Another response to The Myth of the Liberal Media:

Since correspondent Joe couldn't attack the pro-Christian news in the NY Times, he attacked the NY Times itself. I believe he sent me an article about the Times's coverage of the Duke rape case:

>> This is one of many stories I have seen in the past few years about the Times (and the big media's) incompetence and dishonesty — including doctored photos from the Lebanese war, using "sources" to interject editorial opinions into supposed news articles, highlighting what they like, dismissing or distorting what they don't like <<

I already addressed the difference between inadvertent mistakes and intentional dishonesty. The coverage of the Duke rape case is another example of a mistake. People get misled or mislead themselves about the facts and report them incorrectly. Happens all the time.

The Slate piece also noted how the NY Times columnists are rebuking the paper in the paper. Why would the NY Times publish criticism of itself if was trying to distort the truth? Why would it publish followup pieces and issue corrections? Answer: It wouldn't.

If you don't understand the whole process of how newspapers make mistakes and then correct them, learn it. Otherwise, you're just going to sound ignorant again.

Interjecting editorial opinions happens occasionally because reporters are humans who can't be totally objective. Many people think they shouldn't even try to be objective. That is, they should let the readers know their positions while they write the articles. Objectivity is a lofty standard that mortal beings can't achieve, so they shouldn't pretend they can.

I'm still waiting for a single example of dishonesty perpetuated by the Times itself—as opposed to individual writers or photographers. And let's note that whatever news sources you rely on are far more biased. People have made whole movies on the extremism of Fox News, for instance. The NY Times is arguably less biased than any news source you can name.

>> the NYT constantly appeals to conveniently anonymous "sources" to support their claims — now let's see who those sources are <<

You're apparently so out of it that you don't know what you don't know. News flash: All newspapers use anonymous sources, including conservative ones. They do it because it's often necessary to get the story.

The NYT has led the discussion about using anonymous sources and has proposed to curtail them. Why would they do that if anonymous sources were one of their methods for deceiving people? What possible reason do they have for exposing their own weaknesses except an honest desire to correct them?

You can read the NYT's source policy here:

Let me know which part of this policy violates the journalistic ethics of all newspapers, including conservative ones.

To prove your point that NY Times intentionally skews the news, you'd have to find a news source that provides the real, objective news. What is that source, and where's the evidence that this source is less biased than the Times? Tell me the name of this source and the study or studies that prove its journalistic integrity.

The debate continues (1/11/07)....
>> I did a search on NY Time Anonymous sources – it seems that the NYT is trying to gain more credibility in its use of confidential sources precisely because people have been complaining about it and they have lost credibility. Their statement of guidelines is an attempt to deal with a recognized problem. <<

As I think I said, anonymous sources are an industry-wide problem. It applies to every print and broadcast organization, including the conservative ones. Therefore, this problem tells us nothing about the reliability or liberality of the NY Times.

>> The fact that the NYT has some guidelines that look good on paper doesn't mean a whole lot unless they are rigorously enforced. <<

It means the NY Times is no more biased than any other news organization, including the conservative ones. It's arguably LESS biased because it's addressed the problem with a policy. Undoubtedly that's more than YOUR sources of information can say.

>> Do conservative newspapers do any better? I haven't studied them. <<

What a surprise. For the umpteenth time, you have an opinion on something you know nothing about.

>> It's a secondary issue anyway. I have never claimed infallibility, and if I am wrong – or if you are wrong – on this or that secondary issue it doesn't prove the main points. <<

Yes, it's a secondary issue, but you started it. I finished it by showing how you were wrong on this issue too.

You implied the NY Times is completely lacking in credibility, since you won't believe anything in it. You implied you and your sources of information are more credible than it is. But you can't prove this claim with anything resembling a fact. You point to the NY Times's few errors as if every other source of information hasn't made more errors. Which shows you're not thinking critically about where our evidence comes from and how valid it is.

The relevant line is the first one:

"Of all the lessons The New York Times, and newspapers in general, should draw from the saga of Jayson Blair, the least significant is the one that is generating the most heated discussion."

Repeat: "The New York Times, and newspapers in general." In other words, this editorial criticized the NY Times because it's considered the leader among the nation's newspapers. Every other newspaper needs to deal with issues of accuracy and oversight also.

The debate continues (2/21/07)....
>> You admit there is a problem, and that the NYT has this problem. It's an industry wide problem, as you said, applying to everyone, including the NYT — so you concede something. That is refreshingly objective. <<

That's funny coming from the fellow who has no concept of objectivity when it comes to his religious dogma.

>> it means the NY Times is no more biased than any other news organization, including the conservative ones.

That doesn't follow. The fact that they have guidelines says nothing about how well the guidelines are followed. <<

It follows more than anything you've said. As far as I can tell, you don't know anything about bias in the media, especially the right-wing media. You've heard about a couple of mistakes at the NY Times and because you're a conservative fanatic, you think that proves the media is liberal. Do I need to explain again how ignorant you sound when you base a theory on your limited knowledge of one media outlet?

>> Undoubtedly that's more than YOUR sources of information can say.

My sources, Debka, WorldNetDaily, Frontpage Mag, who knows what guidelines they have — I don't know and neither do you. <<

In other words, you confirm my hypothesis that you're totally ignorant about the bias in every other media outlet besides the NY Times.

In contrast, I know about the biases in WorldNetDaily and Frontpage Magazine. That qualifies me to say they're more biased than the NY Times. I also know about the biases in many other media outlets, which qualifies me to say the NY Times is no worse than any other source and much better than most.

>> What a surprise. For the umpteenth time, you have an opinion on something you know nothing about.

I said the NYT was biased. I never said the conservative sources were unbiased. <<

You implied your sources were better than mine when you scoffed at my reliance on the NY Times. Too bad you foolishly forgot to consider what would happen. Namely, that I'd show how ignorant you are of the biases in YOUR media sources.

>> Yes, it's a secondary issue, but you started it. I finished it by showing how you were wrong on this issue too.

I don't believe a story just because it is in the NYT. Do you want to say "It is in the NYT, therefore it must be true as the NYT is infallible? Of course not. <<

You don't believe any story that contradicts your preconceived notions. That's because you're a religious fanatic who's incapable of assessing and judging independent information.

>> I do think that WND is more credible, but I am not going to bother to prove it. <<

Right, because you can't.

>> What about the floods of illegal aliens pouring into the country. WND says this is a major problem that should be solved. Is that right or wrong? How do we know? I doubt the NYT is concerned about the issue. <<

Wrong. Every major newspaper, including the NY Times, has run many stories on this issue.

The debate continues (3/2/07)....
More on the NY Times's alleged failings:

>> I believe they have no understanding whatever of the causes of and solutions for Middle East problems, and are living in a fantasy world like most other newspaper editorial writers. <<

And who does have an understanding...you?

>> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. <<

That applies to you too.

>> They may accidentally make some correct statements on occasion, but I really don't care about them at all. <<

Another example of your denigrating the NY Times even when you claim you don't.

>> As a result of my chats with you I have adopted a more defensible position on this issue — to say I don't know what the NYT says and don't care. <<

Ignorance is a defensible position?! I don't think so.

>> I have followed the events in the Middle East over the years and have frequently seen them to be wrong in their diagnosis of the situation and in their suggested solutions <<

Give me an example of the NY Times's diagnosis of the situation and its proposed solution. I bet you can't do it. Furthermore, I can't imagine how you can say the proposed solutions are "wrong" when they haven't been tried yet. An example of that is a two-state solution where both sides recognize the other's right to exist.

>> I can assure you people in the Middle east do not care what the NYT says and pay no attention to their naive and foolish opinions about solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict. <<

I can assure you that the NY Times has said what most US presidents, diplomats, and thinkers in the Middle East have said. The NY Times's views are in the mainstream of political thought, not outside it.

I know that because I've compared what the NY Times and various diplomats and thinkers have advocated. I'm betting you haven't.

>> Don't ask me to prove this. <<

Prove it.

>> I am not going to go over old editorials, read them, and write an analysis comparing and contrasting their fantasies with reality. <<

So this is another of your ignorant opinions that you can't or won't substantiate. What a surprise.

Why do you bother telling me you have a belief that you can't prove? I'm not interested in much you have to say unless you can prove it.

>> I think they have a left-wing anti-religious bias but I am not going to spend hours researching it and documenting it. <<

It would take only minutes to find websites documenting the NY Times's bias if such a bias existed. As a related example, I can point you to a couple of documentaries on the right-wing biases in Fox News. If you're interested in educating yourself (doubtful), you could check them out and watch them.

