• 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!

Leaked Audio: NY Times shifts targeting of Trump from Russia collusion to racism

JustHanging said:
LOL, because they left-center instead of dead center? Yeah...terribly biased. :roll:


Again, here's the important part:

Factual Reporting: High

Which part of that is confusing you?
Click to expand...
You seem to be the only one who is confused. Factual reporting has nothing to do with story selection. You may as well be posting pictures of chickens.
 
JustHanging said:
:lamo


2m7lo1.jpg
Click to expand...

you miss the irony since leftist have a new outrage every day.
 
ludin said:
actually this is disgusting behavior by a new paper article and a return to yellow journalism.
it doesn't surprise me that you support such stuff though.
Click to expand...

And as usual you lie since I didn’t say I supported it. Way to go with your typical conservative dishonesty. Never expect a trump supporter to be honest.
 
Praxas said:
And as usual you lie since I didn’t say I supported it. Way to go with your typical conservative dishonesty. Never expect a trump supporter to be honest.
Click to expand...

Yep i never expect leftist to trash anything as long as it supports their agenda.
the NY times has lost any and all credibility to they have.

they are firmly in the lap of the DNC and the leftist of this country.
 
I get the calls of "bias"...realistically, this is where we are in 'Merica 2019. NYT has to cater to a certain set of subscribers to make money. Just like Fox News has to cater to another set. It takes money to survive.

Journalism as we envisioned it years ago is indeed dead. You cannot remain neutral and survive. $$ pays the bills.
 
ludin said:
Yep i never expect leftist to trash anything as long as it supports their agenda.
the NY times has lost any and all credibility to they have.

they are firmly in the lap of the DNC and the leftist of this country.
Click to expand...

Again your deflection has nothing to do with your obvious lying. Trump supporters are never to be trusted.
 
Praxas said:
Again your deflection has nothing to do with your obvious lying. Trump supporters are never to be trusted.
Click to expand...

Nope leftist aren't.
your right.

yep i will vote for trump again why? because once again the democrats can't field anyone with a brain to run.
the only guy they had worth a chance of running that i would have voted for was Howard Schultz.

The fact is the NY times is being dishonest and engaging in political hit jobs instead of reporting honestly.
You really want to back and support that?

please tell us.
 
Taylor said:
The New York Times has always tilted left, but it used to be a respectable origination.
Click to expand...
We can still respect them for other things.

For being a by-design one-story newspaper, for example. Most newspapers that aren't "The McDonald's Times" raving about delicious McDonald's hamburgers, "The Ford Sentinel" perennially reporting how Fords are America's favourite cars, etc. can't make such a claim.

Also, for "imaginative use of all [their] muscles to write about race and class in a deeper way". I assume Mr. Banquest is referring to metaphorical "mental muscles" and not staffers pinching pens between their butt cheeks to write op eds on racism, although this would be impressive. Use those imaginations, boys.

Some newspapers don't stress their imaginations and just print boring old facts. :coffeepap
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Nonsense. How can you come to the conclusion that “The Times got caught with their pants down” when throughout the entire recorded meeting Baquet repeatedly stressed truthfulness and transparency in any reporting? He went so far as to acknowledge that some reporting might tick off members of their liberal audience, but that shouldn’t guide the reporting.

I guess you musta read a different transcript.
Click to expand...


This particular case doesn't even really matter that much except for confirming what was already known.


New York Times - Media Bias/Fact Check
 
Fear not, the Mockingbird crew at CIA and Mossad will not let the Gray Lady die....
 
Taylor said:
Hey, if you want to be a willful idiot that's your choice, just don't expect people to take your claims seriously.

The NYT is known for pushing narratives by reporting on things that support their narrative while ignoring stories that do not. This is without a doubt a form of media bias.
Click to expand...
An idiot focuses all of their attention on possible bias instead of facts.

At the very beginning of this conversation, I acknowledged that The Times is no friend to Trump (like Fox News, Breitbart, etc.). That doesn’t change the fact that, to a great extent, The Times has been correct more often than wrong.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Not a compelling argument, if that’s what this ^^ is supposed to be.
Click to expand...

The address stated that stories in the NY TIMES would come from the prism that the country is deeply divided, as opposed to writing a series of stories about the subject.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
An idiot focuses all of their attention on possible bias instead of facts.

At the very beginning of this conversation, I acknowledged that The Times is no friend to Trump (like Fox News, Breitbart, etc.). That doesn’t change the fact that, to a great extent, The Times has been correct more often than wrong.
Click to expand...

This website makes such a focus: It splits its boards between mainstream and non- mainstream sources: just because an article appears in THE NEW REPUBLIC doesn't mean it's devoid of fact. DP recognizes that that publication, and other similar publications, comes with a certain bias.
The objection is that the NY TIMES is pushing a particular bias in their reporting, yet wishes to maintain its unbiased 'mainstream' rep.
 
Lisa said:
The very obvious bias of your site is noted.
Legal Insurrection - Media Bias/Fact Check

The NYT is less biased than you site and much more accurate.
New York Times - Media Bias/Fact Check
Click to expand...

Nice try... spin and try to kill the messenger. Won't work! It's a recording and transcript of the meeting.
You use a left leaning "Fact Check" site to confirm your biased view? Funny stuff

If you would like here is the story at Slate..... Inside the New York Times town hall.


And then there is this:

Newsguard Green Light: “Legal Insurrection does not distort facts to advance opinions”
Comments
Permalink
Posted by William A. Jacobson Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 10:00pm

“… the site handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly…. Headlines can be opinionated, but do not distort facts or mislead readers about the content of stories.”

Credibility
Stories cite credible news organizations and websites. Sources are hyperlinked within articles. Legal Insurrection does not distort facts to advance opinions and discloses its conservative perspective on an About page, leading NewsGuard to conclude that the site handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly.

Legal Insurrection does not articulate a corrections policy. Jacobson told NewsGuard in an email: “If there is a minor non-substantive correction, such as a name spelling or job title correction, we generally just make the change. More commonly, when there is additional information that puts the original story in a different context or presents an alternative view or new information, we do that as an ‘Update.’” Because the site has not issued corrections since 2016, and NewsGuard does not classify
updates as corrections, Legal Insurrection does not meet NewsGuard’s standards for regularly correcting or clarifying errors.

Headlines can be opinionated, but do not distort facts or mislead readers about the content of stories.

Newsguard Green Light: "Legal Insurrection does not distort facts to advance opinions"
 
My response was to this post of yours;
Athanasius68 said:
It's the NY TIMES. They can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Click to expand...
Athanasius68 said:
The address stated that stories in the NY TIMES would come from the prism that the country is deeply divided, as opposed to writing a series of stories about the subject.
Click to expand...
Apparently, you can’t follow your own posts and chew gum. :roll:

Athanasius68 said:
This website makes such a focus: It splits its boards between mainstream and non- mainstream sources:
Click to expand...
Nonsense. DP doesn’t do anything other provide a platform for discussion/debate. The site does not focus on any particular POV and doesn’t split it's boards, period.

Athanasius68 said:
DP recognizes that that publication, and other similar publications, comes with a certain bias.
Click to expand...
More nonsense. DP doesn’t ”recognize” any bias.

Athanasius68 said:
The objection is that the NY TIMES is pushing a particular bias in their reporting, yet wishes to maintain its unbiased 'mainstream' rep.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Your objection is to The Times’ generally negative view of Trump’s presidency and the fact that the organization publicizes the administration’s (and Trump’s personal) failures, to which I have three words: Get over it.

This thread was started with the lie that The Times “got caught with their pants down” because someone secretly recorded a meeting that purportedly proved anti-Trump bias. Factually, that lie was the exact opposite of what was really recorded, Baquet addressing employees, emphasizing the importance of getting their information correct, reporting facts/truth only, and being as transparent with the public as possible.

To this point neither the OP, you, or others has proven otherwise.

You don’t have to like a sources general bent, but arguing that that alone disqualifies the source as reliable is a fools position.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Already addressed on both sides of the discussion. Try to keep up.
Click to expand...

Only a partisan wouldn't realize that the news source they listen to is - partisan, not any different than Fox News. Only regular viewers of Fox believe that they are "fair and balanced". Ditto the NYT.
 
Moderate Right said:
Only a partisan wouldn't realize that the news source they listen to is - partisan, not any different than Fox News. Only regular viewers of Fox believe that they are "fair and balanced". Ditto the NYT.
Click to expand...
Agree 100% however, bias doesn’t mean wrong/inaccurate.

Most references made here are from biased sources. Are we supposed to dismiss virtually every reference cited?
 
Moderate Right said:
Only a partisan wouldn't realize that the news source they listen to is - partisan, not any different than Fox News. Only regular viewers of Fox believe that they are "fair and balanced". Ditto the NYT.
Click to expand...

This is where your ignorance shines through.

Virtually very media source will be biased to some degree. How could it be completely unbiased? Everyone has a personal opinion.

What really matters is how factual and trustworthy are they? The NY Times rates highly. FOX News and Brietbart, not so much.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Agree 100% however, bias doesn’t mean wrong/inaccurate.

Most references made here are from biased sources. Are we supposed to dismiss virtually every reference cited?
Click to expand...

By making that argument, they can equate all media sources, and claim their garbage sites such as Brietbart and FOX News carry as much weight in an argument as the NYTimes or NPR.
 
JustHanging said:
By making that argument, they can equate all media sources, and claim their garbage sites such as Brietbart and FOX News carry as much weight in an argument as the NYTimes or NPR.
Click to expand...
Many do exactly that.

With so many questionable sources online, I almost always cross check two or more known reliable sources before accepting the information.
 
Ari Fleischer
‏Verified account @AriFleischer

The most troubling part of NYT editor Dean Baquet’s speech to his newsroom was his admission: “our readers...cheer us when we take on Donald Trump.” He added that Trump voters don’t read the Times.
6:12 AM - 18 Aug 2019



They (NYT) removed an editor because he allowed a positive headline for the president! They are the paper of propaganda for the resist folks!
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Agree 100% however, bias doesn’t mean wrong/inaccurate.

Most references made here are from biased sources. Are we supposed to dismiss virtually every reference cited?
Click to expand...

bias is the enemy of the people. The NYT pretends to be fair and balanced while they are not. That's the main point. If they are going to be partisan hacks such as MSNBC then they should be up front about it.
 
JustHanging said:
This is where your ignorance shines through.

Virtually very media source will be biased to some degree. How could it be completely unbiased? Everyone has a personal opinion.

What really matters is how factual and trustworthy are they? The NY Times rates highly. FOX News and Brietbart, not so much.
Click to expand...

The NYT is way biased to the left. They and the left should own up to it instead of trying to claim they are any different than Fox News, reporting with an agenda. They do report with a biased agenda, same as Fox News does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom