Do you read the NY Times with a more skeptical eye now?

[AlCzervik]

ok i love Frank Rich, Krugman, Bob Herbert and sometimes Dowd but i am more skeptical of some of their coverage now, maybe i shouldn't be but i am. Bob Herbert doesn't get enough face time of tv.

[Seansky]

1. i cancelled my subscription and only read those extract posted in

here, raw, or huffington

[AlCzervik]

2. becasue of Millers coverage in the run-up to the war or becasue of

the Plame case or some other reason?

[Seansky]

6. because I don't see a sign that they are doing their job or have

been doing it for years now. I actually cancelled it before we heard real info from the leak or from the war. I actully thought they had assume the responsibility by 04 just to see them fail over and over again via the lack of real info I heard people say they weren't writing about after I cancelled....I think they lost their position in the world of journalism before the war started.

[liberalnurse]

5. Same here. I won't support the propagandist.

I hope everyone cancels.

[Armstead]

3. I have to admit I was wrong

A few times on here in the early days of the buildup and war, I criticized people for being too "tin hat" in criticizing the Times coverage by saying the paper was just acting as a mouthpiece for the administration.

I naively believed that while I didn't agree with their coverage, that the Times was at least an honest news outlet that was above pushing the administration's agenda.

Turns out I was wrong, and those with tin hats were correct. The Times whored out.

As a result, I do have much more distrust of them than I used to.

[NNN0LHI]

22. It takes a stand up person to do what you just did. I admire you n/t

[AllieB]

4. Ever since they were leading the pro-war cheering squad

I have taken them with a hug grain of salt. Thankfully, they still have some real journalists working there, but their image is forever tarnished by the Judith Miller debacle.

[cynatnite]

7. If they would cut Judy Miller loose...

they might regain some sense of credibility. As long as she continues working there, she'll be a ball and chain to that paper, IMO.

I was planning on subscribing, but won't unless they get rid of her.

[Cookie wookie]

8. I first began to distrust the Times during the

Clinton impeachment debacle. I watched almost every minute of the Judiciary Hearings (on CSPAN so it was direct), then would read what the Times reported and it was clear that they were making misleading statements or just plain giving false information on what was happening. I stopped reading them except for their editorials, Krugman and sometimes Dowd, and some of their articles on electronic voting, there were some good ones (meaning truthful). They did print a letter from Florida's SOS that was dishonest, though. Whatever. Thinking we can read news from sources that have some truth mixed with some lies is like thinking we can put a drop of ink in a glass of water and all the water won't be tainted.

[gumby]

9. Canceled my subscription (propaganda prescription)

during the Gore/Bush campaign. :puke:

[peacetalksforall]

10. They performed a grand disservice to the country in the 1990's - you

know why.

My skepticism started during Iran-Contra. They conveniemtely started ommitting damaging evidence to the WH after an initial barage of detail - especially in regards to Khashoggi and other WH partners and dealings. They along with few other newspapers will not address the drug runs and trades associated with Iran-Contra.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. I read everything with a skeptical eye-

including DU, LU, The Nation, DailyKos, and I am "even" skeptical of Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Ed Schultz, Al Franken, Jerry Springer, etc.

I may rely more on Krugman and Franken and The Nation, and less on, say John Tierney or David Brooks or Bortz, or Ann Coulter and even less on Bill O'Reilly -- but nobody is 100% right, 100% of the time on 100% of the issues -- not even the late Fred Rogers. (Altho, Groucho, Harpo, and Chico came close - they were the "Al Franken" and "SNL" of my generation)

I was always taught to read widely, broadly, deeply, "compare and contrast."

Isn't that what an education is all about?

[AlCzervik]

12. yes, i was skeptical before but i trust it even less now.

[NYCGirl]

15. Bravo! One of the best answers I've seen here in a long time. NT

[Coastie for Truth]

16. And I don't even have a librul arts education

I am an engineer (from the pocket protector and holstered slide rule era) - and picked by mandatory liberal arts electives by where the cutest girls were.

[NYCGirl]

18. Yes, but sometimes those "librul arts" educated folks don't have a shred

of common sense.
;-)

[ClintonTyree]

13. I won't read the New York Times at all now.

Judas Miller is still employed by them. Until that witch is fired I will have nothing to do with the Times.

[kurth]

14. I read it because I get it free - but

I don't believe a damn thing in it - especially their exclusive "news stories" planted by the right wing. They lost my trust years ago with their anti-Clinton garbage.

The progressive columns by Dowd, Krugman, et al. are great. David Brooks makes them look like geniuses.

[Mend]

17. Canceled my subscription in 2000 and now, for some

odd reason, we are getting the Wall Street Journal for free in our mail. I am using it for dogs to go on in the garage until our fenced yard is repaired...it came down during Wilma. We find the WSJ more absorbent than the NYT but wouldn't buy either on a bet. When we had puppies, we located the recycling dumpster and got it for free.

[otohara]

19. Canceled Because of ProWar, Judith, Friedman, Safire

and until Miller is gone, won't even consider resubscribing

[punpirate]

20. Anything having to do with the government, themselves...

... or their advertisers should be treated with considerable skepticism--and not just from events in the last two or three years. Coverage of Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee's case, the meatier days of Iran-Contra, the run-up to the Gulf War, the 2000 campaign, all left a good deal to be desired in the way of both reporting honesty and investigative quality.

