Bias at the NYT
October 10, 2004 9:13 AM Subscribe
Is The New York Times biased? Dan Okrent, the NYT public editor, has gone through reams of campaign coverage and delivered his opinion. Make sure you read to the very end.
Previously discussed here.
I fully expect this thread to degenerate first into standard Times-bashing, and possibly to even more generic opposing-party-bashing within the first four or so responses (if there are four responses).
We can all agree that the press is not objective, and that, in fact, objectivity has no actual meaning when it comes to journalism, is patently impossible. But there we depart from common sense to assume that somehow these miraculously coordinated hordes of journalists have aligned themselves against us and our particular worldviews.
And we come up with stuff like this.
For those of you playing along at home, that last link is to a rant by Kevin Drum, whom I respect and admire, haranguing the L.A. Times for making their post-debate analysis of last Friday's tête-à-tête too neutral (i.e. papering over Bush's lies to present Kerry and Bush as having lied equally). An analysis that begins with this lede:
And while we criticize the press for having debased political discourse, some of us have taken it far, far lower than any imagined monolithic "media" could ever dream. From Okrent's column:
Why don't we turn instead to the larger problems of the political media in this country? For example, the widespread media pretense that anything either Kerry or Bush says in the next month should make any difference to the electorate. Between them, Kerry and Bush have 24 years of actual political action to scrutinize, but suddenly, a year before the election, the media starts pretending as if their words matter most of all. That's a charade, one I think both conservatives and liberals can unite to condemn.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 9:34 AM on October 10, 2004
We can all agree that the press is not objective, and that, in fact, objectivity has no actual meaning when it comes to journalism, is patently impossible. But there we depart from common sense to assume that somehow these miraculously coordinated hordes of journalists have aligned themselves against us and our particular worldviews.
And we come up with stuff like this.
For those of you playing along at home, that last link is to a rant by Kevin Drum, whom I respect and admire, haranguing the L.A. Times for making their post-debate analysis of last Friday's tête-à-tête too neutral (i.e. papering over Bush's lies to present Kerry and Bush as having lied equally). An analysis that begins with this lede:
In President Bush's aggressive attack on Sen. John F. Kerry's 20-year Senate record during their debate Friday, the facts may have taken the worst beating of all. Kerry, for his part, also managed to shade the truth with some of his statements.That's neutral?
And while we criticize the press for having debased political discourse, some of us have taken it far, far lower than any imagined monolithic "media" could ever dream. From Okrent's column:
But before I turn over the podium, I do want you to know just how debased the level of discourse has become. When a reporter receives an e-mail message that says, "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war," a limit has been passed.Every charge of bias that you bring, conservative or liberal, against the Times can be met with some corresponding charge from the other side that seems to its bringer even more blatant and perfasive than yours. That will never end, as long as two halves of the country are dealing in completely different facts. You're fighting a useless battle. Give it up.
That's what a coward named Steve Schwenk, from San Francisco, wrote to national political correspondent Adam Nagourney several days ago because Nagourney wrote something Schwenk considered (if such a person is capable of consideration) pro-Bush. Some women reporters regularly receive sexual insults and threats. As nasty as critics on the right can get (plenty nasty), the left seems to be winning the vileness derby this year. Maybe the bloggers who encourage their readers to send this sort of thing to The Times might want to ask them instead to say it in public. I don't think they'd dare.
Why don't we turn instead to the larger problems of the political media in this country? For example, the widespread media pretense that anything either Kerry or Bush says in the next month should make any difference to the electorate. Between them, Kerry and Bush have 24 years of actual political action to scrutinize, but suddenly, a year before the election, the media starts pretending as if their words matter most of all. That's a charade, one I think both conservatives and liberals can unite to condemn.
posted by grrarrgh00 at 9:34 AM on October 10, 2004
That will never end, as long as two halves of the country are dealing in completely different facts. You're fighting a useless battle. Give it up.
There's no such thing as completely different facts. There are facts, and then there are lies, distortion, and spin. Journalists and the public used to know that.
posted by amberglow at 9:37 AM on October 10, 2004
There's no such thing as completely different facts. There are facts, and then there are lies, distortion, and spin. Journalists and the public used to know that.
posted by amberglow at 9:37 AM on October 10, 2004
What's frustrating for me is that I believe the Times is doing its job to the best of its ability. It tries very hard to remain neutral.
Sometimes in its effort to appear neutral, the Times will give Bush a bit of a free ride and nitpick over something with Kerry. That would be ok if all the news organizations were holding themselves to a similar standards, but they aren't.
Outlets like Fox don't even pretend to be neutral. They have an agenda. They are not news. They are 24 hour political commercials for the right.
The situation rightly drives some people crazy, because they feel the Times should be as left as Fox is right to give some balance to the news people are receiving overall.
The problem with stooping to tactics used by Fox, or by the Bush campaign, is I don't most of us could look at ourselves in the mirror the next day were we to actually act that way.
posted by xammerboy at 9:48 AM on October 10, 2004
Sometimes in its effort to appear neutral, the Times will give Bush a bit of a free ride and nitpick over something with Kerry. That would be ok if all the news organizations were holding themselves to a similar standards, but they aren't.
Outlets like Fox don't even pretend to be neutral. They have an agenda. They are not news. They are 24 hour political commercials for the right.
The situation rightly drives some people crazy, because they feel the Times should be as left as Fox is right to give some balance to the news people are receiving overall.
The problem with stooping to tactics used by Fox, or by the Bush campaign, is I don't most of us could look at ourselves in the mirror the next day were we to actually act that way.
posted by xammerboy at 9:48 AM on October 10, 2004
It's an opinion column. It's clearly labeled an opinion column. Were you one of those children that Bush left behind?
That said, as the reader's representative, he's doing his job. The NYT has done a piss-poor job (along with virtually ever other major U.S. media source) in accurately representing the Bush administration. So, yeah, I can understand how conservatives would be shocked, simply shocked, at the truth.
posted by fleener at 10:03 AM on October 10, 2004
That said, as the reader's representative, he's doing his job. The NYT has done a piss-poor job (along with virtually ever other major U.S. media source) in accurately representing the Bush administration. So, yeah, I can understand how conservatives would be shocked, simply shocked, at the truth.
posted by fleener at 10:03 AM on October 10, 2004
I do get frustrated when I read articles where they'll match every lie from Bush with a lie from Kerry, and it seems to stop when they run out of lies from Kerry to counterweight Bush's.
amberglow is spot on. Fact is fact. But, you can cite irrelevant facts, or outdated facts, or take them out of context.
It seems like an impossible bar has been set for Kerry to do the job of the press AND be a likeable, not-too-serious candidate for president, exuding charm between the factoids he spits out.
This liberal bias crap has worked so well for the GOP, it's unbelievable. They do show a mastery of it.
All the news that's fit to spin.
The best part of this process is that when Kerry takes office, the press will lash out at him with all the ire they've repressed under Bush. And Kerry's giving them increased access will only make it easier for them to fleece him...
posted by Busithoth at 10:10 AM on October 10, 2004
amberglow is spot on. Fact is fact. But, you can cite irrelevant facts, or outdated facts, or take them out of context.
It seems like an impossible bar has been set for Kerry to do the job of the press AND be a likeable, not-too-serious candidate for president, exuding charm between the factoids he spits out.
This liberal bias crap has worked so well for the GOP, it's unbelievable. They do show a mastery of it.
All the news that's fit to spin.
The best part of this process is that when Kerry takes office, the press will lash out at him with all the ire they've repressed under Bush. And Kerry's giving them increased access will only make it easier for them to fleece him...
posted by Busithoth at 10:10 AM on October 10, 2004
yup, but you know the saying about some the truest things being said in jest. : >
posted by amberglow at 10:19 AM on October 10, 2004
posted by amberglow at 10:19 AM on October 10, 2004
in fact, objectivity has no actual meaning when it comes to journalism, is patently impossible.
Of course it is impossible to be absolute in your objectivity. Everyone, journalists included, perceive their world with lenses colored with personal prejudices. However, it's a complete cop-out to lean towards the completely opposite spectrum, stating that it has no meaning. It's an ideal, and to not move towards objectivity in your reporting is fallacious as refusing to improve your work simply because 'perfection is impossible'.
It's my personal impression that the Times is biased towards the left both in their print and web versions. It could be as simple as the photo they chose to run for the candidate, or the angle they chose for an article or headline. One theory is that the Times is simply a product of its environ as is it representative of the sentiment of the average NY'r. Viewed as a national paper, its objectivity is obviously skewed; however as a regional paper, it could be viewed as more counter-balanced.. Just a theory.
posted by jazzkat11 at 10:20 AM on October 10, 2004
Of course it is impossible to be absolute in your objectivity. Everyone, journalists included, perceive their world with lenses colored with personal prejudices. However, it's a complete cop-out to lean towards the completely opposite spectrum, stating that it has no meaning. It's an ideal, and to not move towards objectivity in your reporting is fallacious as refusing to improve your work simply because 'perfection is impossible'.
It's my personal impression that the Times is biased towards the left both in their print and web versions. It could be as simple as the photo they chose to run for the candidate, or the angle they chose for an article or headline. One theory is that the Times is simply a product of its environ as is it representative of the sentiment of the average NY'r. Viewed as a national paper, its objectivity is obviously skewed; however as a regional paper, it could be viewed as more counter-balanced.. Just a theory.
posted by jazzkat11 at 10:20 AM on October 10, 2004
the Times is biased towards the left both in their print and web versions.
I might be tempted to agree with that if the Times didn't persist on continuing to publish (Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman notwithstanding) the utter nonesense that springs forth from the keyboards of Bill Safire, David Brooks and Maureen Dowd on their Op-Ed pages. Dowd is of course not a right wing ideologue, but her snide and frivolous characterizations of Kerry and his campaign carry water for the Bush administration, whether this is intended or not.
Personally, I'd be happy to see all op-ed pages abolished. I think they add nothing.
Having said all this, the Times was just as lazy and irresponsible as any other domestic paper for not researching and challenging, with any degree of rigor, the administration's assertions in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. My personal beef with the Times is that its reporting is ridiculously self-conscious. If I want good reporting I'll read the Washington Post. The WaPo gets it wrong more often than the Times, but I get the sense that it holds itself to a much higher standard of journalistic integrity than the Grey Lady does.
posted by psmealey at 10:34 AM on October 10, 2004
I might be tempted to agree with that if the Times didn't persist on continuing to publish (Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman notwithstanding) the utter nonesense that springs forth from the keyboards of Bill Safire, David Brooks and Maureen Dowd on their Op-Ed pages. Dowd is of course not a right wing ideologue, but her snide and frivolous characterizations of Kerry and his campaign carry water for the Bush administration, whether this is intended or not.
Personally, I'd be happy to see all op-ed pages abolished. I think they add nothing.
Having said all this, the Times was just as lazy and irresponsible as any other domestic paper for not researching and challenging, with any degree of rigor, the administration's assertions in the run-up to the Iraq invasion. My personal beef with the Times is that its reporting is ridiculously self-conscious. If I want good reporting I'll read the Washington Post. The WaPo gets it wrong more often than the Times, but I get the sense that it holds itself to a much higher standard of journalistic integrity than the Grey Lady does.
posted by psmealey at 10:34 AM on October 10, 2004
I remember reading something similar about the BBC a while back... people on the right think it's biased to the left, people on the left think it's biased to the right.
The problem is, quite obviously, that you're seeing the position of the news outlet relative to your own. If you're a really extreme lefty, all newspapers seem to kowtow to the right-wing establishment. If you're on the extreme right, then you'll think all newspapers are ridiculously "politically correct".
All newspapers are political, and all people are political. Even if a newspaper did somehow manage to be completely neutral and objective (whatever that actually means), the various political biases of its readers would thwart it.
That said, I do think people with extreme views have a tendency to see little cues and accuse whole institutions of being biased -- for example, Mefi's belief that Fox News is pure propaganda (if you ask me, Fox's pundits are obviously right-wing, but the actual news not so much), or LGF calling Reuters 'al-Reuters' all the time (presumably based on the fact that it doesn't write intros like "evil inhuman terrorists murdered another five people today"). If you think the [left/right]-wing media is really so extreme in its biases... well, it's probably you, not them.
posted by reklaw at 10:40 AM on October 10, 2004
The problem is, quite obviously, that you're seeing the position of the news outlet relative to your own. If you're a really extreme lefty, all newspapers seem to kowtow to the right-wing establishment. If you're on the extreme right, then you'll think all newspapers are ridiculously "politically correct".
All newspapers are political, and all people are political. Even if a newspaper did somehow manage to be completely neutral and objective (whatever that actually means), the various political biases of its readers would thwart it.
That said, I do think people with extreme views have a tendency to see little cues and accuse whole institutions of being biased -- for example, Mefi's belief that Fox News is pure propaganda (if you ask me, Fox's pundits are obviously right-wing, but the actual news not so much), or LGF calling Reuters 'al-Reuters' all the time (presumably based on the fact that it doesn't write intros like "evil inhuman terrorists murdered another five people today"). If you think the [left/right]-wing media is really so extreme in its biases... well, it's probably you, not them.
posted by reklaw at 10:40 AM on October 10, 2004
"The problem with stooping to tactics used by Fox, or by the Bush campaign, is I don't most of us could look at ourselves in the mirror the next day were we to actually act that way."
The problem with not stooping to tactics used by Fox, or by the Bush campaign.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:01 AM on October 10, 2004
The problem with not stooping to tactics used by Fox, or by the Bush campaign.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:01 AM on October 10, 2004
Here's a crazy opinion: I think the Times slants a little left, yet can be critical of the left as well. I think the reporters introduce their opinions occasionally, but that's to be expected from educated, opinionated people. I don't agree with all of the editorials, but I enjoy reading them and find them usually pretty intelligent. But most of all, with the exception of a few papers like the Washington Post or the Boston Globe, it's one of the few papers written for people with more than a third grade education.
I like the damn paper, and I intend to continue reading it. Crazy!
posted by fungible at 12:05 PM on October 10, 2004
I like the damn paper, and I intend to continue reading it. Crazy!
posted by fungible at 12:05 PM on October 10, 2004
What I got from the article was that The Times is not biased, but everybody else is. Did I misread?
posted by Hildago at 12:43 PM on October 10, 2004
posted by Hildago at 12:43 PM on October 10, 2004
That's what he was saying Hil, but i think he wants to make it everyone else's problem, instead of taking responsibility, and doing his job--he really has no power to effect change at all, i hear.
posted by amberglow at 12:46 PM on October 10, 2004
posted by amberglow at 12:46 PM on October 10, 2004
"If you want objective journalism, try a security camera."
-- Spider Jerusalem
posted by inksyndicate at 12:51 PM on October 10, 2004
-- Spider Jerusalem
posted by inksyndicate at 12:51 PM on October 10, 2004
Granted, I only watch Fox when working out and such - in short, when I'm forced to do so. But their news is definitely slanted, in a way I'd never accuse at least 90 percent of other American media of being. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise with a straight face.
posted by raysmj at 12:57 PM on October 10, 2004
posted by raysmj at 12:57 PM on October 10, 2004
One thing that's been particularly bothersome to me are the debate write-ups. I hate having to read in the Times and Post about Cheney's devastating line that he had never met Edwards, about how devastatingly devastating it was, without any mention about its being false in the headline article.
