How well do you feel the New York Times has provided adequate news?

[mikelewis]

I am in contact with a person from the New York Times. I would like to send to him your opinions on how well they have been doing. Please provide constructive critism and refrain from using vulgarity, if you can.

The issues I would like to focus on are:
1) 9/11
2) The war in Iraq
3) Civil liberties
4) Election Fraud
5) Election Fraud
6) More Election Fraud

Feel free to post comments on any topic that you feel they have reported on. Also, if you know of any topics that they have reported well, please state this.

I will send him this information on Friday.

*****Edited to remove the smiley faces*******

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Maybe if they fire Judith Miller

they will begin to regain some of their credibility. As long as they continue to cover up the wrong doings of the Bush administrations, they are traitors to democracy and the American people as far as I'm concerned.

[Ian David]

3. The New York Times should have learned these lessons already

Back in the 1930s and 1940s, the NYT knew about Hitler's Holocaust in Germany.

Fearing that they would be seen as a "Jewish newspaper" if they made too much noise about it, the NYT covered the story, but in vague way, buried deep within the paper. I think I remember hearing that the concentration camps never made it past page 8 in the NYT until everyone else was covering it.

I forget where I read this, so corroboration or refutation is welcome.

[greenmutha]

2. Ha! My answer is:

D. None of the above.

<sarcasm>

[Clark2008]

4. Ask them why it's a "major" news story

when 22 percent of the voting population say they voted for "moral values," even though the news organziations then dismiss that particular exit poll because it said Kerry won.
Then ask them why that 22 percent is more "stablized" and wearing less tin foil than the 20 percent who believe there was election fraud.

They keep dismissing election fraud, out of hand, but, what it makes them seem to me is less a Bush tool and more lazy - too lazy to study the information; thereby calling us all "conspiracy theorists" because they simply don't "get it."

[bunny planet]

5. How timely. I just sent the public editor an email informing him of the

reasons I will no longer be subscribing to the paper.
No#1 reason, tepid and dismissive coverage of the election fraud and disenfranchisement of millions of Americans.

[dzika]

6. "Democracy’s unbound when the media fails"

This person published an interesting analysis of one of the latest NYT articles on Election Fraud:

Regarding an article published in the New York Times:
12/25 - Recounts and Partisan Bickering Tire Washington Voters
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/national/26gov.html

December 26, 2004

Democracy’s unbound when the media fails

"...That’s it for their evidence of what ‘Washington voters from other countries’ thought: the cabdriver. One voter becomes many. Did they add that while returning to the office in the cab, to file the story?"


Link:
http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2004/12/26/democracys-unbound-when-the-media-fails/

[creeksneakers2]

7. The New York Times is the best news source left in America

I read it all the time. No other paper matches the depth. They do a great job of publishing stories the corporate media doesn't bother with. I can find more good lib stuff in the NYT than I can at Democratic Underground. There is some great conservative stuff there too. The Times has proved very reliable for me. They've made mistakes, but fewer than any of the other news sources,

Please tell the folks at the Times to keep doing what they are doing. As much as the far left doesn't like it.. I listen to the RW propagandists complaining about the Times almost every day. That shows they are doing something right.

[bunny planet]

17. I used to feel the same way about the paper creeksneakers2 but not

anymore. They spent much more time and considerably more effort covering every dirty little smear story 'the vast right wing conspiracy' threw out about Clinton than they have covering the very real criminal (in my opinion, and millions of others) activities of the present administation.

Even when they attempt to do an indepth series of articles on a subject, say the explosives missing from the Al Qua' qua munitions dump in Iraq, a very important story indeed, as soon as they run up against any conservative confrontation or challenge they seem to back down, and not push the story past a very short news cycle.

The lead-up to the election was a case in point. They could have been relentless in their coverage, not partisan, just reporting the truth, instead they ran with lots of mediocre opinion pieces masquerading as journalism, with reporters like Jodi Wilgoren and Adam Nagourney standing out as the most insipid of the bunch of non-muckrakers.

The New York Times still has the potential to be a great paper, but they have been way too concerned with giving the appearance of being un-biased. Simply disseminating (sp.?) the truth should not involve so much compromise. In exchange, they've given up a lot of the power they might have to make a difference, and sacrificed credibility (with me anyway) as to their stature as 'the paper of record' and tarnished their reputation as a great liberal, voice in the media. They seem to be running from that reputation, rather than embracing it. In these dark times, not to sound overly dramatic, that fails those of us who care about the fourth estate and free speech.

We don't have access to real news reporting in the ubiquitous, mainstream, conservative media, all the more reason for the New York Times to take up the slack.

[bobbieinok]

26. lead up to Iraq War coverage 'very reliable'???

[Pithy Cherub]

8. The issue is not the stories you have listed, but the treatment of those

stories from sterotypical or opinion viewpoints. The use of language to subtly smear or enhance consistent themes is prevalent in their reporting. Additionally, they should speak to their accuracy rate and more editorial transparency. what viewpoints are represented by which constituencies in the editorial meetings. The main issue is that the paper is riddled with groupthink and independence or contrarian viewpoints must do something outrageous or specatcular to offset the preset agenda. In other words, the NYT has no distinction for excellence.

Did that help? :)

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. The New York Times has been treasonous to the citizens of our country.

They have acted in collusion with this Administration to distort and hide the truth.