>> Your other message had some comments about abortion. You are mistaken. <<

Another worthless opinion.

>> Millions of words and countless hours on the computer won't change your mind, only God can do that. <<

Right, because your position is based on absolutely nothing but your opinions. There's not a single fact in existence proving that abortion is "wrong."

Another message from Joe

Rob's reply
Joe,

>> "The Times is just more guilty than others – given its greater standing and editorial influence."

If you don't agree with this, why did you send it? <<

I agree with it. That is, I agree the NY Times has a right-wing bias when it comes to the establishment—the military-industrial complex.

>> If you do agree, this is a pretty strong indictment of the NYT. <<

It's an indictment of most news sources, including the ones you swallow without thinking. The editorial specifically said the NY Times is guiltier because it has greater clout, not because it made more mistakes.

>> You may want to sho how conservative the times is by supporting Bush on the troop surge (and then changing their minds). This does not show conservatism. <<

Sure it does. Support for the war and all its aspects is the most significant issue separating conservatives from liberals today. You'd know this if you read any of the polls on the subject.

>> The true conservative option is military victory. <<

Victory is a goal, not an option. There's no strategy that guarantees victory.

Liberals and conservatives both want victory rather than defeat. But liberals would rather pull out and save lives than stay and suffer defeat.

>> The Syrians have been deliberately supporting the insurgency. So have the Iranians. <<

Which is why the bipartisan Iraq Study Group suggested talking with the Syrians and Iranians. And why liberals have advocated that for years. And why Bush the ignoramus has flip-flopped and said he'd consider talks after years of saying he wouldn't.

>> "As weeks go by without discernible progress, hopes for a decent outcome get progressively harder to sustain," the Times editorial stated.

There is a solution to these problems but the NYT would never consider it in 100,000 years. <<

Really. You've discerned a solution that no one else has? This ought to be rich. What is it?

>> They constantly whine about difficulties. Reports from men at the front show a much higher level of morale than one would expect from the NYT's handwringing and whining. <<

The majority of Americans oppose the war, bright boy. Are the majority of Americans whiners? How about all the generals and politicians (e.g., John McCain) who have criticized the conduct of the war?

>> After years of observation, I believe the NYT and the liberal establishment's do not have a clue about the causes and solutions of Middle eastern conflicts <<

I believe you don't have a clue either. But surprise me and show me you do.

>> all of these things are regulated and controlled by God. He determines when and where there will be a war, and who the victors will be. <<

Sure he does. Whose side was he on when the American North fought the American South in the Civil War? Give me something other than your worthless opinion—a single shred of evidence—that you can tell whose side God is on.

Was God on Vietnam's side when the Vietnamese kicked our butts a few decades ago? That's odd considering the Vietnamese were godless Communists.

So were the North Koreans when they fought us to a stalemate a few years earlier. I guess God prefers stalemates to victories in some cases. He sure works in mysterious (i.e., inefficient and illogical) ways.

So God planned for thousands of people on both sides of the Korean War to die for no reason? Because the Korean War didn't achieve anything for either side. As a war planner, God is almost as incompetent as George W. Bush is.

Actually, I think the Vietnamese are mostly Buddhists. In fact, Buddhists were victorious over Christians in India and Vietnam. Does that mean God favors Buddhism over Christianity?

Has God determined who's gonna win in Iraq? Did he tell you who it is? Give us your best guess about the outcome.

So far it looks like Allah (God) favors Muslims as well as Buddhists over Christians. And if we leave Iraq without a victory, what then? Are you saying God wanted America to lose?

Does God also determine who wins football games? What happens when both teams pray to God for victory? Oops.

Christian football players must not be very smart. They keep praying for victory even though their prayers are guaranteed to fail half the time, on average. You'd think they'd learn that praying is exactly as effective as flipping a coin—no more, no less.

Get the idea, Joe? I could do this all day long. You can't or won't answer these questions because you have no answers. Your beliefs are as insubstantial as hot air.

Rob

Join our Native/pop culture blog and comment   Sign up to receive our FREE newsletter via e-mail   See the latest Native American stereotypes in the media   Political and social developments ripped from the headlines

. . .