0
   

Liberial Bias from the NYT.

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 08:04 am
Please read carefully...

Quote:
Statement by Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org Political Action Executive Director, Resolving the New York Times Ad Rate Issue



WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In the Public Editor
column of today's New York Times, the Times' vice president admits that,
without the knowledge or consent of MoveOn.org Political Action, the Times
"made a mistake" in charging MoveOn its standby rate of $65,000 for the
advertisement run on Monday September 10. According to the Public Editor,
the Times' vice president admitted that the company's advertising
representative "failed to make it clear that for that rate the Times could
not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the
understanding that the ad would run then." According to the Public Editor,
"the group should have paid $142,083."
Now that the Times has revealed this mistake for the first time, and
while we believe that the $142,083 figure is above the market rate paid by
most organizations, out of an abundance of caution we have decided to pay
that rate for this ad. We will therefore wire the $77,083 difference to the
Times tomorrow (Monday, September 24, 2007).
We call on Mayor Giuliani, who received exactly the same ad deal for
the same price, to pay the corrected fee also.
The Public Editor's column makes crystal clear that at no time did
MoveOn have any reason to believe that it was receiving from the Times
anything other than the normal and usual charge for the advertisement. And
there is no evidence of any kind that the error in quoting of rates was in
any way based on the content of the advertisement or the identity of its
sponsor. Of course, MoveOn believed that it was engaged in an arms length
negotiation regarding advertising rates with the Times and assumed that it
was being quoted advertising prices consistent with the Times' usual and
normal charge.
MoveOn continues, of course, to stand by the content of the
advertisement and to urge citizens and their elected representatives in the
Congress to focus on the continued dishonesty of the Bush Administration
and the American blood and treasure being lost in a war for which the
Administration has no exit strategy. Certainly that issue is more worthy of
the attention of the electorate and the media than the mistake of an
advertising representative or the wording of an advertisement.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-23-2007/0004668013&EDATE=
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 08:58 am
Okie, Kerry smeared the entire military? That was Bush's stupid shot at Kerry, who worked over Gen. Betrayedus. The latter and Bush are jeapordizing the military by keeping them in the middle of the Iraqi civil war.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 09:01 am
And we should be impressed because...........
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 09:02 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
How desperate does one have to be to use lying liar Michelle Malkin as a source?




http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/Michelle_Malkin2.gif

Bookmark
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 09:02 am
woiyo wrote:
And we should be impressed because...........


We?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 09:28 am
Roxy, that brings to mind the enlisted man who blew the whistle on Mai Lai. He was roundly attacked by the military, notably Colin Powell.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 02:56 pm
guess we'll see if giuliani does the right thing and sends in the balance for a full pop ad rate, hmm?

tick-tock paisan...
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 04:54 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Lightwizard wrote:
... 10% beef.


in any case, there's some percentage of bull involved.

and of course there's absolutely zero bias from the murdoch media outlets, townhall, weekly standard etc.

apparently the nyt gave equal deference to moveon and rudy.

so what's the real complaint ?

some people just didn't like the message that moveon put out there.

too bad.

where's that love of the first amendment, that republicans seem to think they have sole ownership of btw, now? or is it that free speech is only good when you like what is said?

what about that respect for service men and women ?

don't dare to question patraeus, but it's okay for that idiot schmidt to label murtha a coward ?

oh, don't you dare question bush's record, but give full backing to o'neill and his allegations against kerry? that's okay, right?

hell, that's better than okay, he deserves it. jesus, just look at the guy.. he looks so effin' french..

yeah. that's real logical. and fair. and balanced.

john mcain= good. max cleland= bad.

it's okay. i get it. politics is a dirty, and getting dirtier business. you like your guys and don't like the other guys. that's what makes a horse race.

what's not cool is pretending that the whole realm of spin, tilt or any other media manipulation is the sole property of any one party or demographic.


This is the typical sort of claptrap one hears whenever the Times is accused of bias.

Of course FOX, National Review, Weekly Standard et al have a bias. That's the point...they all have a bias.

Does the fact that some will deny the bias of "conservative" media outlets mean you can't admit the Times is biased?