To my mind, the Times has been running on its reputation for a long, long time.

[the_real_38]

28. Ever read Howard Zinn?

In People's History of America, he documents the many instances in the past century-plus when the Times held the line for The System. The fact is, certain principles are considered sacrosanct for the Paper of Record - that when the country goes to war, we must get on-board, that the globalized economy is good (and no question that it isn't should be entertained), that the system works because every now and then a corrupted government official or CEO is indicted or goes to jail (though I'm guessing that's way less than 1% of the time). In fact, the New York Times has always sought what it considers a reasonable common denominator, and has narrowed the list of acceptable topics in the general public debate. They've become, unwittingly or no, accomplices in the process.

[punpirate]

31. Yes, I have...

... and they did much the same with the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Vietnam war vote--they editorialized in favor of an expanded war in that region.

As far as globalization and the Times, how else does Thomas ("give war a chance") Friedman survive in his capacity there? Because his bullshit is agreeable to them.

Cheers.

[NNN0LHI]

21. I avoid it like Newsmax n/t

[Nite Owl]

23. NYT were the ones that first reported on the

Whitewater 'scandal' before Clinton was even elected and they spent a fortune 'investigating' it for nothing. They aren't a liberal paper and haven't been in a very long time.

[La Coliniere]

24. I lost all respect for them when they aimed to

take down Al Gore in 2000. They did all they could to make him look like a dishonest POS. Yeah, some great editorialists and essay writers on staff. That doesn't make up for their larger MO. They are NOT the bastion of liberal thought they are constantly accused of. They are a corporation out to make a buck. They will kowtow to power in a heartbeat.

[marions ghost]

25. Been skeptical a LONG time....

:thumbsdown:

The New York Times occasionally has some decent columns but it is not for those who really want news. It's been part of the corporate spin machine for too long. However maybe readers will be less fooled by 'journalists' like Judith Miller in future. Not only did Judy bring the Times down even lower than ever, but she cheapened the meaning of the Pulitzer Prize. This episode clearly shows how bad things are at what once was a leading American newspaper. The heyday of the NYT is over IMO.

[sandnsea]

26. Question literally EVERYTHING

Left, right, middle. Everybody has an agenda. Question it all.

[Coastie for Truth]

27. That's the business plan.

Years ago there was a canned set of lesson plans for teaching Bronislaw Malinowski's economic anthropology classic "Argonauts of the Western Pacific" (RPI, CMU, CWRU, etc.) -- and the first 4-6 weeks were "compare, contrast, question, criticize, and analyze" a whole bunch of totally and completely inconsistent references of a wide range of scholarly quality (and I'm an engineer, not an economist or anthropologist - and this was at an engineering school). One of the best critical reading classes I ever had.

Today, with so much in the print media, the 24 hours news cycle, and the blogosphere (and DU, LU, CU, FP, P4C, etc.) that model is an absolutely necessary survival skill.

[Bouncy Ball]

30. Those are all higher order thinking skills on

Bloom's Taxonomy. Classic scale taught to all education students.

That does sound great. Would that every kid had the same thing on their reading level.

[Coastie for Truth]

34. Plus Print Media, Broadcast Media, College Media,

Blogosphere, DU, LU, CU, FR, etc.

Everyone has an agenda.

But in order to see the subtlety of their agenda you have to read widely, contrast, compare, analyze, dissect, and then apply your own life experience, knowledge, education, biases, prejudices, judgment, and AGENDA.

[Bouncy Ball]

29. I eye all media skeptically, anyway.

No one gets a free pass from me.

[Coastie for Truth]

32. Heck

I am even much more skeptical about some DU appenders and some college newspapers.

[Julius Civitatus]

33. As long as the NYT is led by Howdy Doody, it will remain a mess

Artur Sulzberger (photo) is an incompetent idiot, a complete moron who got his job because he inherited it from his father.

He would have never become the publisher of the NYT on his own. As long as he remains in charge of the newspaper, they will remain suspect. The guy is a blithering dumbass.

[Tatiana]

35. Not only the NYT but WaPo also.

Dana Milbank and Steno Sue are right up there with the best mediawhores.

[Coastie for Truth]

36. I also read DU with a much more skeptical eye now, too

1. www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=103467&mesg_id=103638


2. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x103699

[No Exit]

37. The whole newspaper/media bias thing is much simpler than

it first appeared to me. I used to think that some reporters' ideology sometimes caused them to be biased.

Now I know that it's really just a matter of their being paid. */Cheney pay them, and they in turn print or broadcast what */Cheney want printed or broadcast.

Elegant in its simplicity, it is.

[No Exit]

38. I mean, Judith Miller was on the */Cheney payroll, plain and simple.

[1932]

39. Forero, Wilgoren, Nagourney...names should be synomous with grain of salt

as in, take what they say with a grain a salt since they certainly appear to have not-so-sublte biases they like to interject in their work.

[Crunchy Frog]

40. Have for a long time.

I like all of the abovementioned columnists, but of course, they've gone out of their way to make sure that their columns will be as inaccessable as possible. Sort of like making a little sound proof chamber in which they can howl at the moon all they want and most people won't ever even see what they have to say.

To me, Judith Miller is the face of the NYT, and the presence of really good but effectively muzzled columnists does nothing to alter that fact.