Should the Times have hired a climate denialist (among other problems) for the Op Ed page?
So annoying. Don't forget they were big cheerleaders for the Iraq war. I wanted to cancel my subscription after the Democratic primary where they boldly shilled for Hillary Clinton who lost to an orange psychopath. But I like to get my news from multiple sources, so although I've lost respect, I still check up on what they have to say. I gave them an earful though and they gave me a cheaper rate and I stayed. I guess I'm easily bought. Maybe you are too. Call up the subscription department and discuss.
meh. I'm not sure they're worth a dollar of my money or more than a few minutes of my time every month. I get enough from my free articles. (though there are simple ways around the paywall. shhh.)
Though it still amuses me that you call them a shill for Hillary, when they clearly were one of the press organs most responsible for unfairly demonizing her.
But that's another thread. 
How awful that the Times should have some diversity of opinion on its Op-Ed pages! Must not be allowed.
I loved the days in the 90's when The New York Press was run by the obnoxious Russ Smith but he published as regular columnists both Alexander Cockburn and Christopher Caldwell. It was the best read around.
drummerboy said:
meh. I'm not sure they're worth a dollar of my money or more than a few minutes of my time every month. I get enough from my free articles. (though there are simple ways around the paywall. shhh.)
Though it still amuses me that you call them a shill for Hillary, when they clearly were one of the press organs most responsible for unfairly demonizing her.
But that's another thread.
Yes another thread--but you are sooooo wrong. Paul Krugman alone got her tons of votes. They were horrible to Bernie--even changed an article when they thought it was too positive. They would be critical in the title but as you read it they would get more positive. It was manufactured consent and it was deliberate. Yet, I'm still a suscriber. They are already pissing me off with the coverage on Syria. I've had to ignore some of it.
Yes. Diversity of opinion.
Where are the flat-earthers???
p.s. Issues of science do not allow for "opinion". At least not from an authoritative sinecure.
ska said:
How awful that the Times should have some diversity of opinion on its Op-Ed pages! Must not be allowed.
I loved the days in the 90's when The New York Press was run by the obnoxious Russ Smith but he published as regular columnists both Alexander Cockburn and Christopher Caldwell. It was the best read around.
Nan,
The Times has been anti-Clinton since they made up the Whitewater "scandal".
Did you see the front page of the Times after the Comey letter came out?
No one, ever, has had such a negative front-page devoted to them. Ever. They wrote stories based on the Bannon-financed "Clinton Cash" book, which was full of supposition but no evidence. I could go on for pages here.
If you had to point to any one news source that damaged her more, you couldn't find one.
and not for nothing - Krugman is a columnist and is clearly a partisan, so you shouldn't be surprised that he favored someone over the other. And two - Krugman is not the NYT. And theree - for every vote garnered by Krugman, I guarantee she lost two from the rest of the Op-Ed crown, especially clowns like Kristoff, Bruni and Dowd and from stories like I pointed out earlier.
I think, especially in the early days of his campaign, the Times definitely treated Bernie unfairly. But treating one guy unfairly doesn't automatically mean they're shilling for the other. The day to day coverage of Hillary was atrocious.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
meh. I'm not sure they're worth a dollar of my money or more than a few minutes of my time every month. I get enough from my free articles. (though there are simple ways around the paywall. shhh.)
Though it still amuses me that you call them a shill for Hillary, when they clearly were one of the press organs most responsible for unfairly demonizing her.
But that's another thread.
Yes another thread--but you are sooooo wrong. Paul Krugman alone got her tons of votes. They were horrible to Bernie--even changed an article when they thought it was too positive. They would be critical in the title but as you read it they would get more positive. It was manufactured consent and it was deliberate. Yet, I'm still a suscriber. They are already pissing me off with the coverage on Syria. I've had to ignore some of it.
Hey, idiots need their POV represented too
drummerboy said:
Yes. Diversity of opinion.
Where are the flat-earthers???
p.s. Issues of science do not allow for "opinion". At least not from an authoritative sinecure.
ska said:
How awful that the Times should have some diversity of opinion on its Op-Ed pages! Must not be allowed.
I loved the days in the 90's when The New York Press was run by the obnoxious Russ Smith but he published as regular columnists both Alexander Cockburn and Christopher Caldwell. It was the best read around.
Do we need to help Ska understand the difference between science and opinion?
drummerboy said:
Yes. Diversity of opinion.
Where are the flat-earthers???
p.s. Issues of science do not allow for "opinion". At least not from an authoritative sinecure.
ska said:
How awful that the Times should have some diversity of opinion on its Op-Ed pages! Must not be allowed.
I loved the days in the 90's when The New York Press was run by the obnoxious Russ Smith but he published as regular columnists both Alexander Cockburn and Christopher Caldwell. It was the best read around.
drummerboy -- I read every article during the primary and it was clearly biased to Clinton. I know someone who used to work there and it was confirmed that was the intent. When you read the articles closely they pointed you to support for Clinton over Bernie, who they based endlessly. Of course they reported on her subsequent scandals, but they probably thought she could not possibly lose to an orange psychopath. They were cluless and in a bubble.
If anything, the NY Times was way too easy on Trump during the campaign. They normalized his actions and words on a regular basis.
yahooyahoo said:
Do we need to help Ska understand the difference between science and opinion?
drummerboy said:
Yes. Diversity of opinion.
Where are the flat-earthers???
p.s. Issues of science do not allow for "opinion". At least not from an authoritative sinecure.
ska said:
How awful that the Times should have some diversity of opinion on its Op-Ed pages! Must not be allowed.
I loved the days in the 90's when The New York Press was run by the obnoxious Russ Smith but he published as regular columnists both Alexander Cockburn and Christopher Caldwell. It was the best read around.
People absolutely have the right to express opinions that are contrary to science. And that is not a right that should be limited in any way.
Then everyone else has the right, and I would say the obligation, to tell them they are full of sh t.
But we should not say they should be denied a forum to express their opinion.
ska said:
But we should not say they should be denied a forum to express their opinion.
Who's denying him anything? Two weeks ago his forum was the Wall Street Journal. His articles appear in Time magazine, has been on CNN on numerous occasions, has written 2 books and runs a popular personal website and twitter feed with over 70,000 followers. No one is entitled to write op-eds for the NYT, it's not a right. It's simply a business decision that the NYT decided to take, much like when they hired Bill Kristol.
No one is required to like it either.
I don't care if someone gets a platform to spout nonsense. But as a subscriber to the NYT, I don't like paying for nonsense on their op-ed page. Unfortunately with Dowd and Brooks, there's already plenty of foolishness. So for them to add one more in the name of "balance" is dismaying.
ridski said:
ska said:Who's denying him anything? Two weeks ago his forum was the Wall Street Journal. His articles appear in Time magazine, has been on CNN on numerous occasions, has written 2 books and runs a popular personal website and twitter feed with over 70,000 followers. No one is entitled to write op-eds for the NYT, it's not a right. It's simply a business decision that the NYT decided to take, much like when they hired Bill Kristol.
But we should not say they should be denied a forum to express their opinion.
No one is required to like it either.
Just to add - not only is he not denied a forum, but he's getting paid for his factually-challenged views.
I just hope he doesn't declare himself some kind of martyr when there's a reader backlash, whether via letters or however.
I guess we are not going to bring back the days of Anthony Lewis and Russell Baker.
Or is there someone who can "Make the New York Times Great Again"?
ridski said:
No one is entitled to write op-eds for the NYT, it's not a right. It's simply a business decision that the NYT decided to take, much like when they hired Bill Kristol.
I was about to compare a business decision to hire Bill Kristol to Ford Motor's decision to create the Edsel, but Ford didn't know beforehand that the Edsel was destined to fail.
maybe hiring Kristol was the NYT's attempt at invoking the Costanza Rule.
Apparently the Times is pushing back on the claims that he is a climate change denier.
And they're not very convincing.
wedjet said:
Apparently the Times is pushing back on the claims that he is a climate change denier.
https://thinkprogress.org/new-...
Sad!
drummerboy said:
And they're not very convincing.
wedjet said:
Apparently the Times is pushing back on the claims that he is a climate change denier.
https://thinkprogress.org/new-...
What did you find noteworthy, Paul, in those tweets by Bruce Bartlett?
When I go to the gym at the Summit Y, I have occasion - the only occasion, actually - to see both Fox News and CNN. The difference in coverage is stark. While you can argue that CNN has a reporting bias, they do, in fact, cover news that a lot of CNN viewers would rather not see. Fox News, on the other hand, is not even biased. With the exception of an occasional dissenting reporter, you might as well rename Fox News to Trump News. This is an example of the way in which people like Trump and Ailes are destroying any sort of middle ground and it makes it hard for responsible news sources to remain somewhat balanced.
Fox News has been a direct arm of the Republican party since it's inception.
tjohn said:
When I go to the gym at the Summit Y, I have occasion - the only occasion, actually - to see both Fox News and CNN. The difference in coverage is stark. While you can argue that CNN has a reporting bias, they do, in fact, cover news that a lot of CNN viewers would rather not see. Fox News, on the other hand, is not even biased. With the exception of an occasional dissenting reporter, you might as well rename Fox News to Trump News. This is an example of the way in which people like Trump and Ailes are destroying any sort of middle ground and it makes it hard for responsible news sources to remain somewhat balanced.
DaveSchmidt said:
What did you find noteworthy, Paul, in those tweets by Bruce Bartlett?
I like the elegance in which Bartlett strikes at the heart of what the Times has done.
Here's a more detailed reaction to Stephens's column by climate scientist Joe Romm, which I also find noteworthy:
https://thinkprogress.org/the-...
[Excerpt]
The Stephens column proves three things:
1. Bret Stephens doesn’t understand the first thing about climate science (and he provides no actual facts to support his claims).
2. The Times’ editorial page staff overseeing Stephens apparently also doesn’t understand climate science.
3. Editorial page editor James Bennet was not telling the truth when he told Huffington Post last week that the opinion side of the Times applies the “same standards for fairness and accuracy.”
Indeed, the basic errors in Stephens’ piece are so basic it is stunning that the New York Times published them — especially in the Trump era, where the paper advertises itself as a defender of truth.
The bigger crime is that the NYT hired another crappy writer for the op-ed pages.
tjohn said:
When I go to the gym at the Summit Y, I have occasion - the only occasion, actually - to see both Fox News and CNN. The difference in coverage is stark. While you can argue that CNN has a reporting bias, they do, in fact, cover news that a lot of CNN viewers would rather not see. Fox News, on the other hand, is not even biased. With the exception of an occasional dissenting reporter, you might as well rename Fox News to Trump News. This is an example of the way in which people like Trump and Ailes are destroying any sort of middle ground and it makes it hard for responsible news sources to remain somewhat balanced.
CNN has more diversity of opinion than Fox, but MSNBC has less, in my opinion. Tucker Carlson, who has taken over O'Reilly's slot, features at least one "debate" segment every show.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
Multi Family Garage Sale Sale Date: Apr 20, 2024
More info
No.
Time to cancel my crossword subscription...
Some samples from the guy just given one of the most powerful platforms on the planet.
http://fusion.net/the-best-of-...