• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Times Front Editorializes on Front Page

jonny5

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
27,581
Reaction score
4,664
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is the most obvious evidence of bias yet. Rather than hiding their opinions on their editorial page and in their articles, they have now moved their bias to the front page, and boldy acknowledged it. The rest of the media even displayed some alarm at this (all the while trying to agree with it in their own papers)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...front-page-but-does-that-even-help-the-cause/
The language is potent — "moral outrage," "national disgrace" — and so are the proposals.

But Saturday's piece raises two other questions: In this age of digital news consumption, does the placement of an editorial on page 1 of the print edition still matter? And what, if any, impact will the editorial have on the political debate?

In this case, however, the Times has (at least temporarily) knocked down a wall by placing an editorial in a spot normally reserved for news. That does not mean the paper's political reporters will suddenly abandon all sense of fairness as they cover candidates who staunchly back gun rights. But it does give those candidates new cause for suspicion — a cause they will almost certainly exploit on the campaign trail.
Click to expand...
 
That particular publication has effectively erased any doubt concerning their political disposition. That there have been any doubts is itself astonishing. The NYT ceased being a publication of record a long time ago. This was just the "official" announcement.
 
jonny5 said:
This is the most obvious evidence of bias yet. Rather than hiding their opinions on their editorial page and in their articles, they have now moved their bias to the front page, and boldy acknowledged it. The rest of the media even displayed some alarm at this (all the while trying to agree with it in their own papers)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...front-page-but-does-that-even-help-the-cause/
Click to expand...


Errr......

When a newspaper wants to state the opinion of its editors, it does so in an editorial. An Editorial isn't "biased news". By definition, it is not "news". It is a statement of opinion, an argument.





"Bias" in media refers to the selective inclusion or exclusion of facts from articles that are ran as news articles. And again, an editorial is not ran as a news article.
 
Mr Person said:
Errr......

When a newspaper wants to state the opinion of its editors, it does so in an editorial. An Editorial isn't "biased news". By definition, it is not "news". It is a statement of opinion, an argument.





"Bias" in media refers to the selective inclusion or exclusion of facts from articles that are ran as news articles. And again, an editorial is not ran as a news article.
Click to expand...

Rightwing PC prohibits editorials on the front page
 
The editorial content was labeled "editorial," so there should have been no confusing it for news. Of course, I prefer placement of the news on the front page, but that's a stylistic preference.
 
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by jonny5

This is the most obvious evidence of bias yet. Rather than hiding their opinions on their editorial page....
Click to expand...

This line is so hilarious and I'll bet you don't even know why.
 
Mr Person said:
Errr......

When a newspaper wants to state the opinion of its editors, it does so in an editorial. An Editorial isn't "biased news". By definition, it is not "news". It is a statement of opinion, an argument.





"Bias" in media refers to the selective inclusion or exclusion of facts from articles that are ran as news articles. And again, an editorial is not ran as a news article.
Click to expand...

Errr......

I didnt say news. I said bias. But since you bring it up, its called a NEWSpaper. Printing their own opinion of the news means they are biased towards that news. Normally its hidden in the back, and embedded in what news they choose to report and how they report. What they did by moving the opinion to the front was no different than having a blog.
 
jonny5 said:
This is the most obvious evidence of bias yet. Rather than hiding their opinions on their editorial page and in their articles, they have now moved their bias to the front page, and boldy acknowledged it. The rest of the media even displayed some alarm at this (all the while trying to agree with it in their own papers)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...front-page-but-does-that-even-help-the-cause/
Click to expand...

George Will had a good line today ... he said, in effect, the NYT uses their frontpage as the editorial page pretty regularly.
 
sangha said:
Rightwing PC prohibits editorials on the front page
Click to expand...

unless they agree with right wing dogma - then you praise them to high heaven for bravery and courage.
 
jonny5 said:
This is the most obvious evidence of bias yet. Rather than hiding their opinions on their editorial page and in their articles, they have now moved their bias to the front page, and boldy acknowledged it. The rest of the media even displayed some alarm at this (all the while trying to agree with it in their own papers)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...front-page-but-does-that-even-help-the-cause/
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the NYT piece, finding it flawed and seriously naive. Nonetheless, I have no issue with where they put it. Besides, who actually reads the print version of the "paper" anymore?
 
jonny5 said:
Errr......

I didnt say news. I said bias. But since you bring it up, its called a NEWSpaper. Printing their own opinion of the news means they are biased towards that news. Normally its hidden in the back, and embedded in what news they choose to report and how they report. What they did by moving the opinion to the front was no different than having a blog.
Click to expand...

Jesus H. on a pogo stick.

Do you have any understanding of what an editorial is?

The NYT has endorsed the democratic presidential nominee a grand total of 5 times in over 100 years. The last one in 1954. More than 65 years ago.

No one doubts the urban / metropolitan newspaper editorially leans left.

Since, when...like forever, do you think newspaper editors aren't allowed to submit their opinions?

I can only surmise you are very young.
 
calamity said:
I don't agree with the NYT piece, finding it flawed and seriously naive. Nonetheless, I have no issue with where they put it. Besides, who actually reads the print version of the "paper" anymore?
Click to expand...

I dont have an issue where they put it, unless they exist on a reputation of being unbiased.
 
Paperview said:
Jesus H. on a pogo stick.

Do you have any understanding of what an editorial is?

The NYT has endorsed the democratic presidential nominee a grand total of 5 times in over 100 years. The last one in 1954. More than 65 years ago.

No one doubts the urban / metropolitan newspaper editorially leans left.

Since, when...like forever, do you think newspaper editors aren't allowed to submit their opinions?

I can only surmise you are very young.
Click to expand...

Says the guy being uncivil.
 
As long as it was clearly labeled as an editorial, which it was, any outrage is faux outrage. There is nothing wrong with this.

And as far as their opinion being clear and out in the open, well... duh!!!, it already was.
 
radcen said:
As long as it was clearly labeled as an editorial, which it was, any outrage is faux outrage. There is nothing wrong with this.

And as far as their opinion being clear and out in the open, well... duh!!!, it already was.
Click to expand...

Not outrage. Just notice. Liberals are still trying to pretend the MSM isnt liberal or biased. This is just one more piece of evidence that it is.
 
jonny5 said:
Not outrage. Just notice. Liberals are still trying to pretend the MSM isnt liberal or biased. This is just one more piece of evidence that it is.
Click to expand...
For the most part, the MSM media IS biased. That's obvious. But, in this particular case, they clearly labeled it as an editorial, and even supoposedly neutral journalists are still allowed opinions as long as they label it as such... and they did.
 
No one should be under the impression that bias in The New York Times is reserved for its editorials regardless where they are put.
 
jonny5 said:
I dont have an issue where they put it, unless they exist on a reputation of being unbiased.
Click to expand...

lol...we all know the NYT is not unbiased.
 
radcen said:
For the most part, the MSM media IS biased. That's obvious. But, in this particular case, they clearly labeled it as an editorial, and even supoposedly neutral journalists are still allowed opinions as long as they label it as such... and they did.
Click to expand...

And its evidence that they are pushing their bias. Instead of having a separate opinion section, they made it their front page. Same as a blog does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom