NYTimes vs. Every Other Newspaper

[fouronefive]

Disagreeing with a paper's "political slant" does not make it a bad newspaper. For instance, I happen to think (to go to the lowest common denominator) Bill O'Reilly is an enormous <censored>, but to me, anyone who argues he's not very good at being a talk show host looks foolish.

I think it's pretty clear the NYT is one of the ~5 best American papers, regardless of whether or not YOU like it.

And to whomever said the editorial page is intregal to the paper , I disagree. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, but I LOATHE the editorial page and never read it.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]

1 - Unfortunately for you, OP didn't omit the op/ed page from review. Since the op/ed page is such a big part of a person's perception of a paper it is tough to separate the two.

2 - Your challenge is flawed also. The way a paper presents "news" can carry no less bias than the actual article at times. For example (I did find this in 2.7 seconds on Google, btw), 3 glowing ( 2 front page ) Democratic candidate profiles in a few weeks. 1 Republican profile in the last 3 months. These things happen over and over. Then add the op/ed in the mix and their agenda is clear.

3 - Your comment on "elitist" is telling too. Not to mention wrong.

But, hey, zero for three is batting a thousand dependent upon how you look at it...

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess...

[blufish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

1 - Unfortunately for you, OP didn't omit the op/ed page from review. Since the op/ed page is such a big part of a person's perception of a paper it is tough to separate the two.

2 - Your challenge is flawed also. The way a paper presents "news" can carry no less bias than the actual article at times. For example (I did find this in 2.7 seconds on Google, btw), 3 glowing ( 2 front page ) Democratic candidate profiles in a few weeks. 1 Republican profile in the last 3 months. These things happen over and over. Then add the op/ed in the mix and their agenda is clear.

3 - Your comment on "elitist" is telling too. Not to mention wrong.

But, hey, zero for three is batting a thousand dependent upon how you look at it...

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess...



[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. And I'm not even sure what those states have to do with anything. Red States? Yeah. Oh, but no. Those aren't the only Red States.

The South? Not close.

Don't know what you are getting at...

[OutOfCrown]

Watch for this: Republicans, *especially* George Bush, will be quoted verbatim, with every ummm, ah, errrr, start/stop/restart. Try listening to how people really speak and then imagine seeing that verbatim in print. That's what you'll get when the NYT quotes Bush.

You'll get the cleaned-up version when a Democrat is quoted.

Granted, Bush hems, haws, ummms, etc more than most. But start watching for this editing practice and you'll be surprised how obvious it becomes when you look for it. Apparently no Democrats ever say "ummm" or verbally restart a sentence midway through.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
Disagreeing with a paper's "political slant" does not make it a bad newspaper. For instance, I happen to think (to go to the lowest common denominator) Bill O'Reilly is an enormous <censored>, but to me, anyone who argues he's not very good at being a talk show host looks foolish.

I think it's pretty clear the NYT is one of the ~5 best American papers, regardless of whether or not YOU like it.

And to whomever said the editorial page is intregal to the paper , I disagree. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, but I LOATHE the editorial page and never read it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes me puke. I cant understand why so many morons out there are unable to distinguish between news reporting (what a newspaper should be), and news commentary (what bill o riely is). Bill O'reilly is "allowed" to be biased, he makes no qualms about it, he COMMENTS on teh news, a news paper should have no bias and should report the news and nothing else, by default, any bias shown anywhere but the op-ed/editorial page makes it a horrible newspaper.

IT IS NOT IN THE TOP ANYTHING BECAUSE IT DOESNT DO ITS ONLY JOB WELL---REPORT UNBIASED NEWS.


BARF.

[2/325Falcon]

[ QUOTE ]
IT IS NOT IN THE TOP ANYTHING BECAUSE IT DOESNT DO ITS ONLY JOB WELL---REPORT UNBIASED NEWS.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not any news organization's job. They are a for profit company just like every other news outfit.

[istewart]

[ QUOTE ]
any bias shown anywhere but the op-ed/editorial page makes it a horrible newspaper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even for you guids, this is top-notch stuff. Wp.

[dw2006]

[ QUOTE ]
Washington Post > NYT

[/ QUOTE ]

[GoodCallYouWin]

All the newspeak that's fit to print!

[BuddyQ]

Newspapers are becoming obsolete, besides, the Times is teh sucks.