They have presented the "official story" of 9/11, as opposed to uncovering and reporting the real facts behind it.

They were cheerleaders leading up to the war in Iraq, and Judith Miller was a patsy when it came to promoting it in reference to the WMD hoax.

Civil Liberties.... they do seem to love to discuss report on the new technologies that are bringing be brother deeper into our lives.

Then yes, vote fraud, vote fraud, vote fraud... they seem to get their toes wet, and when the water gets to hot (perhaps afraid of an anthrax attack?) they pull their toesies out.

One of the biggest crimes committed to us by this sociopathic administration is the crime they committed a week after 9/11. The EPA issued a report that was edited by the White House. They claimed it was safe for people who lived and worked by ground zero to return. There was never any data in to say it was safe. Since then, thousands of people are afflicted with respiratory disorders. Many are now on disability and are unable to work. For this alone the Times should be charged with treason. For not screaming on the top of their lungs that this occurred.

[KnowerOfLogic]

23. I must concurr. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

10. I recently cancelled my subscription because of their reporting and

what I consider their slanted coverage of the news starting with the impeachment of Clinton.
On a couple of occasions, I have gotten sarcastic and/or nasty letters back when I have written letters to the editor or to D. Okrent commenting on their coverage.
I participated in the Womens' Rights March in Washington DC last April. There were over 1 million people there. Their coverage was pitiful.
Their stories on the Kerry/Bush campaign were always slanted toward Bush.
The debate coverage was ridiculous.
Did they actually cover anything about the voter fraud? Gee, I didn't even notice.
The only reason I kept the subscription as long as I did was for the crossword puzzles and the Paul Krugman opeds.
When Krugman went on vacation, that was it, I cancelled.
They have lost all credibility and respect as high quality source of information.
They have no value whatsoever as a source of good investigative reporting.
Instead of being a leader they have become a follower. If I wanted that, I would buy the Daily News.

Just had to add the name Adam Nagourney to the list of reporters that should go back to Journalism school and learn what the profession is really about.

[Stephanie]

40. I cancelled my subscription due to David Brooks

That they allowed that pathological liar to parade around disguised as a moderate conservative when he is in fact the SPOKESMODEL for the neocons who brought you this Iraq war was too much to take. That they allow him to LIE endlessly and outrageously finally forced me to cancel the NYT home delivery which I had had for years. Even the weekend. Fuck them. The paper is twee and self-involved and irrelevant.

[Stephanie]

42. Here is my reply to Brooks' column about PNAC which was all LIES

Regarding this column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/06BROO.html

From this old thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=998284

David Brooks hasn't yet "apologized" for the LIES he wrote
Edited on Thu Jan-08-04 09:01 PM by Stephanie

Several DUers received an "apology" from David Brooks via the NYT ombudsman in response to their complaints. The apology is wholly inadequate. I'm reposting this from the other thread because I am still in a rage over this.

His "apology" only addresses the complaints about his outrageous accusation of anti-Semitism against those who criticize the neo-cons.

He fails to apologize for the deceptions that comprise the entire piece.

+++
It was about people who imagine there is a shadowy conspiracy behind Bush policy. Second, I explicitly say that only a subset of the people who talk about the shadow conspiracy find Jewishness a handy explanation for everything. I have no idea how large a subset that is, but judging from my e-mail it is out there.

"So I was careful not to say that Bush or neocon critics are anti-Semitic. I was careful not to say that all conspiracy theorists are anti-Semitic.
+++

The TERM "conspiracy theorists" applied in this case is derogatory and false. His APOLOGY includes more insults!

The FACT is that the neo-cons' agenda is guiding this disastrous administration, and the NAME neo-conservative comes from THE NEO-CONS THEMSELVES.

+++

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0028740211.01._PE_PIdp-schmoo2,TopRight,7,-26_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

+++

Brooks, is the SPOKESMODEL for the neo-cons. William Kristol was his BOSS. Who thinks he's not still working for him? I'm livid that the Times hired him. The op-ed piece was nothing but slick deceptions:

+++
...all these articles began appearing...
+++

He doesn't source any of them. He fails to note that the PAPER HE IS WRITING FOR has published many of the leading articles about the neo-cons, their background, and their influence in the Cheney/Bush administration. Here are a FEW of the articles Brooks won't name:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=990526&mesg_id=990526


+++
Theories about the tightly knit neocon cabal came in waves. One day you read that neocons were pushing plans to finish off Iraq and move into Syria.
+++

Calling plans for follow-up invasions "theories" is truly deceptive, when the plans were promoted by the neo-cons themselves. This is not theory, this is fact:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former CIA Director James Woolsey said Wednesday the United States is engaged in World War IV, and that it could continue for years.

<snip>He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the "fascists" of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda.

"As we move toward a new Middle East," Woolsey said, "over the years and, I think, over the decades to come ... we will make a lot of people very nervous."

So to report on the neo-cons' speeches and writings is to spout conspiracy theories. HST was right: We'll just tell the truth and they'll think it's hell.

+++
The full-mooners fixated on a think tank called the Project for the New American Century, which has a staff of five and issues memos on foreign policy.
+++

The staff may number five, but the writers of and signatories to the "Reports" and "Publications" ("memos" is misleading) PNAC has produced include prominent members of the current administration including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Bolton and others. Click on these documents - look at who signed them:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.h...

By the way Brooks, are you going to apologize for calling informed readers "full mooners"? And WTH does that mean anyway? Are we pagans? Werewolves? And why, because we watch CNN?

This one's a gem:

+++
There have been hundreds of references, for example, to Richard Perle's insidious power over administration policy, but I've been told by senior administration officials that he has had no significant meetings with Bush or Cheney since they assumed office.
+++

Perle chaired the Defense Policy Board, until he was demoted to mere member of the Board due to his outrageous conflicts of interest (advising companies on how to profit on the imminent Iraq invasion while agitating for the invasion at the same time). The Board MEETS in the Pentagon.

If you could slip past the soldiers toting M-16s at the door, the Pentagon's 17 miles of corridors ...

So it was alarming when one secret agency's work spilled into the open recently, only to be dismissed by almost everyone involved. Meeting last month in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's private conference room, a group called the Defense Policy Board heard an outside expert... http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/08.22A.war.council.htm <Time Magazine>

Also, note the word "significant" - he's had meetings with Cheney/Bush, they just weren't - according to Brooks' "senior administration officials" - "significant" meetings.

+++
All evidence suggests that Bush formed his conclusions independently.
++

A whopper. The whole world knows Bush has never formed a conclusion about anything in his life aside from what time to go beddy-bye. Please provide all that "evidence."

+++
The proliferation of media outlets and the segmentation of society have meant that it's much easier for people to hive themselves off into like-minded cliques.
+++

See the above linked list of news articles about PNAC. If readers and viewers of the NY Times, Nightline, the New Yorker, the London Guardian, Le Monde and USA Today are members of a "clique" then Brooks is a vegan anarchist.

This one really takes the cake, though. Brooks tries to get away with comparing apples to oranges. Where is the NYT ombudsman?

+++
Vince Foster was murdered. The Saudis warned the Bush administration before Sept. 11.
+++

The Foster case was thoroughly investigated and determined to be a suicide. September 11th has NOT been thoroughly investigated yet, two years later, because the Bush administration refuses to cooperate and has in fact impeded the investigation every step of the way. We don't know yet whether the implication about the Saudis is true. It certainly has not been proven false. Release the 28 pages. Release the August 6 briefing. Then we might know. In the meantime Brooks' attempt to equate the two is an outrage.

There is one true statement in the piece:

+++
Partisanship has left many people unhinged.
+++

Clearly. Get a grip, David.

[Demit]

11. I cancelled my subscription after 2 things: the post-election editorial

in which they said with a straight face that Bush could "leave a magnificent legacy", and the "As Fast as Blogs See Vote Fraud, Web Is Proving Rumors Wrong" story a week later. The second was the most slanted obvious irresponsible piece I had ever seen in the Times. I felt that the paper had tipped its hand, finally--that it was demonstrating its obeisance.

I emailed them: "Listen, if you need to pander to this inept and dangerous man and his corrupt administration and their naked sneering hubris, you can do it without my dime."

Then I cancelled my subscription, and I haven't looked back.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Herre's a great source for some valid criticism of the NYTimes reporting

http://www.dailyhowler.com/archives-2004.shtml?

[Mend]

13. The NYT is an appalling paper.

After reading it most of our lives, we canceled the paper when it went on an unending attack of the Clinton administration, re-upped it this past October and canceled it again after five awful days. Instead of investigative reporting, critical reasoning, and judgment, they are accommodating the republicans and think that we, the educated liberals, will put up with their muck for old times sake. They haven't covered the topics you list, they haven't covered corporate power, the loss of jobs, the torture, the loss of separation of church and state, the erosion of women's rights, and the bush administration as truly the greatest threat to democracy this country has ever faced. If they would go back to honest journalism, find their courage and integrity, and stop worrying about karl rove, we would reassess this paper, but now it is pathetic beyond the telling of it.

[candice]

14. N.Y. Times coverage

9/11 coverage was superb in my opinion, although was there any mention about the "leadership"' of G.W. (My Pet Goat) Bush? No sacrifices were asked of the American people. There was no understanding of why we might be a target. Just go shopping and burn more non-renewable oil. Hardly the response of a great American President, one that one would feel any confidence in, but then he was selected by a partisan Supreme Court. The media made him a "contender"--he "won" debates with Gore just because he didn't fall on his face (as he did in debate 1 with Kerry).

The war in Iraq? Are there any reporters who actually go there? Seems minimal, and the did the Times show coffins, cover military funerals, show the New England Journal of Med photos of war injuries in the field? What about coverage of refugees in Fallujah?

As for election fraud, what "election fraud"? Have they noticed Ohio? Seems the Times is a toady to the Bush Administration. Why did they decide to cover Teresa Heinz Kerry's homes (in an article about Kerry's wealth-by-association the Sunday before the election? No one bothered to investigate Bush's bulge during the debates, or to emphasize the blue-blooded credentials of Shrub. Did they expose the Swift Boat Liars. The medical coverage of Kerry proved he had shrapnel in his thigh--was that a lie, too?

All in all, less than brave coverage in what is supposed to be the Fourth Estate, but not as pathetic as most of the printed media.

[candice]

15. Forgot to add

I subscribe to the Sunday paper (live in California) and got my mother to subscribe to the Saturday/Sunday Times in her area. The Times is better than the alternative, but a democracy need better papers to remain a democracy.

[Quakerfriend]

16. I used to read the NYT with such joy!

I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. I recall being on an island off the coast of Colombia, SA several years ago and being desparate for some news......I found a 2 day old copy of the Sunday NYT on sale for $7. It made my day! Dont't read it at all now. So sad, I never thought they'de turn. I suppose it's just a matter of who is pulling the strings. Who would want to be a journalist in these times?

[Pooka Fey]

18. I'm extremely disappointed in the news coverage of the NYT

and I will not renew my subscription. I live in AZ, we have appalling papers here. I was hoping for some REAL NEWS. Well, it is slightly better than the AZ Republic. However the NYTimes is still very much a mouthpiece for the republican party agenda, it spends far too much column space on celebrity and social gossip, and there is far too little coverage of international news.

Here is an example of the right wing spin of the NYTimes. In this Sunday's arts section, in a column about why Broadway pit orchestra musicians are being cut to the bone, the article ends by saying it is JUST a sign of the times (Glenn Miller had a 23 piece orchestra, and rock bands have only 4 pieces). Am I to believe it has nothing whatsoever to do with investors and owners wanting to maximize their profits at the expense of the working man or woman?

[proudbluestater]

19. My responses on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being best

The issues I would like to focus on are:
1) 9/11 10
2) The war in Iraq 7
3) Civil liberties 2
4) Election Fraud 0
5) Election Fraud 0
6) More Election Fraud 0

I understand that reporters in today's society are only allowed to report on stories that the publishers say they can report on. I have the distinct impression they would LIKE to report on vote fraud, but are not being allowed to. The reason I say this is, over the weekend they ran a slew of letters to the editor about vote fraud, which they didn't have to do.

Possibly their "minders" were on a European vacation for the holiday and that's how the letters "slipped" in.

[borealowl]

20. The 2000 media recount

The New York Times was dishonest in its coverage of its own recount of the Florida ballots cast in the 2000 presidential election. The paper had promised CLEARLY that it (and its partners in this endeavor) would count ALL the legible ballots and that the story would NOT be about what would have happened if the Supreme Court had not intervened (a story the Miami Herald had already run) but instead would be about what the VOTERS intended. And remember they only looked at the "legal" ballots. There were tens of thousands of "spoiled" ballots, which another Herald story had already said would have given Gore the election by, if I recall right, about 20,000 votes, based on statistical analysis of the precincts where these spoiled ballots occurred.

The newspaper consortium counted all the votes, and by any consistent "chad" standard, Gore WON. But apparently the Times and its partners, including the Wall Street Journal, were not brave enough to run that headline. So instead they said Bush would have won. If you read the fine print, what they did was IGNORE the new Gore votes they had found in Broward and Palm Beach, on the grounds (this was in the fine print of at least one article, but generally omitted) that those counties would not have been recounted again in the Florida Supreme Court ordered recount. But remember, Republicans were systematically "challenging" every five Gore ballots or so during the publicized "recount", and there was also a big fracas interfering: which all added up to lost Gore votes, which were found again by the consortium...

The Wall Street Journal had a little game you could play using different chad standards, and every way you played it, Gore won. Because the game included ALL the ballots, and didn't leave out some from Palm Beach and Broward! But the Wall St headline, like the Times', said Bush would have won.

And remember, this story when it was touted beforehand was explicitly supposed to NOT be about what would have happened if the Supreme Court had not intervened, the consortium had PROMISED it would be about WHAT THE BALLOTS SAID.

And that was just the leftover ballots, not the ones that were pre-punched for Bush and therefore "overvoted," or the Palm Beach ballots where voters were tricked into voting for Buchanan.

Furthermore, if the story had been HONESTLY about "what would have happened if the US Supreme Court had not intervened," Gore STILL should have won, because the Florida judge in the case had ordered that the OVERVOTES, the ones where a voter, for example, had written Gore's name and also filled in the oval for Gore, should be counted too (those were legal ballots showing voter intent under Florida law). And when you counted all THOSE and added them in, Gore won.

So to recap, EITHER way Gore won. If you counted ALL the "legal" undervotes in Florida by any chad standard, Gore won the recount as determined by the newspaper consortium. OR if you hypothesized as to what might have happened if the US Supreme Court had not intervened, Gore won, because in that case, you'd have to add in the legal overvotes.

In order to make it out like Bush would have won (this story was delayed and delayed and finally came out shortly after 9/11), the Times had to come out with a VERY peculiar scenario, under which the legal overvotes were NOT counted, AND under which the newly found votes in Palm Beach etc. were also NOT counted (in real life, of course, given all the litigation maneuvers, Florida might well have wound up recounting those two counties as well even though it wasn't in the initial Florida Supreme Court order).

I hope you followed this. It is a tangled web, and most people never really followed what happened because it was so confusing. It was MEANT to be confusing. It was the most deceptive, dishonest story I've ever seen in the New York Times.

[borealowl]

21. more about the Times

More generally, it's ODD that the Times isn't covering the 2004 possible election fraud story at least somewhat better. The story is absorbing millions of citizens, if you judge by my friends, many of whom seem to be following all the twists and turns of what is going on in Ohio, on the web. Not finding an article in the Times on the Conyers hearings the next day was startling. After all, C-Span had it live. The Times ran a dozen pre-election editorials about potential voting problems but when real problems occurred, they were dismissive, or mum altogether. Even though they know that people now have the ability to follow these things on the web, and therefore that many will start questioning the Times' commitment to "all the news that's fit to print."

In Florida 2000, aside from their peculiar way of telling their own recount story (which cost them a good deal of money to conduct, considering what poor use they made of it) they also ignored Greg Palast's faux felon story, which should have been front and center. Long afterwards, in retrospect, they referred to what happened with those voting rolls in passing, as if they HAD covered it. It would have been easy enough to put two and two together: the tens of thousands of people Choicepoint removed from the rolls because their names were similar to the names of possible ex-felons; and the thousands of long-time voters arriving at their precincts on election day and finding themselves no longer listed on the rolls. I once encountered a long-time elections worker from Miami who said that the election was clearly rigged and that's how it was done, primarily--people were arriving at their polling place, found themselves no longer registered, and there was no recourse for the elections workers--you couldn't get through to the busy phones at HQ, and if you did get through, HQ was unhelpful.

Had the Times covered that one story correctly, maybe we wouldn't be quite so Waist Deep in the Big Muddy now.

The Times in 2000 did run stories about the election of course; one for example about differential treatment of overseas/military ballots, one about overvotes in Duval County, and so forth. In the case of the overseas ballots the Times consulted some expert who concluded that the number of ballots involved would not have changed the election result (close, however!). The paper never added up the ballots involved in their different Florida stories. And their language in talking about all this was so convoluted.

It's like two completely different newspapers - the editorial page and the news page. On the inside, they editorialize against Bush's "disastrous" administration; on the front page, they kowtow. The inside scoop on their internal dynamics would be most interesting!

I've had a love/hate relationship with that paper for a long time. It's certainly not the newspaper it was a few decades ago. But they do run Paul Krugman!

[KnowerOfLogic]

22. Please. First they sell the Iraq war like a box of soap, then they ignore

the election fraud story, even though there is TONS of evidence to at least warrant an investigation and some serious coverage. The inescapable conclusion is that the NYT values kissing the bush administration's ass more than it does telling the truth about issues of the highest possible magnitude.

[LittleClarkie]

24. There was an article in Friday's NYT about the Dem debate over abortion

They mentioned Donna Brazile and Howard Dean's comments on the issue and how it should be reframed within the party.

The part I took exception to, though, was that the reporter mentioned John Kerry as being perceived as unconcerned by this issue without recognizing that he too has been part of the dialog along with people like Donna Brazille and Howard Dean.

For one thing, Senator Kerry has identified himself as personally pro-life, but not willing to legislate that belief. And for another, he has also made appearances similar to the ones discussed by the article, such as this one highlighted in Newsweek:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6700571/site/newsweek/

Anxiety Over Abortion
Pro-choice Democrats eye a more restrictive approach to abortion as one way to gain ground at the polls
By Debra Rosenberg
Newsweek Dec. 20 issue - The week after Thanksgiving, dozens of Democratic Party loyalists gathered at AFL-CIO headquarters for a closed-door confab on the election. John Kerry dropped by to thank members of the liberal 527 coalition America Votes. When Ellen Malcolm, president of the pro-choice political network EMILY's List, asked about the future direction of the party, Kerry tackled one of the Democrats' core tenets: abortion rights. He told the group they needed new ways to make people understand they didn't like abortion. Democrats also needed to welcome more pro-life candidates into the party, he said. "There was a gasp in the room," says Nancy Keenan, the new president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

It might have sounded shocking, but John Kerry isn't alone in taking a new look at how the party is handling the explosive topic of abortion. As Democratic strategists and lawmakers quietly discuss how to straddle the nation's Red-Blue divide, abortion has become a prime target. "The issue and the message need to be completely rethought," says one strategist. Along with gay marriage, abortion is at the epicenter of the culture wars, another example used by Republicans to highlight the Democrats' supposed moral relativism. Polls show that most Americans support legal abortion, yet they also favor some restrictions, particularly after the first trimester. Strategists say that's where many Democrats are, too—the public just doesn't know it. With pro-life Sen. Harry Reid newly installed as Senate minority leader, Democrats are eager to show off their big tent.

I guess I don't understand the perception that Kerry is unconcerned by this issue. I'm not saying that Bush voters didn't see him that way, but I still don't get it, at least not the perception of him in particular.

I was going to write a letter to the editor, but this will do.

Perhaps I'm just sensitive to Kerry being scapegoated for the loss in areas and for beliefs that are not exclusive to him. The debate over pro-life vs pro-choice Democrats is a party issue, and Kerry actually stands a bit to the right personally and to the left professionally.

[garybeck]

25. NYT sucks. Period.

They are worse than the right wing papers because they have the guise of appearing to be liberal when in fact they are covering up a huge story. It taints their entire reputation for everything they do.

[thatcoloredfella]

27. NYTimes Scorecard

Mike,

The two most important issues to me have been Iraq and the Election Fraud.

I give the Times a B+ on Iraq. Tom Friedman is a must read, however as far as what is not being reported elsewhere, they've been a reliable, informative source.

As for their Election Fraud coverage, I sense I was one of those regular readers/registered web members whose emails (plural) browbeat them into an appeasement article. I also think the racial aspect of the voting machine evidence - the most credible pieces of voter suppression - are being overlooked purposely.

At this juncture, if they're looking for some kind of legal deliberation - say a Ken Blackwell deposition - I can understand their continued hesitance. However, I'd like some reassurance that the bizarre, beyond suspicious, incriminating and obstructionist behavior of one Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, has not been lost on them?

