• 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!

NYT and their latest scam

zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly | Fox News

There is little more important than the election of a president.

The NYT and the remainder of the Corrupt News Networks had an opportunity to show us they are honest brokers. They aren't.

The Humpty Dumpty... The Corrupt Union of Media... isn't likely to be put back together again. It would take a decade of honest reporting, but that's not going to happen.

New media is going to step into the void. It already has.
That's great.
 
zimmer said:
New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly | Fox News

There is little more important than the election of a president.

The NYT and the remainder of the Corrupt News Networks had an opportunity to show us they are honest brokers. They aren't.

The Humpty Dumpty... The Corrupt Union of Media... isn't likely to be put back together again. It would take a decade of honest reporting, but that's not going to happen.

New media is going to step into the void. It already has.
That's great.
Click to expand...

From the article:
Sulzbergers letter was released after the paper’s public editor, Liz Spayd, took the paper to task for its election coverage. She pointed out how its polling feature Upshot gave Hillary Clinton an 84 percent chance as voters went to the polls.
Click to expand...

Talk about being out of touch! Who did the Times interview for that poll, the cast of a Broadway show? Or perhaps patrons at a Jewish deli. Lol.
 
Unless they fire prople nothing will change. They are just trying to clinge to their dwindling circulation

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Also from the article:
Spayd wrote, “Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.
Click to expand...

Well said Ms Casey!
 
zimmer said:
New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly | Fox News

There is little more important than the election of a president.

The NYT and the remainder of the Corrupt News Networks had an opportunity to show us they are honest brokers. They aren't.

The Humpty Dumpty... The Corrupt Union of Media... isn't likely to be put back together again. It would take a decade of honest reporting, but that's not going to happen.

New media is going to step into the void. It already has.
That's great.
Click to expand...
What is the "new media" you are speaking of? The new media I am thinking of is about five times as biased as the mainstream media.

I would like it if the NYT and other mainstream media outlets did less opinion journalism and more straight fact reporting.
 
Cameron said:
I would like it if the NYT and other mainstream media outlets did less opinion journalism and more straight fact reporting.
Click to expand...

LOL... so would about half the population.

Fact is... they didn't, don't and won't... and haven't for a looong time.

I think the last time the NYT endorsed a Republican was in 52.

They didn't even endorse a president who won 49 States!!! ROTFLOL.

They've done this to themselves.

Perhaps Rupert Murdoch will get ahold of it one day and turn the Socialist Propganda Rag around.

Had the Corrupt News Networks reported honestly... Hillary wouldn't have been nominated, and Obama would never have been president.
 
From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with a news outlet, print or on air, having an ideological bent - that is only natural. I've never considered comment from the NY Times to be anything but left leaning in its perspective and I consider it in that light.

The problem, I find, in all media and not just that on the left, is that journalists don't much exist any more. Everyone provides commentary either as an Op Ed columnist or as one is training. Journalists are supposed to report the facts alone and yet more and more they provide colour commentary that tries to slant those facts or represent those facts in an ideologically tinged light. They either leave out relevant information or insert irrelevant information that skews the bottom line of what they're supposedly reporting. There was a time, in print as an example, where you had an editorial page and a facing Op Ed page - the rest of the paper was news reporting. Now, virtually the entire paper is filled with commentary and pieces that parrot editorial opinion.

I consider myself well read and smart enough to discern the difference, however, there are many that don't or can't. That could be a large part of the reason why print media is fading.
 
The only way this will happen is to clean house from top to bottom. Does anyone here believe that a Trump supporter would ever
trust the NYT? The times was so over the top and so biased their brand is damaged forever.
Elites with their nose stuck in the air telling us little peons how things should be in the world! Trump will lose!

Flick you NYT!
 
truthatallcost said:
Also from the article:


Well said Ms Casey!
Click to expand...

It would have been better if she told them to just report the facts honestly, like the lady holding the scales blindfolded. And let us make up our minds about it.

That's the problem though... they think we are too stupid to make the "right" choices.

It's similar to what Felonious Bill said about reducing taxes... stating... we might not spend the money properly!!!

It's a level of arrogance that is beyond sickening.
 
Cameron said:
What is the "new media" you are speaking of? The new media I am thinking of is about five times as biased as the mainstream media.

I would like it if the NYT and other mainstream media outlets did less opinion journalism and more straight fact reporting.
Click to expand...

That is precisely what the NYT with current staff is incapable of. They firmly think that it is fact that demorats are correct ergo republicants are wrong.
 
CanadaJohn said:
From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with a news outlet, print or on air, having an ideological bent - that is only natural. I've never considered comment from the NY Times to be anything but left leaning in its perspective and I consider it in that light.

The problem, I find, in all media and not just that on the left, is that journalists don't much exist any more. Everyone provides commentary either as an Op Ed columnist or as one is training. Journalists are supposed to report the facts alone and yet more and more they provide colour commentary that tries to slant those facts or represent those facts in an ideologically tinged light. They either leave out relevant information or insert irrelevant information that skews the bottom line of what they're supposedly reporting. There was a time, in print as an example, where you had an editorial page and a facing Op Ed page - the rest of the paper was news reporting. Now, virtually the entire paper is filled with commentary and pieces that parrot editorial opinion.

I consider myself well read and smart enough to discern the difference, however, there are many that don't or can't. That could be a large part of the reason why print media is fading.
Click to expand...

Most media bias is by omission - they simply omit anything counter to what they want you to believe is going on. For example, instead of supplying direct quotes of protestors they supply what "protest leaders" say that the issue is. Thus they dismiss reality in favor of what reality should be.
 
zimmer said:
It would have been better if she told them to just report the facts honestly, like the lady holding the scales blindfolded. And let us make up our minds about it.

That's the problem though... they think we are too stupid to make the "right" choices.
Click to expand...

The NYT's connection to the Clinton's and the DNC is actually sinister; the man who owns a controlling interest in the NYT is an a close friend and financial contributor to the Clinton's.

Any illusion of journalistic integrity at the NYT is a carefully constructed mirage.

It's similar to what Felonious Bill said about reducing taxes... stating... we might not spend the money properly!!!

It's a level of arrogance that is beyond sickening.
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton and his ilk are not on the side of everyday Americans. They would be happy with a Stalin-like dictator who robs 99% of people's finances and redistributes the wealth to the chosen ones.
 
CanadaJohn said:
From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with a news outlet, print or on air, having an ideological bent - that is only natural. I've never considered comment from the NY Times to be anything but left leaning in its perspective and I consider it in that light.

The problem, I find, in all media and not just that on the left, is that journalists don't much exist any more. Everyone provides commentary either as an Op Ed columnist or as one is training. Journalists are supposed to report the facts alone and yet more and more they provide colour commentary that tries to slant those facts or represent those facts in an ideologically tinged light. They either leave out relevant information or insert irrelevant information that skews the bottom line of what they're supposedly reporting. There was a time, in print as an example, where you had an editorial page and a facing Op Ed page - the rest of the paper was news reporting. Now, virtually the entire paper is filled with commentary and pieces that parrot editorial opinion.

I consider myself well read and smart enough to discern the difference, however, there are many that don't or can't. That could be a large part of the reason why print media is fading.
Click to expand...

Promoting one side or the other would be fine with me too, except these folks advertise themselves as impartial... and the Left largely believes it...

...but even in this election, the majority of D's believed the news was slanted.

Here is a problem with taking sides... most towns are a one paper town... BUT... with the internet, and new media... there is A bit of a counterweight.

If it hadn't been for the internet... CBS & the NYT probably would have gotten away with their forged documents attempt to usurp a presidential election.

Then we have election night in 04... when they tried to suppress votes by showing Kerry was waaaaay up.

These people are dangerous... and proven so... and this election shows how irresponsible they have become.

They've slit their own throats...
 
zimmer said:
Promoting one side or the other would be fine with me too, except these folks advertise themselves as impartial... and the Left largely believes it...

...but even in this election, the majority of D's believed the news was slanted.

Here is a problem with taking sides... most towns are a one paper town... BUT... with the internet, and new media... there is A bit of a counterweight.

If it hadn't been for the internet... CBS & the NYT probably would have gotten away with their forged documents attempt to usurp a presidential election.

Then we have election night in 04... when they tried to suppress votes by showing Kerry was waaaaay up.

These people are dangerous... and proven so... and this election shows how irresponsible they have become.
Click to expand...

Nope. the NYT openy says that it contains (only?) what news it deems fit to print - that is a warning, right up front, that "unfit" news has been omitted. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Most media bias is by omission - they simply omit anything counter to what they want you to believe is going on. For example, instead of supplying direct quotes of protestors they supply what "protest leaders" say that the issue is. Thus they dismiss reality in favor of what reality should be.
Click to expand...
They also cherry pick examples of narratives they want to push. If i recall correctly it was the NYT that found one crossover republican that was planning voting for clinton for the good of the gop. You have to wonder how many people they had to interview to get the story they wanted to portray as a majotiy oppinion.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
CanadaJohn said:
From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with a news outlet, print or on air, having an ideological bent - that is only natural. I've never considered comment from the NY Times to be anything but left leaning in its perspective and I consider it in that light.

The problem, I find, in all media and not just that on the left, is that journalists don't much exist any more. Everyone provides commentary either as an Op Ed columnist or as one is training. Journalists are supposed to report the facts alone and yet more and more they provide colour commentary that tries to slant those facts or represent those facts in an ideologically tinged light. They either leave out relevant information or insert irrelevant information that skews the bottom line of what they're supposedly reporting. There was a time, in print as an example, where you had an editorial page and a facing Op Ed page - the rest of the paper was news reporting. Now, virtually the entire paper is filled with commentary and pieces that parrot editorial opinion.

I consider myself well read and smart enough to discern the difference, however, there are many that don't or can't. That could be a large part of the reason why print media is fading.
Click to expand...

yes
we CAN handle the truth
UNvarnished, please

thanks for this post. it needs to be said. it needs to change
 
justabubba said:
yes
we CAN handle the truth
UNvarnished, please

thanks for this post. it needs to be said. it needs to change
Click to expand...

Thanks - I believe you may have moved my post to a place where I'm not welcomed, so I'll thank you here.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Thanks - I believe you may have moved my post to a place where I'm not welcomed, so I'll thank you here.
Click to expand...

it was well intentioned and appropriately placed
now, if the media would just read and heed what you had to say
so many commentators and so few journalists these days
 
justabubba said:
it was well intentioned and appropriately placed
now, if the media would just read and heed what you had to say
so many commentators and so few journalists these days
Click to expand...

I don't want to leave the impression I'm bothered by this - I'm not - thanks again for the kind words.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't want to leave the impression I'm bothered by this - I'm not - thanks again for the kind words.
Click to expand...

since we cannot discuss this in the appropriate place, let me say i am bothered by such compelled absence. i will not go further in explaining why to try to avoid a ding
 
truthatallcost said:
From the article:


Talk about being out of touch! Who did the Times interview for that poll, the cast of a Broadway show? Or perhaps patrons at a Jewish deli. Lol.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And is Liz Spayd a member of PETA or SPCA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom