Post by Frank Pittel: >
: > : The New York Times is not a left-wing rag, you moron.
: >
: > Actually it is a leftwing rag.
: You are a complete and utter idiot.
You're the moron that believes that the nytimes is anything but a leftwing rag.
Hey moron, it is not a particularly left wing newspaper (it has both
liberal and conservative columnists). See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times> and
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/business/media/12douthat.html> for
a recent hire of a conservative columnist.
BTW, the New York Times was founded by the second chairman of the
Republican National Committee. It has on occassion been accused
of having a conservative bias, although many think it has a liberal
slant (which is quite different from being a leftwing rag).
From the wikipedia article:
The Times has been variously described as having a liberal bias
or described as being a liberal newspaper,[67][68] or of having a
conservative bias on certain issues or by some writers.[69][70]
and
"According to a 2007 survey by Rasmussen Reports of public
perceptions of major media outlets, 40% believe the Times has a
liberal slant and 11% believe it has a conservative slant.[72] In
December 2004 a University of California, Los Angeles study gave
the Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most
conservative and 100 being most liberal.[73] The validity of the
study has been questioned by various organizations, including the
liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America.[74] In
mid-2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel
Okrent, wrote a piece in which he concluded that the Times did
have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues such as
gay marriage. He claimed that this bias reflected the paper's
cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a
hometown paper of New York City. Okrent did not comment at length
on the issue of bias in coverage of "hard news," such as fiscal
policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties, but did state that
the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was insufficiently critical
of the George W. Bush administration.[75]"
and
For its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides
have claimed that the paper is biased in favor of its
opponent.[76][77][78] However, as public editor Clark Hoyt
concluded in his January 10, 2009 column, "Though the most
vociferous supporters of Israel and the Palestinians do not
agree, I think The Times, largely barred from the battlefield and
reporting amid the chaos of war, has tried its best to do a fair,
balanced and complete job — and has largely succeeded."
It is definitely not a "rag".