shuksan Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Oh yes, I commented on the specific papers you mention, but what about editorials in other papers? In any of the major papers, don't the editorials in favor of Bush policies far outweigh those against -- every day of the week? Are you reading Goat's posts? Krugman is NYT economics columnist. Check out his rating on the (non-partisan) site lyinginponds.com. He's rated as the #1 most biased columnist, with not 1 of 99 columns favorable to Bush or republicans. As for TV media, how about Bill Moyers: " Bush's 'mandate' "includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich. It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable. And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming. And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics? So it is a heady time in Washington — a heady time for piety, profits, and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money. " This is uncritical?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shuksan Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 and I got a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Trask, "there's something odd about you, what it is I couldn't say, you're just pretty in a pretty sort of way" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 "Economy Races Ahead at 3.1 Annual Rate in Summer," - Associated Press headline on the AP website. "Economy Grows at 3.1 percent. Consumer spending on big-ticket items fuels third quarter surge." - Washington Post. "Economy Grew at 3.1% in 3rd Quarter, Slower Than Expected" - New York Times. Hmm see a bias in the NYT. The paper of record. This is not an editorial. I just happen to have this posted in my office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 You been dreamin bout me again fool? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Shuksan and Peter - You might have me on the NYT editorials, exept that when I read it this weekend, I still think I will find at least as many editorials in favor as against (I only read it on weekends). However, even if I am wrong about this, editorial slant is different than news reporting. The fact that one good liberal commentator gets published in the editorial section does not, in my opinion, outweigh the portrayal of administration propaganda as fact. Of those who "read" the NYT, how many even look at the editorial page? 10% maybe? 25% As to the "growth" article, you may have got me again. Except that what is "balance" here? If 3.1% was "slower than expected," wouldn't it be imbalanced to simply state "grew by 3.1%" as if this was just plain good news? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 What oil producers are scared of him? Kuwait? Which ones appear to feel beholden to us today? Well, Saudi Arabia is a big one. I'm sure it keeps Iran a bit more friendly with us too. Back when act I of this 13 year drama ended, Bush had decided to not forcibly remove Saddam from power. The stated reason? To preserve the balance of power in the region. Doesn't anybody else remember this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 (edited) "only if they truly are attempting to change. Just claiming to see the light at the last minute does not count." The last minute... years ago, years before his presidential campaign? How is it you figure *you* know wether someone else is truly attempting to change? "he is/was not challenged on substance. Please find multiple references in major news outlets that truly challenge Bush on major issues (prior to ~a month ago). Until then I'll consider the discussion closed." Of course you will, your favorite tactic. Dodge and run. I supply numerous examples of his being challenged during the campaign, which you said "never" happened, you ignore it all and come up with a new claim, never once acknowledging the comments on precisely what you claimed before. Krugman isn't major? Comments published by Tom Daschle are't major? Just who counts as major to you? "cut the crap." Calling you on your assessments of others people's value, in what they choose to pursue, or buy, or value, is scarcely crap, in fact it defines many of the boundaries of your favorite issues. I'll pursue it without mercy. Edited January 8, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Mattp - I didn't bring up any OP-ED piece BUT I have something hanging in my office from the NYT that is a op-ed piece. On Oct 19 the NYT ran an essay defending the 1994 accords with North Korea and which presented the accords as the basis for resolving the current crisis. Question:Who wrote the article? Answer:A Mr. Joel S Wit. QuestionWho is he?. Answer: A guest scholar at the Brookings Institution and formerly a State Department official. Here is a more complete bio: He was most recently the coordinator for the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Agreed Framework and was responsible for U.S. policy related to the implementation of that agreement. From 1993 to 1995, Mr. Wit served as senior adviser to Robert L. Gallucci, ambassador-at-large in charge of policy towards North Korea, where he worked on U.S. strategy to resolve the 1994 nuclear crisis, was in charge of the interagency sanctions working group, and led the U.S. effort to establish a new international organization, KEDO, to implement the Agreed Framework. Now did the NYT note that their editorialist was once responsible for monitoring NK's behavior. Nope. Note here I am not discussing the content of his editorial but on the papers nondisclosure of an important fact that would enable a reader to place the writing in a context. By the way what do you make of the