If you only read the headline article the day after the debates, as I assume most people do, you would assume the statement (and others like it) are true. Isn't it the job of news organizations to call this stuff out? Or, if its going to be a straight recount of the debate, why add "the line was devastating - the debate might as well have been over, etc, etc?"
posted by xammerboy at 1:23 PM on October 10, 2004
If you only read the headline article the day after the debates, as I assume most people do, you would assume the statement (and others like it) are true. Isn't it the job of news organizations to call this stuff out? Or, if its going to be a straight recount of the debate, why add "the line was devastating - the debate might as well have been over, etc, etc?"
posted by xammerboy at 1:23 PM on October 10, 2004
I am a nice guy in Jesus' name
I have a mean schizophrenia demon in my head
My demon racks me with profanity
My demon tells me lies and says I'm a jerk, a bum and an asshole
My demon keeps me from joy bus riding by torturing me
Wesley Willis
Wesley Willis
Wesley Willis
Wesley Willis
Kinkos, it's the copy center
posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:25 PM on October 10, 2004
I have a mean schizophrenia demon in my head
My demon racks me with profanity
My demon tells me lies and says I'm a jerk, a bum and an asshole
My demon keeps me from joy bus riding by torturing me
Wesley Willis
Wesley Willis
Wesley Willis
Wesley Willis
Kinkos, it's the copy center
posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:25 PM on October 10, 2004
Actually, The Times pointed out immediately in its debate article that Cheney's claim was false and that pictures were circulating of the two meeting. Other news orgs were not so quick on the ball (MSNBC).
posted by Slagman at 1:28 PM on October 10, 2004
posted by Slagman at 1:28 PM on October 10, 2004
As nasty as critics on the right can get (plenty nasty), the left seems to be winning the vileness derby this year. Maybe the bloggers who encourage their readers to send this sort of thing to The Times might want to ask them instead to say it in public. I don't think they'd dare.
Having been the target of similar vileness here for the past several years, I cannot agree with Okrent more.....
posted by Durwood at 1:37 PM on October 10, 2004
Having been the target of similar vileness here for the past several years, I cannot agree with Okrent more.....
posted by Durwood at 1:37 PM on October 10, 2004
If the NYT is biased towards anything, it's towards flattering the pretensions of the east coast upper-middle class, and trying to make them feel intelligent and cultured. IMHO, of course.
posted by carter at 1:40 PM on October 10, 2004
posted by carter at 1:40 PM on October 10, 2004
Maybe the bloggers who encourage their readers to send this sort of thing to The Times might want to ask them instead to say it in public.
Good one! Now shut that reeking hole in your face, you baby-eating eagle-cornholer, before you stink the place up. [/satire]
Blame it on bloggers? Seriously, that's cute, but very limp indeed.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:46 PM on October 10, 2004
Good one! Now shut that reeking hole in your face, you baby-eating eagle-cornholer, before you stink the place up. [/satire]
Blame it on bloggers? Seriously, that's cute, but very limp indeed.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:46 PM on October 10, 2004
Hildago, you read right. The knee-jerks think the "public editor" oversees the news reporting. He doesn't. He's an opinionated ombudsman. It's his job. Well done, too.
posted by fleener at 1:52 PM on October 10, 2004
posted by fleener at 1:52 PM on October 10, 2004
Of course it is impossible to be absolute in your objectivity. Everyone, journalists included, perceive their world with lenses colored with personal prejudices.
My reading of grraarrgh00's (did I spell that right?) comment was that objectively is misapplied to the work of journalists in the first place. Objectivity only makes sense (if it does at all, ie, vs 'intersubjective' or relative or whatever) when you're speaking about empirical facts. You can say, when I let go of it, the ball dropped to the floor.
However, journalism isn't simply a case of particular facts being validated or not. To start with, it's a filter for all the happenings of the world; that means that which stories are run, on which pages, is already a major subjective choice, no matter what you choose - there's no way to have the 'objectively right' order of stories. Secondly, the way something is described necessarily includes some facts over others - you can't include everything, so what you filter out is again a subjective choice. And so on... I think the word we might try to aspire to is "fair", but even that is difficult to define.
I appreciate your argument & agree that everyone should try to think critically about what they're running and try to make it as fair and reasonable as possible. I think the NYT usually does try to do that. Of course, as others have pointed out, that strategy might backfire if other news agencies don't have similar standards.
posted by mdn at 2:05 PM on October 10, 2004
My reading of grraarrgh00's (did I spell that right?) comment was that objectively is misapplied to the work of journalists in the first place. Objectivity only makes sense (if it does at all, ie, vs 'intersubjective' or relative or whatever) when you're speaking about empirical facts. You can say, when I let go of it, the ball dropped to the floor.
However, journalism isn't simply a case of particular facts being validated or not. To start with, it's a filter for all the happenings of the world; that means that which stories are run, on which pages, is already a major subjective choice, no matter what you choose - there's no way to have the 'objectively right' order of stories. Secondly, the way something is described necessarily includes some facts over others - you can't include everything, so what you filter out is again a subjective choice. And so on... I think the word we might try to aspire to is "fair", but even that is difficult to define.
I appreciate your argument & agree that everyone should try to think critically about what they're running and try to make it as fair and reasonable as possible. I think the NYT usually does try to do that. Of course, as others have pointed out, that strategy might backfire if other news agencies don't have similar standards.
posted by mdn at 2:05 PM on October 10, 2004
The Times's editorial viewpoint is closer to that currently espoused by the US Democratic party; the Wall Street Journal's editorial viewpoint is closer to that currently espoused by the US Republican party.
Yet why is all the hoopla always about whether the Times is "biased"? Are newspapers expected to be bastions of neutrality? And, if so, why don't people hold the Journal to that standard?
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:15 PM on October 10, 2004
Yet why is all the hoopla always about whether the Times is "biased"? Are newspapers expected to be bastions of neutrality? And, if so, why don't people hold the Journal to that standard?
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:15 PM on October 10, 2004
And, amberglow, this is all Okrent can do. His job description as public editor is exactly this--to research stuff and write lengthy jeremiads.
Hey, nice work if you can get it. I hate the Times, but fortunately I live in a city with a good newspaper (the Boston Globe) that the Timesco hasn't quite managed to ruin yet (though they've been chipping away at it ever since they bought it), so I don't have to read it.
And the Globe has comics, horoscopes, and "Ann Landers". Any newspaper that doesn't have comics or "Ann Landers" isn't worth reading, in my book!
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:20 PM on October 10, 2004
Hey, nice work if you can get it. I hate the Times, but fortunately I live in a city with a good newspaper (the Boston Globe) that the Timesco hasn't quite managed to ruin yet (though they've been chipping away at it ever since they bought it), so I don't have to read it.
And the Globe has comics, horoscopes, and "Ann Landers". Any newspaper that doesn't have comics or "Ann Landers" isn't worth reading, in my book!
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:20 PM on October 10, 2004
The Journal is biased toward free markets and limited government, and thus its viewpoint is nothing like that of either major US political party.
posted by Kwantsar at 2:27 PM on October 10, 2004
posted by Kwantsar at 2:27 PM on October 10, 2004
For all the navel gazing the Times does, it seems to be losing sight of the fact that it's slipping deeper and deeper into irrelevance. Seriously, with all the information sources (international news sites, blogs, etc.) available these days, if you're still getting all your information and commentary from one daily paper, you're a sucker. My contention is, that the Times probably is biased for all the reasons stated above, but to be truly informed in this age, you're going to have to get your information and news from 5 or 6 different sources in addition to whatever daily paper you like to read with your morning coffee. As liberal as I tend to be, my paper of choice is still the WSJ (though I never read its op-ed pages).
posted by psmealey at 2:29 PM on October 10, 2004
posted by psmealey at 2:29 PM on October 10, 2004
I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called "objectivity" – might wanna look it up some day.
posted by Slothrup at 3:13 PM on October 10, 2004
posted by Slothrup at 3:13 PM on October 10, 2004
language is bias, language is compromise, it is unavoidable.
posted by Satapher at 3:19 PM on October 10, 2004
posted by Satapher at 3:19 PM on October 10, 2004
Satapher, do you have a speech disorder that renders you unable to speak in anything other than half-assed pseudo-enigmatic epigrams that you found in a postmodernist fortune cookie?
Cause that must make you really fun at dinner parties.
posted by jonmc at 4:28 PM on October 10, 2004
Cause that must make you really fun at dinner parties.
posted by jonmc at 4:28 PM on October 10, 2004
Dowd is of course not a right wing ideologue, but her snide and frivolous characterizations of Kerry and his campaign carry water for the Bush administration, whether this is intended or not.
Damn straight! My Party right or wrong! You're either with us or against us! Love it or leave it, Dowd!
Personally, I'd be happy to see all op-ed pages abolished. I think they add nothing.
On this we agree.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 4:40 PM on October 10, 2004
Damn straight! My Party right or wrong! You're either with us or against us! Love it or leave it, Dowd!
Personally, I'd be happy to see all op-ed pages abolished. I think they add nothing.
On this we agree.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 4:40 PM on October 10, 2004
My plan for the only possible way to have an unbiased news service:
- No presenters, pundits, or even journalists writing copy.
- Only first-hand interviews with a randomized selection of eye-witnesses, and exact word-for-word readings of douments with no interpretation or analysis.
- Every event that takes place anywhere in the world is given equal time and placement.
- Opinion pieces are banned.
Good luck!
The fact is, news is biased, by the nature of the presentation. It's biased from the very foundations, when editors have to decide which stories they cover and how much prominence they are given. Sins of ommission are the norm. And journalism is usually interpretation of events not happened, and very rarely a scientific description.
The upside is, we have choice in the news we watch. The NYT isn't some state-controlled monopoly. Neither is Fox. If you don't like what you are readingor watching, there are plenty of choices out there.
posted by Jimbob at 4:41 PM on October 10, 2004
- No presenters, pundits, or even journalists writing copy.
- Only first-hand interviews with a randomized selection of eye-witnesses, and exact word-for-word readings of douments with no interpretation or analysis.
- Every event that takes place anywhere in the world is given equal time and placement.
- Opinion pieces are banned.
Good luck!
The fact is, news is biased, by the nature of the presentation. It's biased from the very foundations, when editors have to decide which stories they cover and how much prominence they are given. Sins of ommission are the norm. And journalism is usually interpretation of events not happened, and very rarely a scientific description.
The upside is, we have choice in the news we watch. The NYT isn't some state-controlled monopoly. Neither is Fox. If you don't like what you are readingor watching, there are plenty of choices out there.
posted by Jimbob at 4:41 PM on October 10, 2004
The fact that Dowd focuses on style over subtance at the expense of the issues makes her a useful idiot; nothing more, nothing less. Also, I have about as much use for liberal ideologues as I do for conservative/reactionary ones.
posted by psmealey at 4:52 PM on October 10, 2004
posted by psmealey at 4:52 PM on October 10, 2004
The NYT has done a piss-poor job (along with virtually ever other major U.S. media source) in accurately representing the Bush administration.
Care to provide some examples, fleener? And name some that you believe are getting it correct?
posted by pmurray63 at 7:09 PM on October 10, 2004
Care to provide some examples, fleener? And name some that you believe are getting it correct?
posted by pmurray63 at 7:09 PM on October 10, 2004
Satapher, do you have a speech disorder that renders you unable to speak in anything other than half-assed pseudo-enigmatic epigrams that you found in a postmodernist fortune cookie?
haha, yes i do :) but you're the enabler, polar bear.
posted by Satapher at 11:27 PM on October 10, 2004
haha, yes i do :) but you're the enabler, polar bear.
posted by Satapher at 11:27 PM on October 10, 2004
Campaign Desk on the differences bet. the Wash. Post's and NYT's factcheck after the last debate: The job of the press isn't to say both sides are spinning -- it's to tell us who is spinning, and how.
posted by amberglow at 5:18 AM on October 11, 2004
posted by amberglow at 5:18 AM on October 11, 2004
"I was told by the physician that a Southern climate would improve my health ..."
posted by wobh at 7:12 AM on October 11, 2004
posted by wobh at 7:12 AM on October 11, 2004
NEWSFLASH - "NYT studies itself on bias, determines it's own objectivity" - this is the Onion, right ?
I'm surprised that no one here, as far as I can tell, has noted the basic absurdity and paradox of this.
But, since Daniel Okrent is so well qualified to study himself and his newspaper, I have done a similar survey of all of my comments and posts on Metafilter - in response to the criticism of bloggers that my contributions are partisan - and concluded that the aggregate of everything I have written and posted here is, objectively speaking, quite neutral overall : Objectively surveying myself, my past behavior, I have determined no observable bias.
That's a fact, and anyone who challenges me on this is obviously a partisan.
posted by troutfishing at 7:58 AM on October 11, 2004
I'm surprised that no one here, as far as I can tell, has noted the basic absurdity and paradox of this.
But, since Daniel Okrent is so well qualified to study himself and his newspaper, I have done a similar survey of all of my comments and posts on Metafilter - in response to the criticism of bloggers that my contributions are partisan - and concluded that the aggregate of everything I have written and posted here is, objectively speaking, quite neutral overall : Objectively surveying myself, my past behavior, I have determined no observable bias.
That's a fact, and anyone who challenges me on this is obviously a partisan.
posted by troutfishing at 7:58 AM on October 11, 2004
the Times is biased towards the left both in their print and web versions.
My impression is that the Times is biased towards the left in cultural terms (because that's the bias of most of their readers and presumably most of their staff: gay rights, abortion rights, and the other bugbears of the Christian right) and towards the right in economic terms (because they're a large business owned by rich people and therefore support the things such businesses want, like unrestrained development of the west side of Manhattan). I also think they're trying, within the constraints of their biases and material interests, to be as unbiased as possible. In the context of US journalism, they're a good paper; unfortunately, that isn't saying much. But I don't take seriously anyone who jumps up and down and hollers that the paper is obviously trying to do their guy in; it's a sure sign the complainer is so blinded by their commitment to the Cause they can't see straight any more.
grrarrgh00: Great comment.
On preview: Gosh, trout, your cynicism is overwhelmingly convincing. We might as well all give up, eh?
And will you quit putting an apostrophe in possessive its, for the love of Pete? It's seriously starting to bug me, because otherwise you spel gud.
posted by languagehat at 8:02 AM on October 11, 2004
My impression is that the Times is biased towards the left in cultural terms (because that's the bias of most of their readers and presumably most of their staff: gay rights, abortion rights, and the other bugbears of the Christian right) and towards the right in economic terms (because they're a large business owned by rich people and therefore support the things such businesses want, like unrestrained development of the west side of Manhattan). I also think they're trying, within the constraints of their biases and material interests, to be as unbiased as possible. In the context of US journalism, they're a good paper; unfortunately, that isn't saying much. But I don't take seriously anyone who jumps up and down and hollers that the paper is obviously trying to do their guy in; it's a sure sign the complainer is so blinded by their commitment to the Cause they can't see straight any more.
grrarrgh00: Great comment.
On preview: Gosh, trout, your cynicism is overwhelmingly convincing. We might as well all give up, eh?
And will you quit putting an apostrophe in possessive its, for the love of Pete? It's seriously starting to bug me, because otherwise you spel gud.
posted by languagehat at 8:02 AM on October 11, 2004
From the Daily Howler:
Absent systematic study, we won’t necessarily argue with public editor Daniel Okrent, who opined, in yesterday’s column, that the Times has not been “systematically biased toward either candidate” in the current White House race. But if systematic bias isn’t necessarily clear, systematic bad judgment surely is. It defines the great paper’s lost soul.
