General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe NY Times has been infiltrated by insane people
First, an editorial endorsing the Trans Pacific Partnership. Which is bizarre on many levels: it's secret, and what little we do know about it is awful.
Now I see this:
Health Law Rollouts Stumbles Draw Parallels to Bushs Hurricane Response
Look, I'm no fan of the President, but it's insane to compare the ACA stupidity with the staggering evil of Bush's indifference and incompetence in the face of disaster. "Heckuva job, Brownie!"
My favorite paper has been hijacked by crazy people. I thought that was all over after Howell Raines and Judith Miller were cast off a decade ago, but I guess not.
Perhaps Krugman can grab some friendlies and take the thing back.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)many Democrats have returned library books late."
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)The answer, it turns out, is yes. And this is no laughing matter: The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters wont punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/opinion/krugman-the-centrist-cop-out.html?_r=4&hp
G_j
(40,372 posts)The Rise of Establishment Reporting
How a crisis in journalism led to the cult of balance
By John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney
A crisis in journalism lasted from the 1890s until the 1920s. Party-driven journalism had disintegrated, the increasingly lucrative and powerful newspaper magnates ruled their independent empires and exercised considerable political power, and the pursuit of profit sometimes led to an incredible, even appalling, journalism. Mounting public anger and dissatisfaction with the journalism of this era produced what became the first great existential crisis for journalism.
The problem at its core was that a relatively small number of very powerful newspaper owners dominated their communities and states, and a handful of them had national empires. Market economics was pushing toward more concentration and ever less competition. As even the publisher of the Scripps-owned Detroit News argued, in private, in 1913, the corrosive influence of commercial ownership and the pursuit of profit were such that the rational democratic solution would be to have municipal ownership of newspapers.
In view of the explicitly political nature of newspapers in American history, this was not as absurd a notion as it may appear today. Scripps, always the most working-class-oriented of the major chains, even launched an ad-less daily newspaper in the 1910s, because it saw how commercialism undermined the integrity of the news.
By 1912, three of the four candidates for presidentWoodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and Eugene Debs, all but President William Howard Taftmade the irresponsibility and corruption of the daily press a theme of their campaigns. The world of newspapers had turned upside down in three decades.
..more..
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Last edited Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:04 PM - Edit history (1)
This obsession of professional journalism to play it strictly down the middle between the two legitimate parties, to avoid at all costs the charge of favoritismthe cult of balance as Paul Krugman (New York Times, 7/29/11) termed itcompromises the rigor and integrity of where political analysis would go if it simply followed the evidence without fear or favor. Krugman defined the cult of balance as the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. If one party declared that the earth was flat, Krugman stated jokingly, the headlines would read Views Differ on Shape of Planet.
Krugman on the "cult of balance": "If one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'"
Ari Melber (PBS.org, 9/5/12) wrote, For years, Americans political press has been stuck in a fact-free model of neutrality, often covering even the most obvious lies as one side of a dispute.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)n2doc
(47,953 posts)How the mighty have fallen. They didn't even need to be bought out by Murdoch.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)isn't allowed for being state-owned and biased. It's why I stopped posting in LBN.
Mass
(27,315 posts)The first article has been their position for years, so no surprise.
The second one is beyond stupid, but the title is incorrect, which brings the question of who writes the titles (not the writers).
It should be "Bush's former officials compare rollout to Katrina. Democrats disagree" because this is what the article is about.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)at least one grad. from the class of 2010, how to be an 'R political writer' got a job!
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Stupid comparison. What's the purpose of making a comparison anyway. The admin has already admitted it was far from perfect.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)The Koch brothers must have gotten the talking points out early.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Must you see everything through that prism? Why are you making this personal with Manny, instead of responding to the point he's making? It appears as if you're trying to discredit the OP for reasons that are... baffling. His op defends the President and points out the ugly false equivalency employed by the NYT.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Must you see everything through that prism? Why are you making this personal"
From the person who fans the flames of DU wars, and post nothing but "personal" attacks, this is beyond laughable.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024033408#post36
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024033408#post39
I made a point based on the OP's own admission.
cali
(114,904 posts)prism. and there was nothing in my post that should have elicited such a nasty response from you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)You have no room to accuse anyone of "personal" attacks or "nasty" responses.
The post wasn't "nasty." It was a point of fact since you decided you somehow have moral authority to make such accusations, especially when it was nothing of the sort.