NationStates Jolt Archive

I was wondering what exactly the UN's definition was of a NYT Democracy.

I had a friend who used to quote from their op-ed pages instead of thinking for himself.
He sounded smart but he wasn't.
He has grown up a lot since then.

My impression is shaped by this personal experience.

Well, thats what alot of people seem to think of the New York Times, being ignorant due to my reality based position in Australia, what do Americans and others think of TIME Magazine?

- The Rep of Komokom.

Never said I respected the Times, I know they are skewed pretty far left but I dont see how a paper can be the model for a whole country....

As for TIME, its a high quality news mag known for not leaning too far left or right.

The impression I got is that the NYT is centre-left, roughly equivalent to the UK Guardian. Except that people actually buy it...

Daul Pacre
Speaker for Absurd Right-Wing Bias in the Media

I thought that, in NS terms, a New York Times democracy would give a lot of weight to high-minded talk of rights and principles - free speech, equal rights, equal opportunities, what have you - but would take a fairly centrist approach to actually pursuing these... nothing too radical, basically. Can't think of a real-world example...Canada?

-DP-

the NYT is absurbly left wing liberal garbage and they recently had to fire a guy for plagerism, doesent exactly sound like a good model to me

It wasn't so much plagiarism as outright making up stories. Which is, of course, something that the right-wing press would never dream of doing...

If your going to insinuate something like that you damn well better come up with some examples.

I thought that, in NS terms, a New York Times democracy would give a lot of weight to high-minded talk of rights and principles - free speech, equal rights, equal opportunities, what have you - but would take a fairly centrist approach to actually pursuing these... nothing too radical, basically. Can't think of a real-world example...Canada?

Oh, this is so true it hurts...and it's funny.

If your going to insinuate something like that you damn well better come up with some examples.

Read the Daily Mail or the Sun any day of the week, at least 50% of their pages are filled with outright lies or exaggerations or misinterpretations so huge as to deserve the title of falsehood.

TIME Magazine is a right-wing rag. It makes a token attempt to disguise this, but it doesn't work very well. It's fairly centrist compared to the rest of major US media, though.

I can't speak with any first-hand experience of the New York Times.

If your going to insinuate something like that you damn well better come up with some examples.

If you're refering to the former journalist for New York Times who fabricated stories, then his name is Jayson Blair. He was on the "O'Reilly Factor" once and was claiming the the "Times" had a liberal agenda. He also wrote a book about his experiences at the "Times" titled, "Burning Down My Master's House."

Here is the transcript along with other sources of info on Jayson Blair:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113959,00.html

http://www.journalism.org/resources/briefing/archive/blair.asp

Here's his book:

http://www.journalism.org/resources/briefing/archive/blair.asp

As a daily Times reader, I am amazed at the out-right ignorance people in this country and around the world have for most likely the most worth-while newspaper in the United States and the world. The Times is not a ultra liberal paper as many conservatives are told by Fox News and the mindless chatterboxes on the radio, and it is sure not right-wing or even a vail of moderates. Its Op Ed pieces are written by former world leaders and Nobel Laureates, maybe if people would acutally READ the paper instead of burnig it like all other things label liberal in this day and age, maybe we'd be able to have some civilized conversations in the world.

Not that there would be anything wrong with it being an ultra-liberal newspaper, of course... I'd love a reasonable explanation of why "liberal" has become a swearword in the US...

"Liberal" is a swear word in the United States because we have "complete freedom of the press". Which is to say: if you can buy a printing press, you can have it say anything you want, even if it isn't strictly speaking true. Furthermore, as the proprietor of such a medium, you can pretty much do anything you want in terms of corporate policy - up to and including some rather harsh monopolistic competition ventures.

The net result of this, of course, is that really rich people are in virtually sole control of all major avenues of public expression.

So, since rich people have a tendency to be fiscally and politically conservative for whatever reason, the only voices you ever hear on TV in the United States range from Centrist Right to Extreme Right. That's it.

So, since actually Liberal people are outside the allowable voices - they are constantly insulted and reviled on TV without actually getting to strike back under any circumstances in a national venue. So "Liberal" is a swear word on TV because TV makes its own language rules and the people who own TV want Liberal to be a swear word on TV.

It's that simple. It's not even a hidden conspiracy or anything - it's just that the final word on whether anything gets on the air or not in the US is had by people who are, on average, substantially to the right politically and especially fiscally of the average American citizen.

For example, while 90% or so of the American Public are against the idea of "publically subsidizing large corporations which are already making a profit" - when the idea is floated in Washington the American Media immediately starts debating with itself whether the idea is "Enough to save the Economy" or "Insufficient to save the Economy" - despite the fact that the debate on the streets is between whether the move is "Bat Dung Crazy" or a "Blatant Theft from the American People". Quite simply, the media is a collection of large corporations making a profit, and they have no impulse whatsoever to even question whether giving themselves a pay raise at taxpayer expense is a good idea or not.

Good night, everyone.

[quote=Hansentium]
Read the Daily Mail or the Sun any day of the week, at least 50% of their pages are filled with outright lies or exaggerations or misinterpretations so huge as to deserve the title of falsehood.

You mean there's more to The Sun than topless 17 year olds on page 3 and blurry Paparazzi Photos of Celebrities feeling each other up in Nightclubs???

Never having seen an issue of the NYT (Living in Australia means I'm not current on many of the US papers), I can't comment on it, but I've always found the Australian Issue of TIME to pretty unbiased and informed on most issues, regardless of your political affiliations (or lack thereof, in my case...)

but I've always found the Australian Issue of TIME to pretty unbiased and informed on most issues, regardless of your political affiliations (or lack thereof, in my case...)

That's because Time doesn't flex its political muscle by telling you things that are not true, it flexes it by not telling you things that are true.

So, when Americaqn Soldiers found some agricultural pesticides which might have been nerve gas - Time reported that. When a Right-Wing nut job in Texas got apprehended with a Sodium Cyanide Bomb capable of killing hundreds and plans to use it against American people - they didn't report it.

The story that got printed supported Bush policy, even though it later turned out to be nothing. The story that didn't get reported does not support Bush policy and got buried.

If you just read Time or Newsweek, you might never notice that absolutely all terrorism conducted against the United States in the last 12 years has been funded by the Republican Party. That's because they are run by Republicans, and don't exactly go out of their way to draw attention to this fact.

Good night, everyone.

As a daily Times reader, I am amazed at the out-right ignorance people in this country and around the world have for most likely the most worth-while newspaper in the United States and the world. The Times is not a ultra liberal paper as many conservatives are told by Fox News and the mindless chatterboxes on the radio, and it is sure not right-wing or even a vail of moderates. Its Op Ed pieces are written by former world leaders and Nobel Laureates, maybe if people would acutally READ the paper instead of burnig it like all other things label liberal in this day and age, maybe we'd be able to have some civilized conversations in the world.

Don't you think that there might be a liberal bias in the NYT ? The fact that every conservative I know says the bias is obvious should make one question the "balance" of that paper.

Moreen Dowd's not a lefty ?

Come on man.... it's a no brainer.

The fact that every conservative I know says the bias is obvious should make one question the "balance" of that paper.

All that means is that you know people even more conservative than the NYT.

That's entirely possible, but in no way indicates that the paper is liberal. It just means that you know people who are more conservative than the NYT.

There's lots of room to be more conservative than others. Just because Friedman's work is more conservative than the work of Greenspan doesn't make Greenspan a Socialist. It doesn't even make him a Liberal. It just means there's someone even more out there on the right wing than "we should cut social security benefits to the poor before giving up on a tax break to rich people" Greenspan.

There's lots of room to be conservative. The NYT is also conservative. Fox News is much more conservative than that. There are people like Klar who are more conservative still. That doesn't mean that the NYT is left-wing, Fox News is moderate, and Klar is conservative, expect possibly relative to each other. As long as the NYT consistently shows more support for pro-bussiness economic policy than the average American (which it does), it's not a liberal paper.

Good night, everyone.

Of the four major US news dailies (Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the New York Times), the New York Times is by no means the furthest left of the bunch. Look at the Op-Ed section of the Monitor sometime and then talk to me about left-slanting politics. And don't dare insinuate that USA Today is a more hallowed hall of journalism. USA Today was specifically designed to be McNews, a newspaper for people with short attention spans.

For those of you who seem to think that Jayson Blair alone proves that the Times is a worthless piece of trash, I'd recommed a bit more reading on the subject of plagiarism in the media. You'll find that its not just the Times having problems with their reporters.