[TheCaptainPower]

I partially started blogging because the NY Times pissed me off....Let me tell you a quick story....

Growing up I always had 2 newspapers delivered to my parents house, the wall st journal, and the NY Times.

I actually enjoy the NY TIMES, especially on Sundays. But about 5-6 years ago I came home and my father declared a "ban on the NY Times"

I said "dad, what happened?" ....He said "They have gone too liberal, I cant take it anymore"...

I found out later that my father was mad about some shit they said about the catholic church, and something regarding Iraq...He accused them of being "hypocrites", and he pointed out some past articles that he had written to them and had published.

Anyway, after a year had passed he decided to "take them back" and I was soon back to reading the NY TIMES.

Now don't get me wrong, I understood that the NY Times was predominately leaning to the left...I lived in NYC my whole life, i knew the deal. I also used to buy the NY POST just to balance out my political views..

BUT THEN:

I signed up to facebook for the first time, and immediately friended my elementary school crush. She looked OK, no big deal, but then 6 months later she announced that she was engaged....

I looked through her pictures to see who the guy was, and it turned out to be some hipster douche who worked for the NY TIMES....

When I saw who was writing for the NY TIMES I was slighty turned off....STRIKE ONE

Strike TWO, is how the NY TIMES has been consistantly losing money every quarter....They have a bad habit of writing some articles attacking "big business" but then every quarter they announce millions in losses....No offense but, if you cant run your own paper etc etc...They also got a sweet tax deal on some NYC real estate under mayor Guiliani

Strike 3 is with these facebook political arguements I have recently been getting into....Everytime I make a point and get into a slight arguement, some asshole doesnt know how to respond and instead they insert a NY Times article...

If you want to argue with someone, argue with someone....DO NOT submit some stupid NY TIMES LINK into your arguement. Make your own damn opinion!!!

But one thing I learned quickly is that with blogging there is no BARRIER to entry. I've I was really good I could defeat the NY TIMES. I can get more traffic, and I could make more money....actually I am already making more money than them...

Then some asshole will tell me "The NY TIMES only hires serious, accredited writers" "How can you compete?"

So what did I do? I wrote a fukin book ........

What have you published Mr. Liberal Arts working for the NY Times for a salary man?

So the point I am trying to make is, don't use article links to make a point, and just because something is printing in a big time, newspaper or magazine doesnt mean its not absolute bullshit...

And when some chick tells you they majored in literature or writing, ask her "So what did you write?"......

Power out!

[Kickb]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/busine....html?_r=0

[TheCaptainPower]

lol lol.....bastard....

[durangotang]

The NYT: "the toilet paper of record." - Gerald Celente

[HiFlo]

No way. The NYT is one of the very very few last papers that still do investigative journalism. This is what the 1st amendment is meant to protect: hardcore investigative journalism. You may not agree with their slant on things or even their coverage but I'll be damned when we stop investigative journalism who will put their fucking lives on the line to get the truth out of megacorporations hiring paramilitary operatives in 3rd world countries or greedy politiciatians taking bribes, then we know the shit has really hit the fan.

The bad thing about the internet is that it has seriously diminished investigative reporting going on, and I'm glad the NYT is standing its ground and holding true to its values. Long live the NYT.

[MidniteSpecial]

Don't read the news...be the news.

[Lemmo]

I've only been exposed to the NYT through the International Herald Tribune. Between the fringe left bias and the parochial NY outlook, it was unreadable. All media is biased but the NYT is an extreme case. Newspapers are dead and there are far better resources online. If you want something in print, The Economist is tolerable. It has a left bias but is much more moderate than the NYT and generally objective when covering international affairs and business.

[Nonpareil]

I can understand the frustration, but papers aren't losing money because they bash big business; they're losing money because more and more people are getting their news pro bono online (I only buy a paper when I have no access to a computer).

As for getting more and more Liberal, yes I agree with you, but the market dictates the content.

[TheCaptainPower]

They are also pro-union, but then their own union went on strike over benefits.....

[Jeans]

I've never understood the point of view of the NY times being over the top liberal. It's editorial reflects a straightforward, hardcore liberal (not radical liberal) point of view. OK, no problem there, editorials are allowed and they are usually poorly written regardless of the paper and no one ever gives a shit about them. NY times also has mostly hardcore liberal columnists, though they do have a few centrists.

The reporting is, I would say, roughly 85-90% of the time an earnest attempt to objectively report the news. To the extent that it is slanted, it is usually done so in a rather veiled manner via the tone of the article or careful word choice to describe certain things. Deciphering a liberal point of view is typically requires one to be in the know about the news a bit and read between the lines.

Compare to media outlets which are considered rightward leaning, like the NY post and Fox news. The point of view in these cases is shoved down the consumer's throat--bombastic, aggressive language, very little effort into fairly displaying both sides of an issue (ny times, by contrast, is for better or worse pretty notorious for their "he said, she said" style, which at least puts both views out there).

I would never claim that the NY times is perfectly objective, and I certainly agree that their opinion pages are consistently liberal, and that occasionally their articles may reflect a liberal "sensibility". NY post and fox news on the other hand are full-fledged activist organizations that aggressively lobby for a hardcore conservative point of view.

[Wutang]

(12-27-2012 10:05 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

If you want something in print, The Economist is tolerable. It has a left bias but is much more moderate than the NYT and generally objective when covering international affairs and business.

The Economist is left biased? It seems like I can't read an article in there without them parading free markets at some point.

[Vicious]

Quote:

If you want to argue with someone, argue with someone....DO NOT submit some stupid NY TIMES LINK into your arguement. Make your own damn opinion!!!

Are you trolling? If people were providing sources to their assertions everyone would be better off found it. Sure, you wouldn't win as many arguments but maybe that's saying something about your own bias.

You mostly sound bitter that the paper and one of its writers have bested you.

[A CLOCKWORK TRADER]

Stay away from the Op-Eds and Opinion pages. I've never understood why people pick up the paper to read that. As HiFlo noted above, the NYT actually still does investigative reporting unlike other newspapers. And balancing the NYT with the Post.... come on. The Post is a tabloid rag. It has no value. I just can't stand the day by day Washington/left vs. right/Democrat v. Republican bickering.

Good news publications to keep up with: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The New Yorker, and The Economist. The only news I watch on television is Bloomberg TV and NY1 in the mornings. I've cut out all the CNN/MSNBC/FOX crap. You can cut out all the political bs and you'll see your life hasn't changed one bit. It's just not important.

[TheCaptainPower]

@vicious

For example, someone was arguing with me over manufactoring coming back to the US, I said it was B.S, but then they came back with an article from the NY TIMES.....

Of course the Times is gng to say manufactoring is coming back, because they were on the Obama band wagon...And even worse is that they use GE as an example.....GE was getting tax breaks up the ass. What are they going to say if General Motors goes out of business again?

It's like when 300,000 people drop out of the wordforce, and then some major newspaper writes that "The unemployment rate droped"

My point is, I don't need the NY Times to tell me my opinion....or any other newspaper, so I don't like people using biased newspaper links in an arguement.

The other one people always use is moveon.org, or change.org or something like that......Those writers are making $45k a year at most.

Its big time blue pill to get ALL your information from the NY Times, Fox news, or any other major media....

Of course I DO listen to Both : ) This morning I read the NY TIMES, and tonight I watched Bill O'Reilly...

[Vicious]

I just googled "american manufacturing jobs back to usa" and was provided with a ton of sources correlating said fact, including the WSJ which is a GOP cheerleader most of the time. It seems that you have a problem arguing the facts and want to be the one that chooses which sources are ok or not.

That's chick logic. Pure hamsterism.

[Asaxon]

The economist does tout free markets but also has a surprisingly liberal ( liberal in terms of Us politics, in Europe it would be called lefty) bias when it comes to social issues. Their editorials and opinion pieces routinely demand more rights and focus on minorities and women... Anyone working in corporate or governmental jobs in the west has probably had enough of the whining about wage gaps etc, all the while the hiring department openly favors females and self-identified "minorities" in an act of officially sanctioned sexism and racism.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I was thinking this was going to be about NY Times's paywall which means that you encounter trouble following all the links to it (more than 5 / month anyway).

That said, yes, I don't like NY Times's liberal bent as far as feminism, dating and women are concerned, but otherwise it's a fine newspaper that I enjoy. And it has Paul Krugman too.

[ManAbout]

(12-27-2012 09:06 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  

If you want to argue with someone, argue with someone....DO NOT submit some stupid NY TIMES LINK into your arguement. Make your own damn opinion!!!

No, no, how about we all just regurgitate the drivel that is spewed on Fox News all day long? Will that make you feel better?

Dumb thread.

[Lemmo]

(12-28-2012 02:49 AM)Asaxon Wrote:  

The economist does tout free markets but also has a surprisingly liberal ( liberal in terms of Us politics, in Europe it would be called lefty) bias when it comes to social issues. Their editorials and opinion pieces routinely demand more rights and focus on minorities and women... Anyone working in corporate or governmental jobs in the west has probably had enough of the whining about wage gaps etc, all the while the hiring department openly favors females and self-identified "minorities" in an act of officially sanctioned sexism and racism.

Yeah, and they are militantly open borders. Every issue seems to have a least one pro-immigrant article. I stopped subscribing after a single issue had 4 such articles. And these articles tend to be NYT style propaganda pieces with unsupported assertions and statement of feelings without the analysis, logic, stats, etc. of their business and finance section, which is still generally well written.

[Lemmo]

(12-28-2012 01:09 AM)Wutang Wrote:  

(12-27-2012 10:05 PM)Lemmo Wrote:  

If you want something in print, The Economist is tolerable. It has a left bias but is much more moderate than the NYT and generally objective when covering international affairs and business.

The Economist is left biased? It seems like I can't read an article in there without them parading free markets at some point.

That used to be the case and was the magazine's trademark but they have continued moving left over the last decade. It still has a lot of well written and researched articles but the US and UK political sections have become increasingly liberal, opinionated and poorly written. I don't know how they are organized but there is a huge disparity in quality and level of objectivity between the different sections.

[Asaxon]

True. The economist often ridicules tariffs and any kind of visa requirements as "unenlightened". What do they think would happen if all border controls ceased? Would all those billions of citizens of failed countries magically leave behind corruption, crime and other "ways of life"? Ask small town folks from New England or Minnesota how that game played out when churches brought them large numbers of Somalis a few years ago and hoped that they would magically abandon their little habits of theft and violence that are crucial to survival in Somalia but not exactly helpful in the west...

[Vicious]

(12-28-2012 11:19 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

[quote='Asaxon' pid='335644' dateline='1356680955']
Yeah, and they are militantly open borders. Every issue seems to have a least one pro-immigrant article. I stopped subscribing after a single issue had 4 such articles. And these articles tend to be NYT style propaganda pieces with unsupported assertions and statement of feelings without the analysis, logic, stats, etc. of their business and finance section, which is still generally well written.

Uh yeah, free immigration is straight up Adam Smith. You finding it shocking that a magazine titled The Economist carries such an agenda says a lot about your (lack of) familiarity with economic theory.

[Lemmo]

(12-28-2012 01:09 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

[quote] (12-28-2012 11:19 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

Yeah, and they are militantly open borders. Every issue seems to have a least one pro-immigrant article. I stopped subscribing after a single issue had 4 such articles. And these articles tend to be NYT style propaganda pieces with unsupported assertions and statement of feelings without the analysis, logic, stats, etc. of their business and finance section, which is still generally well written.

Uh yeah, free immigration is straight up Adam Smith. You finding it shocking that a magazine titled The Economist carries such an agenda says a lot about your (lack of) familiarity with economic theory.

It seems that what you guys are really fuming about is that, not fox news = bias.

Uh no, I didn't say it was shocking. I said (a) they made it a cornerstone of their coverage and (b) their coverage of the issue was heavy handed and of markedly lower quality than their coverage of other issues. WSJ and most libertarian publications are also pro-immigration but I have no problem with it when it doesn't overwhelm their other coverage and they bother to make arguments for their position rather than just stating an unsupported opinion.

Sounds like you are just grasping at straws for an excuse to hurl insults. I know a lot of people have a stick up their ass about fox news and want to shout about it whenever anyone criticizes a leftist publication but no one else was even bringing up fox news. silly ad hominem

[Vicious]

Can you produce any of these alledged articles that do not cite sources?
What constitutes an immigration article of high quality?


Ad hominem is a personal attack. Lay off the drama?

[Lemmo]

(12-28-2012 01:38 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

Can you produce any of these alledged articles that do not cite sources?
What constitutes an immigration article of high quality?


Ad hominem is a personal attack. Lay off the drama?

High quality=discussing a currently relevant aspect of an issue and supplying stats and/or logical arguments to support a position or simply report facts regarding a current issue.

Low quality=vague assertions of general principles, feelings.

I suppose I could sift through back issues of the economist but I'm not going to. As I said, I'm not a current reader. Aside from from picking up an issue to read on planes, I stopped being a regular reader a couple of years ago.