• 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!

***2016: New York Time's 60th anniversary of only endorsing democrats.......

ModerateGOP said:
You may be right but he didn't necessarily argue about the general election. He didn't even link to who the NYT is endorsing because they actually did endorse Kasich and that would have blown his theory out of the water. It doesn't matter if it was primary season or not. I'm sure after Trump wiggles his way to the top, they will stand by their endorsement. You think his (will be) messy win will change that? Yeah riiiight! These things don't actually change once primary season is over. Look at the (few) newspapers who endorsed Romney during 2012. They didn't endorse Obama after Romney won the nomination. Silly Argument.

PS I'm not sure but you better not have been referring to me as low information voter. If you meant I was trying to educate low information voters by mentioning the Kasich endorsement you were right on track.
Click to expand...

How few newspapers endorsed Romney plays into the liberal bias as Romney was more moderate than Obama by far.

No, my meaning was you were making the point about low information voters going for his reasoning. That's all.
 
OpportunityCost said:
How few newspapers endorsed Romney plays into the liberal bias as Romney was more moderate than Obama by far.
Click to expand...

What so you think there are tons of papers that aren't liberal enough to endorse Romney? Why are you complaining about liberal bias then? Again silly argument
 
eohrnberger said:
Seems the to be the case here. At least for the last 60 years, and even then, only 3 times in 104 years. That seems pretty biased against GOP candidates.

Why couldn't NYT be more unbiased? Seems their bias is clearly demonstrated. Wouldn't you say so Kobie?
Click to expand...


Ego.

Institutions develop egos, Harvard, Princeton etc., all have collective ego attached to their image.

The New York Times Op-ed editorial board considers itself the social conscience of America, a kind of GM thing, 'what is good for the NYT is good for America...and we will tell you what that is. There is no Tsar-like Perry White giving orders, this is a collective conscience.

Journalism, whether news or op-ed, is a 'progressive' concept and industry where freedom of the press trumps all other rights [or so it would seem on occasion], so it is natural that it would lean progressive.

However, just as we have blogs to see weird **** today, newspaper staff kept journals of mistakes, one I saw many years ago was a book entirely dedicated to NYT headlines that were totally wrong, as well as headlines completely counter to that day's endorsement of a candidate. One I vaguely recall endorsed a councilman, who on the front page was under investigation for fraud, and eventually convicted

Personally and based on 25 years or more in journalism, I seriously doubt the impact on elections most people think there is. I doubt the endorsement of the NYT makes that much a difference in vote count; the most likely benefit is availability of donors
 
ModerateGOP said:
What so you think there are tons of papers that aren't liberal enough to endorse Romney? Why are you complaining about liberal bias then? Again silly argument
Click to expand...

They are not liberal, but wildly liberal. Again, you miss the point, it appears deliberately.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
This is why the American people need to stage a revolt against the two-party system, and never vote for another Democrat or Republican ever again. Probably never gonna happen, but still........
Click to expand...

If we instituted term limits we could open up the political process to more parties. The true multi-party system is a parliament, but there is no chance of that happening. The last pseudo parliament in the US was the State legislatures control over appointing Senators, but that was changed to direct vote by a Constitutional amendment long ago. People also scream bloody murder if you suggest repealing that amendment.
 
Abbazorkzog said:
This is why the American people need to stage a revolt against the two-party system, and never vote for another Democrat or Republican ever again. Probably never gonna happen, but still........
Click to expand...

Actually, I think you are seeing it now, but it won't be as dramatic as you describe.

Trump and Bernie when taken together are what amounts to a third party for both Republican and Democrat parties, respectively.

Trump is a nationalists, Bernie is a socialist. The two are not mutually exclusive in every aspect. The common interests are similar in many places depending on where your thoughts are on employment, pay, medical, and taxes:

They both agree that "elitists" control too much at the expense of the little guy.
They both agree incomes and jobs are scarce and that means trouble putting food on the table.
They both are reacting to a stagnant economy, but expressing it differently.
Both have a majority with reasonable expectations regardless of what they are hearing from their candidates.
Both see too much money and power concentrated at the top.

If Hillary wins in November, I'd look for a robust third party in 2020 composed of a blend of Trump nationalism, and Bernie socialism, and mirroring the old Democrat "Party of the little guy".
 
ModerationNow! said:
It's been 60 years since the NYT endorsed a Republican presidential candidate. They have only endorsed 3 different republicans in the past 104 years.

Biased media? Naaah, what would possibly cause anyone to think that?:doh
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/28/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing equality with accuracy. You're ignoring the possibility that the Democrat actually has been the best candidate for America 60 years in a row which is the reality.
 
Kobie said:
The NYT and its editorial views are representative of its local readership, like nearly every other newspaper.
Click to expand...

Pretty small minded for a paper that considers itself the newspaper of record.
 
Crovax said:
Pretty small minded for a paper that considers itself the newspaper of record.
Click to expand...

Even when newspapers were at their peak everybody had an editorial section.
 
jmotivator said:
If we instituted term limits we could open up the political process to more parties. The true multi-party system is a parliament, but there is no chance of that happening. The last pseudo parliament in the US was the State legislatures control over appointing Senators, but that was changed to direct vote by a Constitutional amendment long ago. People also scream bloody murder if you suggest repealing that amendment.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!

Every time I mention term limits for Congress I get looks like I was nuts. IT would solve a few of the problems we have in DC. The Pres has term limits, so should Congress.
 
Kobie said:
The NYT and its editorial views are representative of its local readership, like nearly every other newspaper.
Click to expand...

Do you believe it possible that the information one is exposed to may have a causative effect on the opinions held by a person?

Or, in other words: does the paper reflect its readers, or do the readers reflect the paper?
 
It never ceases to amaze me the excuses people will manufacture in order to justify or deny obvious political bias in the media. Even if that bogus justification were true, how can almost every major and minor newspaper justify supporting dems almost every election? Every city and state isn't filled with mostly progressives!

But that's all irrelevant because that excuse doesn't hold water. It would only hold true for local candidates. The job of any newspaper is to report the truth in an unbiased way. The NYT doesn't do that! They are supposed to pick who they see as the best candidate, regardless of party, and regardless of whether there is a higher numbed of leftists or rightists living in their area at any given time.

There's another article I read that showed a LONG list of the top newspapers, and they ALL supported Obama in 2012.
 
ModerationNow! said:
It never ceases to amaze me the excuses people will manufacture in order to justify or deny obvious political bias in the media. Even if that bogus justification were true, how can almost every major and minor newspaper justify supporting dems almost every election? Every city and state isn't filled with mostly progressives!

But that's all irrelevant because that excuse doesn't hold water. It would only hold true for local candidates. The job of any newspaper is to report the truth in an unbiased way. The NYT doesn't do that! They are supposed to pick who they see as the best candidate, regardless of party, and regardless of whether there is a higher numbed of leftists or rightists living in their area at any given time.

There's another article I read that showed a LONG list of the top newspapers, and they ALL supported Obama in 2012.
Click to expand...

Did the Wall Street Journal (yanno, the most-circulated paper in the U.S.) endorse Obama?

Of the top 100 circulating papers in the country, 41 endorsed Obama, 35 endorsed Romney, 23 didn't endorse anyone, and 1 gave a split endorsement in 2012.

2012 General Election Editorial Endorsements by Major Newspapers

Maybe you're lying, or you read garbage that lies to you.
 
That's a good question, but it doesn't really apply here because the justification for most American media outlets isn't to reflect the opinions of readers when it comes to politics. Most journalists are progressive activists who are motivated by the advancement of their ideology and their chosen political party. Every day they skew their coverage in such a way that is always designed for that purpose. Its goes on every day of every week of every year, so it can't be denied by any objective person who carefully listens and watches. Its omnipresent.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Do you believe it possible that the information one is exposed to may have a causative effect on the opinions held by a person?

Or, in other words: does the paper reflect its readers, or do the readers reflect the paper?
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, a paper reflects its readers. The tail does not wag the dog. Or maybe it does. I dunno; I never got that metaphor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom