NationStates Jolt Archive

The right-wing newspaper The Economist runs an editorial saying it's useful (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6849915) and the left-wing newspaper the New York Times runs an editorial against it (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/opinion/28miller.html).


Hehehe. I love the reversal of the stances one might expect from these newspapers. :D

The NYT is not left wing.

The NYT is not left wing.

The roster of regular columnists certainly is weighted left: Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Nicholas Kristof, and Thomas Friedman on the left, and David Brooks and John Tierney on the right.

They haven't endorsed a GOP presidentioal candidate in 50 years.

And thge Public Editor says it is: Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

OF course it is.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63

The roster of regular columnists certainly is weighted left: Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, Nicholas Kristof, and Thomas Friedman on the left, and David Brooks and John Tierney on the right.

They haven't endorsed a GOP presidentioal candidate in 50 years.

And thge Public Editor says it is:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63

I'd say it was more populist insofar as it plays to its audience. One only has to look at clinton's run for the senate for that to be confirmed.

The Economist is not socially right-wing, only economically.

The Economist is generally more left-wing than Thomas Freidman, who you counted on the left.

I'd say it was more populist insofar as it plays to its audience. One only has to look at clinton's run for the senate for that to be confirmed.

That's pretty much what the Public Editor's piece boiled down to: yes, we're liberal/left, because that's what the audience in NY wants.
Either way, is anti-medical cannabis an editorial you'd expect to see in the Times?

Depends what you consider left and right (as always).

Paul Krugman is not the traditional left, although he can't stand Bushevik Corporatism and criticises some of the traditional free market theories.

And the Economist is not right-wing as in Republican, but right-wing as in Free Market. So they're not going against their normal role here.

The Economist is not socially right-wing, only economically.

The Economist is generally more left-wing than Thomas Freidman, who you counted on the left.

Granted, but again, is pro-cannabis some you'd expect more from the NYT oir the Economist?

The right-wing newspaper The Economist

I strongly challenge that label

I get the American version and in 2004 it came with an editorial from the staff on why every American should vote for john kerry

The right-wing newspaper The Economist runs an editorial saying it's useful (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6849915) and the left-wing newspaper the New York Times runs an editorial against it (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/opinion/28miller.html).


Hehehe. I love the reversal of the stances one might expect from these newspapers. :D
Is the economist politically inclined at all? I can't say I read it, but I assumed it would be something like the Australian Financial Review (i.e. Politicall impartial, economically right, but socio-politically impartial).

Granted, but again, is pro-cannabis some you'd expect more from the NYT oir the Economist?

I'd expect it from both, but neither were too off-base. Cannibis has limited medical value, especially considering its benefits can be replicated in more clinically viable forms. But then again, it can be considered a cheap alternative for certain ailments.

I have always felt that it should be legal for recreational use, so I don't really care about medical use.

Schrandtopia']I strongly challenge that label

I get the American version and in 2004 it came with an editorial from the staff on why every American should vote for john kerry

Its not entirely appropriate to judge political slants of publications based on how they felt about the last election.

In my opinion, anyone with half a brain knew who to vote for.

The Economist can best be described as centrist with libertarian leanings. That is, it's more right-wing economically than the centre and more left-wing socially than the centre, but not to any extremes. They also break that mold sometimes, most notably in their support of gun control. I have a subscription and keep it as my home page because I find it very useful, but then again, it matches my views quite nicely.

That's pretty much what the Public Editor's piece boiled down to: yes, we're liberal/left, because that's what the audience in NY wants.
Either way, is anti-medical cannabis an editorial you'd expect to see in the Times?

Yah. It is. Mostly because the people who smoked it are now terrified that that their kids won't get into the ivies.

And being pathetic suburban sacks of shit, they need to be assured that they are doing the 'right' thing.