NYTimes vs. Every Other Newspaper

[Felix_Nietzsche]

Why wasn't a 'steaming pile of crap' an option?

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
Why wasn't a 'steaming pile of crap' an option?

[/ QUOTE ]

The New York Times is an excellent newspaper in terms of media presentation and getting a general idea of what's going on. That's why it's the most trafficked media website online. What you should hope for is that Murdoch turns the WSJ into what it should be so that moderates and conservatives don't have to tolerate the steaming pile of crap that is the NYTimes byline.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why wasn't a 'steaming pile of crap' an option?

[/ QUOTE ]

The New York Times is an excellent newspaper in terms of media presentation and getting a general idea of what's going on. That's why it's the most trafficked media website online. What you should hope for is that Murdoch turns the WSJ into what it should be so that moderates and conservatives don't have to tolerate the steaming pile of crap that is the NYTimes byline.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like the sound of that last sentence one bit.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Story on Heart Implants

Another perfect example of NYT bias.
This story is ostensibly about the recall of heart implants because of a defect. In the middle, in a blurb, NYT felt it was necessary to inform us that:

Vice President Dick Cheney uses a Medtronic defibrillator, but it was implanted in 2001, before the Fidelis lead was introduced. The White House declined to comment last night.

Knowing the left's attitude towards Cheney (who I have no love towards), one can only assume they want to maintain a sort of Dick Cheney deathwatch, so that we can hope he dies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I have a feeling that if the article read:
[ QUOTE ]
Former President Bill Clinton Cheney uses a Medtronic defibrillator, but it was implanted in 2001, before the Fidelis lead was introduced.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would write:
Knowing the left's attitude towards Clinton (who I have no love towards), one can only assume they want to keep him in the spotlight for any reason.

----

In short, I don't see how it shows a liberal bias to mention that the VP uses a particular type of medical device in an article about that medical device.

[/ QUOTE ]

I might actually write what you just said, actually. The thing is the NYTimes likes reducing issues to abstractions and representations, to create characters of good and evil within every story. Cheney is the unalloyed evil to many Democrats right now. Bill Clinton, and his prophet, Al Gore, are on the opposing side of that ideological balance. What I have issues with is using those characters to frame a story - I would have no problem with the mention of a random Senator, or influential figure being mentioned. Indeed, examining many NYTimes articles, you have to wonder - why is this person being mentioned, and this one not? Why is the story being written? To whom will the message of the story appeal to?, so on.

[BrunoThePug]

http://www.newsbusters.org

There's at least 2-3 posts about the NYT on that site each week.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why wasn't a 'steaming pile of crap' an option?

[/ QUOTE ]

The New York Times is an excellent newspaper in terms of media presentation and getting a general idea of what's going on. That's why it's the most trafficked media website online. What you should hope for is that Murdoch turns the WSJ into what it should be so that moderates and conservatives don't have to tolerate the steaming pile of crap that is the NYTimes byline.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like the sound of that last sentence one bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not suggesting that Murdoch is a saint - just a businessman, a much better businessman than the Sulzbergers. And when I call NYTimes bylines crap I mean I hate the subtle interjections and obvious slants they insert into the great presentation by appealing to liberals. I ultimately hope that the WSJ will introduce competition that will encourage both to turn it down, although it will of course include some of the conservatives winks that I will similarly hate. Or maybe it won't.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why wasn't a 'steaming pile of crap' an option?

[/ QUOTE ]

The New York Times is an excellent newspaper in terms of media presentation and getting a general idea of what's going on. That's why it's the most trafficked media website online. What you should hope for is that Murdoch turns the WSJ into what it should be so that moderates and conservatives don't have to tolerate the steaming pile of crap that is the NYTimes byline.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like the sound of that last sentence one bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not suggesting that Murdoch is a saint - just a businessman, a much better businessman than the Sulzbergers. And when I call NYTimes bylines crap I mean I hate the subtle interjections and obvious slants they insert into the great presentation by appealing to liberals. I ultimately hope that the WSJ will introduce competition that will encourage both to turn it down, although it will of course include some of the conservatives winks that I will similarly hate. Or maybe it won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can say whatever you want about NYT, I don't care about that. I just don't want Murdoch turning the WSJ into Fox News in print. Or really anything other than what it currently is.

[ConstantineX]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought he had plans to turn it into a major media purveyor, with foreign journalists and such? Right now it is primarily oriented towards business readers, but I'm sure he has plans to parlay the brand into something much more. The NYTimes is dominating the space online right now and there's no reason that need be so, especially given the angst that conservatives have reading their stories.