HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The NY Times has been inf...

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:10 AM

 

The 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 Rollout’s Stumbles Draw Parallels to Bush’s 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.

19 replies, 2339 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 19 replies Author Time Post
Reply The NY Times has been infiltrated by insane people (Original post)
MannyGoldstein Nov 2013 OP
octoberlib Nov 2013 #1
MannyGoldstein Nov 2013 #2
octoberlib Nov 2013 #3
G_j Nov 2013 #12
octoberlib Nov 2013 #13
G_j Nov 2013 #14
uponit7771 Nov 2013 #17
libdem4life Nov 2013 #4
n2doc Nov 2013 #5
BelgianMadCow Nov 2013 #6
Mass Nov 2013 #7
Sunlei Nov 2013 #8
Puzzledtraveller Nov 2013 #9
Skidmore Nov 2013 #10
ProSense Nov 2013 #11
cali Nov 2013 #15
ProSense Nov 2013 #16
cali Nov 2013 #18
ProSense Nov 2013 #19

Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:14 AM

1. False equivalency. That has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:19 AM

2. "While it's true that Republicans eat babies, some sources report that

 

many Democrats have returned library books late."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:26 AM

3. Ha!

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” But would that cult still rule in a situation as stark as the one we now face, in which one party is clearly engaged in blackmail and the other is dickering over the size of the ransom?

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 won’t 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




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:55 AM

12. cult of balance

http://fair.org/slider/the-rise-of-establishment-reporting/

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 president—Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt and Eugene Debs, all but President William Howard Taft—made 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..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to G_j (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:18 AM

13. Interesting article! Thanks for posting. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:28 AM

14. Krugman

Last edited Fri Nov 15, 2013, 11:04 AM - 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 favoritism—the “cult of balance” as Paul Krugman (New York Times, 7/29/11) termed it—compromises 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.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:50 AM

17. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 12:32 AM

4. Polls show ... "We all do it." Nothing to see here.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:17 AM

5. That together with the washington Post's overt support of a racist columnist

How the mighty have fallen. They didn't even need to be bought out by Murdoch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:22 AM

6. And still, a NYT source link is considered exquisite in LBN, whilst RT

isn't allowed for being state-owned and biased. It's why I stopped posting in LBN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 07:58 AM

7. Welcome to modern media

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:18 AM

8. do they pay those 'News Analysis' writers 20 cents for every 99cent paywall click they bring?

at least one grad. from the class of 2010, how to be an 'R political writer' got a job!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:20 AM

9. Indeed, ACA, Katrina

Stupid comparison. What's the purpose of making a comparison anyway. The admin has already admitted it was far from perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:21 AM

10. Jon Karl on ABC this morning just trotted out a milder version of that.

The Koch brothers must have gotten the talking points out early.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Original post)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 08:51 AM

11. "Look, I'm no fan of the President"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:35 AM

15. and you are a fan of the President. So what?

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 09:47 AM

16. Yes, I'm a "fan" of the President.

"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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 10:02 AM

18. your "point" had nothing to do with the op or anything else but your

 

prism. and there was nothing in my post that should have elicited such a nasty response from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 15, 2013, 10:09 AM

19. Calling it how I see it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread