy grail among strawmen. Where have I ever mentioned anything at all about the New York Times or Fox news or tried to make any connection between the two? All I mentioned was Obama's Nobel peace prize.

My favorite part in WB's carefully crafted strawmen is this quote where he attempts to accuse the victim of his strawman attack to be the one attempting to "misdirect the discussion."



I hope you all have had as much fun in learning about WB's strawmen tactics as I had in demonstrating them to you.

Are people not allowed to infer the implications of one's posts any more? You provided Obama's Nobel prize as a counterpoint to Back's pointing the NYT winning a bunch of journalism awards.

Presumably, the implication you're saying is "Since the recipient (of even major, worldwide awards) doesn't seem to necessarily qualify for the stated goals of said prize, it can be said that these prizes are politically biased."

From that, the inference is that you're trying to say that the NYT wins these awards because the Murrow, the Pulitizer, the Peabody are politically motivated, and that is what denies them from FoxNews getting them.

I mean, come on. You're like the guy who wrote the ESPN article about Jeremy Lin saying "CHINK IN THE ARMOR!" You claim to be a serious person/journalist, but plead ignorance on the implications of what you're writing even though it's fairly obvious (IE, "chink in the armor" is a not-so-common phrase that would have a sinister double meaning when applied to a player of Chinese-American background).

[crb]

Thread: Public Editor NYT: Progressive world view bleeds through the NY Times.
Too bad "fallacious" isn't a real word, you dumb fuck.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fallacious

Next time sign your rep so I can mercilessly tease you for your ignorance.

Also may I suggest reading a book.

http://hulkhatetimetravel.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/levar-burton-reading-rainbow.jpg

It will help your vocabulary.

[crb]

From that, the inference is that you're trying to say that the NYT wins these awards because the Murrow, the Pulitizer, the Peabody are politically motivated, and that is what denies them from FoxNews getting them.

You disagree with the inference? I suppose you also think the Academy Awards aren't left leaning? Who votes on the awards, are they liberal or conservative? This isn't really rocket science.

http://triblive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_503968.html

This is a silly argument, refuting that the NYT is on the left, what a loser of a position.

[Parkbandit]

This is a silly argument, refuting that the NYT is on the left, what a loser of a position.

BUT THEY WON AWARDS!

[Tgo01]

Are people not allowed to infer the implications of one's posts any more? You provided Obama's Nobel prize as a counterpoint to Back's pointing the NYT winning a bunch of journalism awards.

Presumably, the implication you're saying is "Since the recipient (of even major, worldwide awards) doesn't seem to necessarily qualify for the stated goals of said prize, it can be said that these prizes are politically biased."

From that, the inference is that you're trying to say that the NYT wins these awards because the Murrow, the Pulitizer, the Peabody are politically motivated, and that is what denies them from FoxNews getting them.

Yeah actually that is pretty much exactly what I'm saying, winning an award does not automatically make one unbiased because the award committee can be biased. However unlike what WB was trying to say I was saying I never said the NYT was or was not biased and I wasn't comparing them to Fox News. Nor was I saying Obama winning the Nobel peace prize had anything at all to do with the NYT.

[Warriorbird]

Yeah actually that is pretty much exactly what I'm saying, winning an award does not automatically make one unbiased because the award committee can be biased. However unlike what WB was trying to say I was saying I never said the NYT was or was not biased and I wasn't comparing them to Fox News. Nor was I saying Obama winning the Nobel peace prize had anything at all to do with the NYT.

Read his post again.

[~Rocktar~]

Read his post again.

Try to use some intelligence instead of your usual obfuscation attempts, red herrings and just plain idiotic trolling.

[Warriorbird]

Try to use some intelligence instead of your usual obfuscation attempts, red herrings and just plain idiotic trolling.

Coming from you that's hilarious.

[Androidpk]

Coming from you that's hilarious.

Fucking truth.

[Tgo01]

Read his post again.

I did, I read it a couple of times actually. TheE said exactly what I was trying to say. It's a complete 180 of what you were trying to say I was saying. Know what I'm saying?

[Reliel]

Fucking truth.

Turn that around and you have an inside view of New York Times brain storm.

[Warriorbird]

I did, I read it a couple of times actually. TheE said exactly what I was trying to say. It's a complete 180 of what you were trying to say I was saying. Know what I'm saying?

If you ignore the entire first sentence of his post and my already linked post of yours you might indeed begin to think something like that.

[Parkbandit]

So are we still sticking with the premise that the NY Times is an unbiased newspaper.. because people defending that notion made me laugh.

[Warriorbird]

So are we still sticking with the premise that the NY Times is an unbiased newspaper.. because people defending that notion made me laugh.

I wouldn't call it unbiased, but it's more unbiased than Fox or MSNBC. I'd actually say that's lead to its downfall in an age where Rupert Murdoch brought yellow journalism back to triumph over everything.

Endorsement is a terrible metric for bias in actual reporting, but while you might bash them for their current focus in endorsements, for instance, I don't imagine you'd find many endorsements of any sort for the other party from Fox or MSNBC. They were both founded to be "Right wing" or "Left wing."

[Parkbandit]

I wouldn't call it unbiased, but it's more unbiased than Fox or MSNBC. I'd actually say that's lead to its downfall in an age where Rupert Murdoch brought yellow journalism back to triumph over everything.

Endorsement is a terrible metric for bias in actual reporting, but while you might bash them for their current focus in endorsements, for instance, I don't imagine you'd find many endorsements of any sort for the other party from Fox or MSNBC. They were both founded to be "Right wing" or "Left wing."

I'll give you that they are slightly less biased than Fox News and MSNBC.. but they lean hard left. Washington Times might be a better comparison.

[Warriorbird]

I'll give you that they are slightly less biased than Fox News and MSNBC.. but they lean hard left. Washington Times might be a better comparison.

The Moonie newspaper? I'd consider WSJ to be a more appropriate counterpoint, pre News Corp takeover, but you're closer.

[thefarmer]

I mean, come on. You're like the guy who wrote the ESPN article about Jeremy Lin saying "CHINK IN THE ARMOR!" You claim to be a serious person/journalist, but plead ignorance on the implications of what you're writing even though it's fairly obvious (IE, "chink in the armor" is a not-so-common phrase that would have a sinister double meaning when applied to a player of Chinese-American background).

You don't read much about sports, do you?

It's much more likely the sports writer was guilty of hack, trite phrases than any attempt at racial funny.

[Parkbandit]

The Moonie newspaper? I'd consider WSJ to be a more appropriate counterpoint, pre News Corp takeover, but you're closer.

I didn't want to mention a ZOMG NEWS CORP product to shield you from a possible stroke out.

[Atlanteax]

There is no unbiased reporting anymore as the media (nowadays) are compelled by a need to turn a profit.

I thought that "The Newsroom" did a nice job illustrating this with that one episode featuring how Nancy Grace covered the Casey Anthony melodrama.

[Stanley Burrell]

As the authority on this, I can tell you the following:

As you all know, I am a registered Independent in the state of New York. With that being said, I stopped receiving the Times because a) I read news less b) the Internet.

c) http://goregirl.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/videodrome.png

[Warriorbird]

As the authority on this, I can tell you the following:

As you all know, I am a registered Independent in the state of New York. With that being said, I stopped receiving the Times because a) I read news less b) the Internet.

c) http://goregirl.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/videodrome.png

I love where you're going with this post.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-u-uPv5rMM3c/TqtLOtyShgI/AAAAAAAAAnk/y_u5GjGSCoE/s1600/they_live%2Bmessages.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

There's some newspaper that puts periods in things like N.B.A. too it drives me crazy.

[Drew]

Why are we arguing over if the NYT is biased or unbiased? Can anyone here make a reasonable argument that being unbiased is possible? It isn't. Research has shown that even when humans are informed of their biases and consciously try to adjust for them they still can't do so. Pretending that the news source you like is unbiased might salve your brain but it's simply not true. My grandma think Fox News is unbiased and the NYT is. RojoDisco thinks NYT is unbiased and Fox News isn't. There is a reason papers are called "The Tallahassee Democrat" and it's not because they support democracy. The fad of pretending to be neutral comes, essentially, from radio and TV. As there was limited bandwidth the government legislated a neutral point of view. This became vogue and pretty much all your news outlets picked it up. But as it's simply an impossible standard to live up to the best solution is for the consumer to be informed of the bias of the particular outlet and they can then filter it in whatever way they want. It's certainly a lot more honest than pretending to be something we can't.

[Androidpk]

There's some newspaper that puts periods in things like N.B.A. too it drives me crazy.


http://i49.tinypic.com/10zzuc7.jpg

[Back]

I miss the good old days when real journalism revealed the real stories like Bat Boy!

http://s3.media.squarespace.com/production/465215/5307116/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/news_batboy_2.jpg

[Parkbandit]

Why are we arguing over if the NYT is biased or unbiased? Can anyone here make a reasonable argument that being unbiased is possible? It isn't. Research has shown that even when humans are informed of their biases and consciously try to adjust for them they still can't do so. Pretending that the news source you like is unbiased might salve your brain but it's simply not true. My grandma think Fox News is unbiased and the NYT is. RojoDisco thinks NYT is unbiased and Fox News isn't. There is a reason papers are called "The Tallahassee Democrat" and it's not because they support democracy. The fad of pretending to be neutral comes, essentially, from radio and TV. As there was limited bandwidth the government legislated a neutral point of view. This became vogue and pretty much all your news outlets picked it up. But as it's simply an impossible standard to live up to the best solution is for the consumer to be informed of the bias of the particular outlet and they can then filter it in whatever way they want. It's certainly a lot more honest than pretending to be something we can't.

Why do you have to ruin everything?

[Drew]

Sorry to Debbie Downer everything.

[Back]

Sorry to Debbie Downer everything.

Your avatar sucks.

[Drew]

Kill yourself.

[Back]

Kill yourself.

Not in my program.

[Back]

Fucking Fallon has a Grammy. Fuck sake.

[Atlanteax]

Fucking Fallon has a Grammy. Fuck sake.

Obama has a Nobel Peace prize.

Seems to be par for the course nowadays.

[4a6c1]

Your avatar sucks.

It made me laugh. It's like Drew spends all his time in the suburbs of Houston doing social research. I would have made that avatar myself but my Pissing Off the Whites quota is full this week. In fact. Pos rep time.

[4a6c1]

http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/popcrush.com/files/2012/03/kesha3.jpg

Making white trash trashier since ????

Okay now to the serious political commentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFepIN0bQAM

And I'm off to listen to my playlist now, featuring two Kesha songs(dont judge me!)