whole Augusta fiasco? PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Of course you will, your favorite tactic. Dodge and run. I supply numerous examples of his being challenged during the campaign, which you said "never" happened, you ignore it all and come up with a new claim, never once acknowledging the comments on precisely what you claimed before. Krugman isn't major? Comments published by Tom Daschle are't major? Just who counts as major to you? so far what we have is hear-say from you, not references. So I am still waiting on this as well as the references from prior exchanges on various topics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Looking at (not reading) today's editorials in the New York Times, I see one that looks against and one that looks to be in support of the Bush administration: The Wrong Stimulant: The new package of tax cuts has less to do with the economy than the White House's belief that it needs to take action, any action, to show that the president cares. California Curbed The decision by Interior Secretary Gale Norton to reduce water flows from the Colorado River to California's Imperial Valley and urban consumers in Southern California was right on the mark. I see one that is critical of Israel and one that is almost certainly pro-Israel: Israel's Misaimed Anger By preventing Palestinians from attending a meeting in London, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel has effectively undermined Tony Blair's initiative to encourage Palestinian reform. After the Storm, By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Here's a prediction: In the end, 9/11 will have a much bigger impact on the Arab and Muslim worlds than it does on America. I see one that is critical of democrats and one that is favorable about republicans: W. and Karl, Going to a Garden Party, By MAUREEN DOWD With Tom Daschle out, the Democrats don't even have seven dwarfs. They have six coifs and that's not counting Hillary. How a Republican Desegregated the South's Schools, By GEORGE P. SHULTZ Considering the Nixon administration's commitment to desegregation of schools, it is lamentable that the Republican Party's stand on equal opportunity is being questioned. And one more: Chasing Campaign Dollars The ever-accelerating schedule of primary and caucus contests means that fund-raising must begin earlier too, even at the risk of the public's becoming more jaded than ever. So, on balance, the sum appears "centrist" as DFA postulated though it does have more republican-leaning editorials than those favoring the democrats. Oh -- PP. I'll have to read more about that fiasco. I wouldn't want to come as some uninformed, knee-jerk liberal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 I can't really see why I should waste my time. Anyone awake during a presidential campaign can remember numerous critiques of both candidates, from both sides. What you're telling us is Dems didn't critique Bush. Now that must have been an interesting way to campaign. As for the other issues, I am *still* waiting for your definition of what you consider acceptable peer review, and if the "peers" are judged by you on a basis of wether they agree with you in the first place. Repeating "peer review" numerous times simply does not reveal your standard for peer review, only that you claim to value it. Likewise, I'm still waiting for you to confirm or deny that Gore ever made false claims about his disaster visit. Going to ignore that too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Calling you on your assessments of others people's value, in what they choose to pursue, or buy, or value, is scarcely crap, in fact it defines many of the boundaries of your favorite issues. I'll pursue it without mercy. hey watch out because anyone reading this, can plainly see who is using morality/values to castigate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 LOL Mattp you crack me up! I find it odd that you do not even reply to the NYT running an article about the cuurent NK crisis and yet leaving such an important detail. I'll repeat myself and reiterate that I am not commenting the content of op-ed pieces. And I will repeat that the first time you coupled my name with op-ed pieces you were in error. I'll give you an "E" for effort. And the Augusta fiasco is relevent to the issue at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 (edited) classic. We are talking about the press not what the dems said. I don't define what peer review is. As I said I don't know all the peer reviewed publications in the field, so you are on your own for this. Although you apparently still don't know what peer review means. Edited January 8, 2003 by j_b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 (edited) I decided to waste a few minutes to see the novel ways in which you'll decide this was "never" discussed before the elections. Editorials & Opinion: Monday, October 02, 2000 Guest columnist Bush on education: defending the indefensible http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=harvey02&date=20001002&query=bush+not+qualified Editorials & Opinion: Friday, August 11, 2000 Guest columnist The high-tech implications of the GOP's all-oil ticket by Kevin Phillips Special to the Times http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=phillips11.art&date=20000811&query=bush+not+qualified ******************************** And one using Gores critiques of Bush.... Nation & World: Sunday, July 16, 2000 Gore says Bush squandered budget surplus by Sandra Sobieraj The Associated Press http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=prez16&date=20000716&query=bush+not+qualified