Example: Who but the Times would publish a piece like Scott Dadich’s Saturday op-ed effort? Amazingly, the Times devoted almost half its op-ed page to Dadich’s laughable analysis of Bush and Kerry’s bumper stickers! Who but the Times would ever publish something so silly, so daft?
...
And who but the Times would have the bad judgment to publish Robert Worth’s front-page report three weeks before an election? In yesterday’s paper, Worth went on (and on; and on) about how rich and patrician Kerry is. Who but the Times would print such rank subjectivity, without seeming to have the slightest idea that the judgments expressed are subjective?
posted by psmealey at 9:51 AM on October 11, 2004
Absent systematic study, we won’t necessarily argue with public editor Daniel Okrent, who opined, in yesterday’s column, that the Times has not been “systematically biased toward either candidate” in the current White House race. But if systematic bias isn’t necessarily clear, systematic bad judgment surely is. It defines the great paper’s lost soul.
Example: Who but the Times would publish a piece like Scott Dadich’s Saturday op-ed effort? Amazingly, the Times devoted almost half its op-ed page to Dadich’s laughable analysis of Bush and Kerry’s bumper stickers! Who but the Times would ever publish something so silly, so daft?
...
And who but the Times would have the bad judgment to publish Robert Worth’s front-page report three weeks before an election? In yesterday’s paper, Worth went on (and on; and on) about how rich and patrician Kerry is. Who but the Times would print such rank subjectivity, without seeming to have the slightest idea that the judgments expressed are subjective?
posted by psmealey at 9:51 AM on October 11, 2004
some excellent responses on the NYT's forum, including a response from the guy Okrent said cursed him:
When I wrote that e-mail to Mr. Nagourney, I was complaining about his sloppy reporting. And I was pointing out that it was because of such sloppy reporting (as the NYT has admitted in its mea culpa in May) that 1000 US tropps died in a war that likely never should have happened.
Now I know it is impossible to tell that from Okrent's piece. He has portrayed me falsely. He clipped the most inflammatory statement in the exchange, and falsely portrayed me in the worst light possible.
And not only that, Mr. Okrent called me a "coward." He printed that, not in an e-mail he sent just to me, but in the New York Times. And he refused to allow me even one word in my own defense. My private e-mail went to one person. The Nagourney-Okrent smear of my name went out to millions of people.
I admit that my choice of words was wrong; it was a mistake, I was angry, but my point was not malicious. I was angry at 1000+ dead in a war that never should have happened, and likely never would have happened, had the Times and other media done their job.
But I caused Mr. Nagourney no harm in sending him that e-mail, or the several others we exchanged, and I never intended to cause him harm. It was a private e-mail. But by falsely portraying me the way they have, and by calling me a coward, in the New York Times no less, Nagourney and Okrent have most definitely caused me harm. And the real crime is that that was clearly their intention.
Steve Schwenk
The NYT has and had an obligation to its readers to actively challenge lies by politicians in power, especially in such serious times. With reporters like Mr. Nagourney, the NYT has failed over and over again in this responsibility. And that, Mr. Okrent, is the real problem--not overheated readers.
I was dismayed at Mr. Okrent's violation of a reader’s privacy in this week’s Week in Review. Whatever vitriol Adam Nagourney is subjected to by critics of his coverage is irrelevant. Okrent's duty is to look out for the readers. A duty he abdicated in his last column.
Unlike Mr.Okrent and Mr. Nagourney, the readers named in Mr. Okrent's piece do not have the ready ability to publish their words in the NY Times. And yet Mr. Okrens saw fit to use his column as a club against those who wrote him.
Can't reporters and columnists defend themselves? Shouldn't the Public Editor defend us, not wallop us? I find it intriguing that after nearly a year of this Mr. Okrent continues to dish out defensive column after defensive column. In a year when Judith Miller continues to pimp the discredited Chalabi and the media repeatedly refers to a mythical article that labeled Kerry the most liberal senator, I find Mr. Okrent's constant defense worryingly disconected with reality.
posted by amberglow at 10:06 AM on October 11, 2004
When I wrote that e-mail to Mr. Nagourney, I was complaining about his sloppy reporting. And I was pointing out that it was because of such sloppy reporting (as the NYT has admitted in its mea culpa in May) that 1000 US tropps died in a war that likely never should have happened.
Now I know it is impossible to tell that from Okrent's piece. He has portrayed me falsely. He clipped the most inflammatory statement in the exchange, and falsely portrayed me in the worst light possible.
And not only that, Mr. Okrent called me a "coward." He printed that, not in an e-mail he sent just to me, but in the New York Times. And he refused to allow me even one word in my own defense. My private e-mail went to one person. The Nagourney-Okrent smear of my name went out to millions of people.
I admit that my choice of words was wrong; it was a mistake, I was angry, but my point was not malicious. I was angry at 1000+ dead in a war that never should have happened, and likely never would have happened, had the Times and other media done their job.
But I caused Mr. Nagourney no harm in sending him that e-mail, or the several others we exchanged, and I never intended to cause him harm. It was a private e-mail. But by falsely portraying me the way they have, and by calling me a coward, in the New York Times no less, Nagourney and Okrent have most definitely caused me harm. And the real crime is that that was clearly their intention.
Steve Schwenk
The NYT has and had an obligation to its readers to actively challenge lies by politicians in power, especially in such serious times. With reporters like Mr. Nagourney, the NYT has failed over and over again in this responsibility. And that, Mr. Okrent, is the real problem--not overheated readers.
I was dismayed at Mr. Okrent's violation of a reader’s privacy in this week’s Week in Review. Whatever vitriol Adam Nagourney is subjected to by critics of his coverage is irrelevant. Okrent's duty is to look out for the readers. A duty he abdicated in his last column.
Unlike Mr.Okrent and Mr. Nagourney, the readers named in Mr. Okrent's piece do not have the ready ability to publish their words in the NY Times. And yet Mr. Okrens saw fit to use his column as a club against those who wrote him.
Can't reporters and columnists defend themselves? Shouldn't the Public Editor defend us, not wallop us? I find it intriguing that after nearly a year of this Mr. Okrent continues to dish out defensive column after defensive column. In a year when Judith Miller continues to pimp the discredited Chalabi and the media repeatedly refers to a mythical article that labeled Kerry the most liberal senator, I find Mr. Okrent's constant defense worryingly disconected with reality.
posted by amberglow at 10:06 AM on October 11, 2004
Thanks for that, amberglow. I liked those reader responses.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:19 AM on October 11, 2004
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:19 AM on October 11, 2004
"...my point was not malicious... I caused Mr. Nagourney no harm in sending him that e-mail, or the several others we exchanged, and I never intended to cause him harm... But by falsely portraying me the way they have, and by calling me a coward, in the New York Times no less, Nagourney and Okrent have most definitely caused me harm..."
Boy, is this guy delusional. It's not malicious to say "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war"? That doesn't cause harm to a father? Not physical harm, no, but by that standard Schwenk has nothing to complain about either. And what's this "falsely portraying" crap? He printed what you wrote. If you don't like how it looks in the light of day, you shouldn't have written it, should you? Coward.
Actually, he's proving Okrent's point all over again. He's sunk so deep in his partisanship he literally can't see that what he wrote deserves the treatment it got. "But Bush is bad, and the Times sucks up to him, and they're all against me!" (*froths*)
posted by languagehat at 12:18 PM on October 11, 2004
Boy, is this guy delusional. It's not malicious to say "I hope your kid gets his head blown off in a Republican war"? That doesn't cause harm to a father? Not physical harm, no, but by that standard Schwenk has nothing to complain about either. And what's this "falsely portraying" crap? He printed what you wrote. If you don't like how it looks in the light of day, you shouldn't have written it, should you? Coward.
Actually, he's proving Okrent's point all over again. He's sunk so deep in his partisanship he literally can't see that what he wrote deserves the treatment it got. "But Bush is bad, and the Times sucks up to him, and they're all against me!" (*froths*)
posted by languagehat at 12:18 PM on October 11, 2004
But he didn't send a "letter to the editor"--he sent an email to the reporter, and apparently the author responded back privately. There is a big difference.
posted by amberglow at 12:39 PM on October 11, 2004
posted by amberglow at 12:39 PM on October 11, 2004
The fact that Okrent actually said this proves he knew he was taking private correspondence and making it public: Maybe the bloggers who encourage their readers to send this sort of thing to The Times might want to ask them instead to say it in public. I don't think they'd dare.
He doesn't think they would dare, but then he takes that private correspondence and puts it in his column without even contacting the author? That makes it ok?
posted by amberglow at 1:17 PM on October 11, 2004
He doesn't think they would dare, but then he takes that private correspondence and puts it in his column without even contacting the author? That makes it ok?
posted by amberglow at 1:17 PM on October 11, 2004
*sends nasty emails to NYTimes*
*later uses anger as excuse*
*profits*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:41 PM on October 11, 2004
*later uses anger as excuse*
*profits*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:41 PM on October 11, 2004
Listen, the guy was certainly rude to send the hostile email to the reporter. But, you know, that's what happens when you're a reporter. From Okrent's article, you'd think that reporters weren't used to getting this kind of static from readers all the time. Newsflash: they are.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:03 PM on October 11, 2004
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:03 PM on October 11, 2004
In today's paper, he gets Todd Gitlin (for the left), and Bob Kohn, (for the right), to respond to his piece.
posted by amberglow at 7:46 AM on October 17, 2004
posted by amberglow at 7:46 AM on October 17, 2004
« Older I love elephants | A damning legacy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This kinda sums up the basic problems for me: Unquestionably, individual articles, headlines or photographs do cast one or another candidate in a colored light, either rosy or dark. Headlines are especially toxic because of their reductive nature. Eric Kessin of Scarsdale, N.Y., wrote to say that the Friday, Sept. 2, headline "Jobless Figures Could Emphasize Bush's Big Weakness" might as easily have read "Jobless Figures Could Emphasize Bush's Claim of Economic Growth." He was right and, in fact, the Saturday story was headlined "Job Figures Help President Promote Economic Record"
So, which is it? It's really not both, and their failure to see and report that honestly that is very telling and disappointing.
posted by amberglow at 9:32 AM on October 10, 2004