[Beth in VT]

28. Their coverage of Dean was deplorable.

The reporter assigned to him was incompetent, a style reporter I believe.

[EFerrari]

29. Mike, you may want to point out that the same week the NYT

was dismissing us "internet conspiracy bloggers", the CEO of the AP was in Hollywood giving a keynote to journalism students on the need to keep up with the internet.

Probably the most important thing the Times can do to survive as the "paper of record" is to be the first to establish an openly productive relationship with the net -- instead of continuing the private mining and the public derision which isn't working for them now.

[krag]

30. The Lies of Our Times

The New York Times is an absolute disgrace. I consider it the house propaganda organ of the DLC.

If you want news, you go to DemocracyNow.org. If you want a pompous, self-deluding infotainment experience carefully edited to make sure you the reader remain in the dark as to what is really happening in this country and this world, read the New York Times.

[seaclyr]

31. Gutless ever since 9/11

I canceled my subscription soon afterwards. Really can't say it was great before...

[malatesta1137]

32. is this for real?

if it is, tell your friend that the NYT is one of the most corrupt corporations in human history. It has blood in their hands. They are, for instance, partly responsible for the death of thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqis. They have been war profiteers for decades now

The paper is a vicious tool of mass-murdering corporate America.

[mikelewis]

39. Actually, you'll be telling him... I am sending him the entire post

[EFerrari]

51. Nice going! n/t

[The Flaming Red Head]

33. I have to disseminate outright fabrications from sort of half-truths

when I read the NYT, so I have almost quit reading them with the exception of scanning the headlines and looking in the business section for trends and mergers.

[Doctor O]

35. Why isn't the mainstream media covering election fraud?

Because despite the millions of words written here, the hundreds of thousands of emails filling their email servers, Jesse Jackson and his speeches, hundreds of statistical comparisons,and John Conyers unofficial investigation, there has been no hard evidence of a coordinated conspiracy or hard evidence of election fraud.

There are plenty of smoking guns, but no hard evidence yet.

This is the type of story that earns people Pulitzer Prizes, makes a reporters career, makes them revered and honored among their peers, makes them rich.

If they had a shred of HARD evidence that they could latch on to (and a number of these reporters have access to the exit polling data), they would be all over this. even Keith who has been the MSM journalist who has reported this more than any other seems to have backed away.

After Rathergate, reporters and newscasters are going to think long and hard before they jump on a story WITHOUT HARD EVIEDENCE of guilt. Perhaps this is why Rove set Rather up. Pre planning on how to keep the press in check.

If Kerry is not beating the drums, no one is going to listen.

[The Flaming Red Head]

54. They've executed people in the US with less evidence than this

Hell, they've started wars with less evidence than this. They impeached Clinton with less evidence than this.

All with the help of the MSM and FOX.

(The only network outlet I'll watch anymore, not counting cable is Dan Rather and CBS. Rathergate is bullshit, what about the faked documents about WMDs that led to this horrible never ending war, now that's a story. What about the Novak's treason, now that's a story)

[mark-in-cincy]

34. dropped them for lack of coverage of NYC war protest in 2003

I used to faithfully get the Sunday edition but dropped our subscription after that one big day of protest back in 2003. It was the big NYC weekend protest that was co-ordinated with protests from around the world.

In the edition that was delivered to Cincinnati, OH, there were only two sentences that mentioned the protest in NYC. They devoted many pages to the protests from around the world (est. at 10 million). I couldn't believe it so I went through the paper with a fine tooth comb and truly only two sentences. I found more on the NYC protests in their on-line site. Puzzling why they would edit out coverage to the Cincinnati edition?

I wrote their ombudsman but never got a response on why they choose not to report on the massive action in their very own city. I could only come to the conclusion they wanted to downplay to the world and to at least Cincinnati that Americans were against the proposed war in Iraq.

It was probably more of the straw that broke the camel's back. I'd also been very disappointed at how they were reporting protest numbers. Headlines mentioning "10's of thousands" when other mainstream new sources reports put numbers at 150,000 to 200,000 really bothered me. That sort of reporting showed some serious bias in my estimation.

mark-in-cincy

[BarbinMD]

36. The NYTimes...

...is simply a glorfied wire service, IMO. They don't seem to bother to actually investigate stories or follow up on anything. They simply print whatever Bush and/or his administration has to say without ever bothering to refute obvious lies, ask any questions, etc. I read Krugman online and that's about it for that formerly great newspaper.

[roenyc]

37. According to the right its

the most liberal rag out there. but i dont see it that way. in the past they dragged Clinton through the mud and broke the whitewater non-story. but look the other way with this administrations foul ups.

i am so jaded at this point with all press that is mainstream that i dont expect it to be honest or tell me the truth.

i just go to the times for the headlines. scan over it for vote fraud. find nothing of interest that i cant find in any other paper and then go to Maureen dowds editorial. i am never disappointed. its the best thing about the NY Times. oh i only read it on line and i occasional will pick it up on Sunday, like when they had the full color pic of Kerry. of course the next week they did the bush cover. fair and balanced! dont want fox counting how many times you said abu gharib.

What the NY Times needs to do is report the news the way it is. if there is a question regarding the official story of 9/11 and Eliot spitzer has been issued a thing -- it needs to be reported. and not a blurb on page 24. front page with all the questions that the 9/11 commission refused to answer.

that is not conspiracy or tin hat. that is just black and white fact. and should be out there.

same with the vote in Ohio. They will say its a non story because Kerry isn't speaking and there is no way it will change the outcome. and let me tell you i am tired of the double message myself. So maybe thats not their fault. i dont know.

just know that i dont believe anything i read in their paper. i get my news from the web.

[planetc]

38. Oh, thank you, Lord, thank you!!!

I am experiencing a rush of gratitude at this apparent opportunity to communicate with anyone in any position at all at the New York Times. Frankly, I think that if we had the Times' custodial staff on the phone, 100% of them would agree with us that they think the election was rigged. The people we want to talk to are higher up the pecking order and would classify themselves as editors and journalists.

All right, I'm going to play this straight, since I have read the Times daily since 1973, the summer of Watergate (if 1972, I apologize)--in that summer, you could get the transcript of the committee hearings every day in the Times, and from no other readily available source.

1) So, the Times' coverage of 9/11:

As reportage on a community disaster of the first magnitude, the coverage was superb. The individual brief bios of each of the victims were heartrendingly heartbreaking--they made us proud through our tears to be living in the same country with the victims. The coverage of the mechanics of the collapse of the towers, and analysis of the possible causes, and timelines of the events of that morning, were graphically very well done.

Any followup on the causes of the attack itself and the many unanswered questions remaining about unscrambled jets and fifty other questions, has remained ... unfollowed.

2) The war in Iraq: Ms Miller believed what she was told by one person. The Times published, and deservedly got large gobs of egg on its face. Since in the run up to the war, I already didn't trust one word the Bush administration said, I really didn't follow the story in the Times. The editorial minds of the Times seem unable to grasp the simple principle that anything the Bush administration tells us about anything needs to be triple checked.

3) Civil Rights? Has the Times covered civil rights recently? Have they covered dozens of issues important to the working men and women of the country? I rest my case.

4), 5), 6): Vote Fraud: The Times has covered the issue by characterizing the complainants as tinfoil-hat-wearing loonies. They have done the work of the Bush administration for it, as they did the work of the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party from 1992 onward.
If the Times could conceive of this as a *question of fact*, not of opinion, it might make some progress on providing the kind of coverage it thinks it provides. EITHER the election was stolen, by a) blatant vote suppression in many places, especially Florida and Ohio, and b) by electronic manipulation of the votes as they were cast on e-voting machines, or manipulation of tabulated vote totals in *hundreds* of precincts in tens of states, OR none of this happened.

Evidence that a) happened litters the landscape. You would just have to go out an pick it up.
Evidence that b) happened has not yet been certified as evidence in a court of law or other authoritative body, but the indicators that something very widespread and very bad happened are strong. There is EVERY reason to believe that the Republicans stole the presidency from Sen. Kerry; there is NO reason that I have yet discovered to indicate that that there is an innocent explanation for the statistical anomalies, the whistle blowers' tales, and the analyses by competent computer security experts.

This massive vote fraud happened, or it didn't. It's not a matter of "he said, he said." There is a real world beyond the Times' board rooms, and it's past time for the Times to report it.

Please run a poll on how many people believe the election was a fraud--and this *without* any serious coverage by any mainstream news gatherer at all. 100% of the people, blue collar and pink collar, that I've talked to personally in the past week are voting for fraud. Wouldn't it be interesting to do a larger, more formal poll? You might find that the country was voting No Confidence in the election if you asked them, and that would be a story, wouldn't it?

[Bill219]

41. NYT...

Haven't read it since I cancelled my subscription in 2003

Do not even read the online version either

[McCamy Taylor]

43. piss poor job with Iraq, they are trying with election theft...

...but all their efforts seem geared towards a slow, careful, d-e-l-i-b-e-r-a-t-e investigation of Votergate that will earn them a Pulitzer, not that will actually do anything for America, so I am giving them

Two Thumbs Down x(

Buzzflash is a Way Better Daily News Source!

[FogerRox]

45. The NY Times sucks--- there 30 million folks who dont get their news from

any main stream source. We Dont need the NY Times. The TImes is not relavant. ANd its the TImes choice. They choose to be irrelavant.

We know that the overwhelming majority of AMericans voted for John Kerry, Maybe the TImes could face the facts. Kerry won. We dont need the NY TImes, 30 million of us. Fuck off NY Times.

Where was the NY TImes when CLinton was being roasted By K. Star?

DId the TImes tell us that Ken star was the lawyer for International Paper when International Paper sold land to the Mcdougals and Clintons?

No that I recall, should have been on the front page. The NY TImes sucks big nazi Dick -- Cheney.

[e-mail]

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dalloway]

46. while bashing the Times is in vogue here

and while I am as disappointed as anyone with their paltry coverage of election problems (ESPECIALLY the failure to cover the Conyers forums), I have to give credit to the Times for a few things:

1) They continue to be one of the only papers in the country actually written above a second grade reading level. As a thinking person, I appreciate that.

2) They actually keep the business and news side completely separate unlike many other new outlets whose "news" is too tainted by the advertisers.

3) They fund and support innovative investigative reporting that is expensive and human resources intensive and has been nearly abandoned by many other papers who continue to get nearly everything from the wires (who seem to often pick up their stories from the Times) and the police scanners. Recent examples of good investigative pieces in the Times include research on the meat industry and massive holes in the inspection system, ties between the *gov't and the coal industry and the resultant weakening of worker safety protections and environmental devastation, and all of the regulatory bombshells that were planned to hit just after the election to reward industries sucking up to the * administration.

4) they respect science and continue to have one of the best science sections in the country

5) They admit mistakes when they make them; they don't cover them up.

I am not a troll. I am not a freeper. I am not a Times employee. I am a proud progressive democratic in the Metropolitan New York area who shares the values of DUers and who also reads the Times nearly every day. While I sometimes disagree with their choices of coverage(and certainly lately with the election issues), I still have immense respect for it as one of the last intelligent and ethical bastions of mainstream journalism left.

I too, pine for the day, that the Times runs "Bush Stole Election" and shouts the truth from the rooftops, but I believe the editor who wrote back to the DUer who said essentially--"don't think our coverage is over yet." Mind you, the next day they ran a front page story about problems in Ohio. Don't think they don't have good people working on this.

And in the meantime, I'm glad I have the Times as my local paper instead of some of the rat publications the rest of the country has to deal with.

[genieroze]

47. How well do you feel the New York Times has provided adequate news?

Bawhahahahahaha

[yojon]

48. They never mentioned the Conyers hearing

on the day after it occured. You'd think that that was news 'fit to print'.

Only conclusion I could make was that they were intentionally supressing it.

[Hannahcares]

49. NYTimes coverage

I have been a loyal reader of the Times for 45 years. Always counted on the Times to investigate what was really happening and report it factually to the readers. 9/11 coverage was exceptional, including Portraits of Grief. War in Iraq coverage was terrible in the run-up, then improved with Dexter Filkins reporting on the ground. Investigation into alum. tubes for WMD was excellent, much more like the "old TImes". Editorial coverage of Voting Problems (e-voting, etc.) has been exceptional, UP TO THE DAY OF THE ELECTION!! Since the election the TImes has been totally unhelpful in discerning the disconnect between exit polls and election results. So sad to have to read the Guardian and other foreign press to try to learn what is really happening. My personal opinion - Times should make a months long series on Election Fraud, with DAILY ARTICLES taken from the logs of the PFAW Election Protection Coalition describing the many incidents of voter suppression, intimidation and outright fraud. I believe the TImes readers would like to learn about incidents like voters waiting hours on line to vote only to be told at midnight that "Election Day" was over, and even though they were in line a poll closing time, they no longer had the right to vote!" (Courtesy of that guardian of voter rights - Kenneth "80 lbs. stock" Blackwell!) Sincereley, HannahCares

[emcguffie]

50. very poorly.

Just enough so they can say they did.

I blame the NY Times for the war in Iraq. I was watching, waiting for them to print the views of the many experts who disagreed about the WMDs. And there were MANY. They printed ONE column by an expert who said there probably weren't any there anymore. That was it. Everything else was beating the war drums. You know the drill, repeat, repeat ad nauseum all the lies, and once in a blue moon present the other side, so they can say they did it.

That is not balance. And of course Judith Miller should be fired.

I think they have received so many complaints that they were compelled to mention the recount at all, but they haven't done any real reporting. And so I dropped my subscription yesterday.

And yes, I agree with above posts about the Clinton years. The Times still pretends to be balanced sometimes, but they are a tool of the right. And, by the way, I know people at the Times, too (excuse me for saying this), and there has been a lot of change in editorial approach. During the Jason Blair years it got very weird -- I think that might have been the Clinton period. A very well-respected reporter I knew retired because of the weirdness. A great reporter. Couldn't take it anymore. Since the Blair fiasco, they've tried to retrench some, but it's purely cosmetic as far as I can see. It's still not reporting the news; the recount and the exit poll discrepancies are NEWS. The Times is considered "our paper of record", and if it isn't in the Times, it isn't in the record.

So they are failing pretty badly. I have been cracking my head for years trying to figure out what is going on with the upper management, the publisher, the owners, and what is motivating them. No idea.

[Lizzie Borden]

52. ELECTION FRAUD!

[Mend]

53. Compare and Contrast

the Washington Post's article about bush's disgusting lack of response to the tsunami disaster to the NYT's cover-up article. This is standard NYT....if it was President Clinton, there would have been a huge criticism by the NYT but when it is a repuke, they teflon-coat everything.

[berniew1]

55. Very poor job; it appears they aren't allowed to tell the real story

[mattclearing]

56. Haven't done extensive research, but I have some worthwhile questions...

Did the New York Times...

...ever give a satisfactory explanation for what happened to WTC 7?

...ever follow-up on the put option trades placed on American and United Airlines stocks that were reported by several news outlets but were promptly dropped shortly thereafter?

...ever report on the possibility of the Flight 93 "crash"
actually having been shot down?

...ever report on Flight 587 that crashed in Queens being anything other than what the NTSB said it was. I'm still laughing about "Tail Failure," FYI.

...ever report on Zogby's polls of New Yorkers still questioning the official story, even after the 9/11 commission report?

...ever show pictures of American coffins coming home from Iraq?

...ever show pictures of Iraqi dead?

...ever report names of Iraqi dead?

...ever report Ohio poll worker Sherole Eaton's Tri Ad cheat sheet story, with proper emphasis on her allegations regarding a cheat sheet?

...ever report on SOS Blackwell's suspicious obfuscation and declaration of voting records as being "Locked down" despite laws that claim this as evidence of election fraud?