All this from one search, of one paper, in 5 minutes. Apparently "never" would include Gore and his workers, so I guess part of their election bid did not include substantive rebuttals of Bushes postitions, nor releases of same, nor pro Gore journalists using these for editorials in papers major and minor. Do these examples count as the press, or is there some dodge here too? Shall I spend five minutes at CNN to not have that count as press? Enlighten us. Edited January 8, 2003 by MtnGoat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Likewise, I'm still waiting for you to confirm or deny that Gore ever made false claims about his disaster visit. Going to ignore that too? why don't you provide your evidence? this is usually the way it works: you assert something and you back it up. And it is not: you assert something and others have to prove it is wrong. No wonder you have such difficulty understanding that providing references is critical to being credible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted January 8, 2003 Author Share Posted January 8, 2003 Sorry Peter. I replied to you and to Shuksan in a single post and I guess this confused you. I know you did not originally comment on the editorials. Also, I don't know what the point about the omission of the editorialists' background was -- do you think they unfairly present the background of some commentators but not others? Or do you think the New York Times is just lame not to reveal that someone writing about an issue had an axe to grind? What would you like me to respond to? And what do I think about the Augusta fiasco? I'm not really into political correctness, despite my possible appearance to the contrary, and I didn't really pay much attention to it. Did I miss something really important? Can I please have at least a "c?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 "hey watch out because anyone reading this, can plainly see who is using morality/values to castigate." Thing is, I don't use my castigation to support making those other people do what I think they should do on your scale. Everybody judges other people, that's unavoidable, natural, and our right. But not all of us figure our judgments are so superior to theirs we need to impose them into nearly so many places in their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 "why don't you provide your evidence? this is usually the way it works: you assert something and you back it up." Why didn't it work that way when you claimed Bush had never been challenged? You sat and asked*me* for references to prove your point wrong, you presented no evidence beyond your claim, which was a convenient one for you, since you claimed a negative. Unfortunately, as convenient as it was, it was also easy to show it was wrong. Which shouldn't have been my job according to your own statements, but I'll let that go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 "I don't define what peer review is." No, you don't, but you do define which peers *you* consider credible. "Although you apparently still don't know what peer review means. " Oh please. What I don't know is why you will not answer my direct question.. which I will repeat one more time... must the peers who review an article share your views to be considered credible by you? A simple yes or no will suffice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 "All I can think of is the liberal slant channel 4,5, & 7 give to the gun issue. They're all very anti-gun. " I think they get that way by having to report every night about some kid getting shot on the street. It probably wears on them after awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 I don't use my castigation to support making those other people do what I think they should do on your scale yeah, calling them unamerican during a war build up is just so light hearted. Or having our kids choose between MCD and DQ, is not imposing the laws of profit onto them. Or justifying gas guzzlers or child labor in the name of whatever principle is not imposing your value onto others. Give me a break. In the meantime, I have work to do, so I won't be able to answer your bile for a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 must the peers who review an article share your views to be considered credible by you? A simple yes or no will suffice I am not sure why I should acknowledge such low attempts at distorting my point of view. Go find your peer reviewed articles. And to find them you'll have to learn what peer reviewed means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Yes you did. Mr Rainse (sp) deciding on content of his paper by virtue of political correctness - ie his liberal bias. This would be to me Prima facie evidence of bias in his paper. You of course have can always provide a smart ass rejoinder such as "do you think they unfairly present the background of some commentators but not others?" Such is the nature of the beast you have constructed. What I have done is simply: (1) Shown how the NYT has in headlines presented 3.1% economic growth as a negative when others haven't. (2) Pointed out an instance where important info on an editorialist was omitted. (3) I pointed out how a recent controversy involving political correctness at the NYT. To me the bias is clear. Your listing of editorials is silly nonesense - are you really claiming your review is representative of all editorials? (Hey where have I heard somethoign similar before?) Other have mentioned that their editorial writers have been deemed very much unfavorable to the current administration. PP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.