You know, no one is keeping score. You won't hurt "The Team" if you acknowledge a liberal bias where it exists.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 06:04 pm
Regarding the Move-On ad, the Times should have realized that Gen. Betrayedus and the troops are delicate flowers who just can't handle any criticism.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 06:31 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
You know, no one is keeping score. You won't hurt "The Team" if you acknowledge a liberal bias where it exists.


not being on "the team", as you say, i have nothing to lose in that department.

problem is, i don't see the nyt as being particularly left leaning.

keith olberman ? hell yeah. now that's liberal bias. that doesn't necessarily mean he's always wrong though.

tomato-tahmahto.

the real story on this thread is that, in this case, the nyt actually offered moveon, rudy and freedomwatch the same rate.

looks like parity to me.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 06:38 pm
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 10:22 pm
finn said:
Quote:
Of course FOX, National Review, Weekly Standard et al have a bias. That's the point...they all have a bias.


Therefore, there are no real facts about the world, merely opinions built upon or verified by nothing more substantial than bias of partisan ideology.

Therefore, the Weekly Standard and Al Jazeera have equal worth or credibility or grasp of the truth of things.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 11:42 pm
blatham wrote:
finn said:
Quote:
Of course FOX, National Review, Weekly Standard et al have a bias. That's the point...they all have a bias.


Therefore, there are no real facts about the world, merely opinions built upon or verified by nothing more substantial than bias of partisan ideology.

Therefore, the Weekly Standard and Al Jazeera have equal worth or credibility or grasp of the truth of things.


that's why reality is thought to have a liberal bias.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Sep, 2007 11:49 pm
kuv and blatham... good stuff. Cool
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 05:00 pm
blatham wrote:
finn said:
Quote:
Of course FOX, National Review, Weekly Standard et al have a bias. That's the point...they all have a bias.


Therefore, there are no real facts about the world, merely opinions built upon or verified by nothing more substantial than bias of partisan ideology.

Therefore, the Weekly Standard and Al Jazeera have equal worth or credibility or grasp of the truth of things.


I love it! Blatham arguing for absolutism, and against post-modernist relativism.

In actuality there are very certainly facts about the world. The issue is whether or not the media is able to report those facts in a straight forward manner and without any sort of over-arching (blatant or subtle) bias.

In my opinion they are not.

There are outlets that try very hard to do so (The News Report), and there are others (NY Times) that take the position that they exist to affect the news, and not simply report it. In the case of the latter, bias is a given.

Comparisons of opinion journals (Weekly Standard) and news sources (NYT and al-Jazeera) are off base. One should understand that when reading an op-ed piece that the "op" part stands for "opinion."

There is a hankering among those on the right and (I believe) the left for a news source that will report only the facts of the world and allow its consumers to draw their own opinions. Here come the knee jerk scorn reaction but...FOX News makes a fairly decent effort to actually be "fair and balanced" Of course FOX News is not Fox Opinion ie O'Reily, Hannity (or Combs) or Cavuto.

And even within it's Opinion arena, it makes a greater effort to present a Liberal counter-point (Juan Williams, Allen Combs, Neal Gabler et al) than the other networks.

Watch FOX News Sunday when they feature e-mail from viewers. Arguably the majority of viewers have a conservative bias and so the "con" e-mails probably out number the "lib" e-mails by at least 3-1, and yet each week Chris Wallace reads e-mail from either side of the spectrum.

Enough defending Achilles to the Trojans. I expect all sorts of smarmy, would-be clever retorts based upon the premise that FOX is really The Satanic Observer, but try and mount a reasoned and supported response.

In any case...Yes, all media outlets are biased to one extent or another. This is to be expected. What is assanine is for Liberals to argue (in any way shape or form) that clearly biased outlets like: NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, LA Times, Atlanta Constitution, etc etc etc are NOT biased.

Hey Kuvy...

Reality has no bias. The cogency of the ideology of the Right and the Left is how close the approximate Reality. Leftism is, and will ever be in fantasy land.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 05:15 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
kuv and blatham... good stuff. Cool


Purely an observation, but it certainly appears the "liberal" posters on A2K run in packs as opposed to their "conservative" counter-parts.

Maybe this is an extension of the "It Takes A Village" mind-set...It take a village of Liberals to counter a conservative.

I'm OK with it, as it gives me more choices, but it is interesting.

Sure, there are example of conservative pile ons, but if you are honest you will agree that the conservatives on A2K rarely even acknowledge each other's comments let alone praise and jump off on them.

Something to do with the "rugged individualist" ethos perhaps.

No value judgments here, just an observation.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 06:47 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
kuv and blatham... good stuff. Cool


Purely an observation, but it certainly appears the "liberal" posters on A2K run in packs as opposed to their "conservative" counter-parts.

Maybe this is an extension of the "It Takes A Village" mind-set...It take a village of Liberals to counter a conservative.

I'm OK with it, as it gives me more choices, but it is interesting.

Sure, there are example of conservative pile ons, but if you are honest you will agree that the conservatives on A2K rarely even acknowledge each other's comments let alone praise and jump off on them.

Something to do with the "rugged individualist" ethos perhaps.

No value judgments here, just an observation.

Or perhaps you are just oblivious to it when cjsha, okie, mysteryman, McG amongst others get their self congratulations groups going.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 06:53 pm
I just about busted a gut laughing when i read that "rugged individualist ethos" horseshit. You can't make **** like that up . . . that's just precious . . .
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 06:59 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
kuv and blatham... good stuff. Cool


... pile ons...


you consider my comment a "pile on"?
i thought conservatives were rugged individuals, dude. Laughing

as far as the travelling in packs thing... you may want to reflect on what has happened over the last few years to not only liberals and centrists, but also conservatives who go off the rez.

chuck hagel comes to mind.

and back on topic...

i don't seem to remember the right complaining about the nyt when judy miller was pimpin' the iraq war for the administration.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 10:11 pm
The thesis of corporate media liberal bias is nonsense, unsustained by even elementary analysis.

Whether they're called liberal or conservative, the major media are large corporations, owned by and interlinked with even larger corporations, they sell a product to a market.

The market is advertisers, that is, other businesses. The product is the audiences. For the elite media that set the basic agenda to which others adapt, the product is, furthermore, relatively privileged audiences.

So we have major corporations selling fairly wealthy and privileged audiences. Not surprisingly, the picture of the world represented reflects the narrow and biased interests and values of the sellers, the buyers, and the product.

The media are only one part of a larger doctrinal system: other parts are journals of opinion, the schools and universities, academic scholarship and so on. We are much more aware of the media, especially the prestige media, because those who critically analyze ideology have focused on them.

The doctrinal system, which produces what we call propaganda when discussing enemies, has two distinct targets. One target is what is sometimes called the political class, the roughly 20% of the population that is relatively educated more or less articulate, playing some roll in the decision making. Their acceptance of doctrine is crucial because they are in a position to design and implement policy.

Then there are the 80% or so of the population. These are, as Walter Lippmann wrote "spectators of action", whom he referred to as the "bewildered herd". They are supposed to follow orders and keep out of the way of the important people. They are the targets of the "real" mass media: the tabloids, the sitcoms, super bowl, and so on.

These sectors of the doctrinal system serve to divert the unwashed masses and reinforce the basic social values:

The Holy Posture of Right Wing behavior:

Passivity
Submissiveness to Authority
The Overriding Virtue of Greed and Personal Gain.
The Lack of Concern for Others.
Fear of Real or Imagined Enemies, etc
.

The goal is keep the bewildered herd bewildered.

It is unnecessary for them to trouble themselves with what's happening in the world. In fact, it is undesirable ---if they see too much of reality they may set themselves in charge.


You aren't stupid, Finn, in fact of the denizens on the Right who haunt a2k you appear the least non-intelligent, but you are just brainwashed into thinking that this is all there is. Meanwhile, you attack those who believe differently, that there is more going on beneath the surface because you know deep down its true. But, psychologically you can not deal with the idea that you've been fooled.

Those Liberals whom you attack on a2k represent something much deeper and more fearful to your allies- freedom, unconventionality, and experimentation in a materialistic, capitalistic society. We have the appearance of being Free men.

Which is why whenever I read the nonsense you guys write I think of this dialogue from Easy Rider

Quote:
George: You know, this used to be a helluva good country. I can't understand what's gone wrong with it.

Billy: Huh. Man, everybody got chicken, that's what happened, man. Hey, we can't even get into like, uh, second-rate hotel, I mean, a second-rate motel. You dig? They think we're gonna cut their throat or something, man. They're scared, man.

George: Oh, they're not scared of you. They're scared of what you represent to 'em.

Billy: Hey man. All we represent to them, man, is somebody needs a haircut.

George: Oh no. What you represent to them is freedom.

Billy: What the hell's wrong with freedom, man? That's what it's all about.

George: Oh yeah, that's right, that's what it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it - that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. 'Course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom, but they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.

Billy: Mmmm, well, that don't make 'em runnin' scared.

George: No, it makes 'em dangerous.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 05:10:52