How Slimy Can They Get?

How can the NY Times be slimy liberal leftist
when they have Judith Miller on board..does not
make sense and she wrote in support of Chalibi
(you know the guy with Laura at the State of the
Union address)
Judith Miller is in jail basically protecting her
sources which is probably Scotter Libby..so Old
Reg is Judy Miller okay ..she is NY TIMES.

 

I reckon the Bush hating crowd thinks the New York Times leans conservative.

 

Cannot speak for the "Bush hating crowd," but I think that the New York Times is still a great newspaper.

 

The "Gray Old Lady"? The NYTimes is the epitomy of mainstream. They try to cover stories from various angles. The editorial columnists tend to be liberal, but they make a point of having conservatives on board as well. Nixon's old speechwriter, William Saffire, only recently retired from there (still does the Sunday philology column).

 

The New York Times, like any media outlet in business that long, has had its share of issues. That doesn't negate the fact that it is one of the newpapers of record in this country and respected around the world. I agree with Daisy that it is a mainstream newspaper overall.

 

The NY Times, like the LA Times, Washington Post and others, have sunk so low that they should be sold in grocery stars along with the rest of the scum dealing papers that adorn the magazine racks at checkout stands.

 

Oh my goodness we have hijacked your thread
Old Regular...basically to answer the question
should they delve into his adoption records.

they should not ..hopefully they will stop..not
unless the story has to do with illegality or
some sort of abuse then they might feel they
have a story..which I really hope is not the case.

If nothing is there or passes the smell test
they should not go to print with it.imho

 

Really? And your reason for saying that? I mean, do you have any specific incidents, articles or editorials - anything beside your dislike? Have you even read them or is this based on other people's say so?

 

Eclectic.

 

The "Gray Old Lady"? The NYTimes is the epitomy of mainstream. </font>[/QUOTE]I hope you will agree that no human being is free from their personal biases when they approach events and report them. Not me. Not you. Not the people who work for the times.

That said, I don't think we are going out on a limb too badly by suggesting that most if not all of the news editors are liberal Democrats as well as most if not all of the reporters.

Bias is not always how you report but also "what" you report. I'll be honest enough to say that my interest is sparked more by good news for "my side" and bad news for the "other side". That's human nature and the editing and reporting of the Times, AP, Reuters, CNN, etc. reflect a liberal perspective and bias.

As Goldberg suggested, liberals aren't in some conspiracy. It is just a result of their worldview that the news is biased toward liberalism.

The NYT may be "mainstream" for the liberal media establishment or New York but it isn't "mainsteam" in comparison to flyover country... which btw currently constitutes more than 51% of the electorate.

Message from Missouri to NY... we don't like the attitude of the liberal elites toward us... we don't like being told how stupid we are for being conservative... and we don't like one-sided reporting/editing like we see from the NYT.

Whine as they may, the success of FoxNews', conservative talk radio, internet news, bloggers, etc is a direct result of the media establishment being so completely out of touch with the values of the majority of Americans. They think the people they attend dinner parties with or meet at left-leaning political events are "mainstream". They need to get "out" more.

 

Eclectic. </font>[/QUOTE]Then you contradict your earlier statement that

</font>[/QUOTE]Where does the contradiction lay? I see a lot of big smiles, but little logic.