NYT Is Liberal??? Ha!!! (I Think I'm Gonna Be Sick, But It's a MUST READ)

[Beetwasher]

Fascinating article on Kos on the NYT "Liberal" bent. It seems they bend over backwards to mention party affiliation of corrupt Dems, and then do backflips to avoid mentioning party affiliation of corrupt Repubs. Yeah, yeah, I know, not a big surprise, we all knew it, but the article below from Winsmith at Kos lays it all out very, very nicely and clearly and it gets me so angry I could chew rocks.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/22/75750/7966

New York Times Watch -- How to Make a Scandal "Bi-Partisan" Through First Sentence Wording

Today's New York Times has an interesting article on Democratic politican Representative William J. Jefferson (not to be confused with W.J. Clinton) and his bribery scandal. It looks like Jefferson is as guilty as any of the hundreds of republican corruption scandal perpetrators, and so should be condemned if found guilty.

This diary entry isn't about Jefferson's crimes. It's about yet another example of the placement of the words "DEMOCRAT" and "REPUBLICAN" in the first sentence reporting of the various kickback and bribery scandals by the New York Times and its reporter, Philip Shenon. Lets take a look at how these slugs work their "bipartisan" scandal magic in their reporting:

--snip--

[Gman]

1. And then as excellent cover

people like Anthrax Coulter wish aloud that Tim McVey had picked the NY Times building instead, or some similar fate for the NY Times building.

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Operation "Corrupt Democrats" is in full swing!

NPR ran a 5 minute long story last night about Jefferson. The story included TWO people commenting that the Democrats would not be able to use "culture of corruption" against Rethugs this year because of this one incident.

Democrats need to be reminded each day that the media is not a fair referee in America. They are, for the most part, propaganda arms of the GOP.

[underpants]

4. Yep Wolf asked Carville basically that yesterday

Carville answered by pointing out that Wolf lead into the question by mentioning 6 Republicans involved in scandals as opposed to ONE Democrat. Carville had just been joking about how he couldn't understand how there could be any other side to JEfferson's story basically saying that Jefferson is corrupt so fine off with him then.

Wolf then returned to the Ewok village in the trees to begin shaving for the next day's adventure down in human land.

[underpants]

3. ABC WNT did the same thing last night

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1991341&page=1

[Buzz Clik]

5. Jefferson is filthy, and he's a Democrat.

End of story. It doesn't matter what paragraph of the article mentions his party affiliation.

[Beetwasher]

6. Did You Read The Article?

WTF are you talking about? Miss the point much?

[robbedvoter]

10. Have you heard of Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham & al?

It's for black and white thinkers like you that the MSM taylors their coverage.
No one here says jefferson sould not get his punishment. It's just the "they all do it" conclusion that's a bit, shall we say...WRONG?????

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

15. It sure as hell does when the NYT DOESN'T mention Tom Delays' party

There's the bias. There's the entire point of the link to Kos.

Read the damn diary entry.
That's what's important right here.

[KittyWampus]

7. Recommended And Thanks For Posting.

[robbedvoter]

8. I once saved this quote as signature -

"

"Any blogger who uses the phrase "the liberal New York Times" without irony should be returned to the pet store as a dead parrot."

[Squeech]

9. Question

If we win in 2008, how should we deal with the press?

Should there be some sort of official sanction on reporters (or networks) who pulled this crap?

Shouls we take suspect reporters aside and say, Unless you change your tone of coverage, President Gore is never going to take your question in a press conference?

Or should Gore take the question and say outright, This is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question, here's what's unfair about it, and here's what I have to say about the actual issue, and please print it just this way?

Any ideas? My preference is to be as above-board as possible, while letting it be known that there will be consequences for excessive heathering. But I don't know how to formulate it so that it doesn't sound unfair-- and maybe that's because it isn't fair, but neither is the status quo...

[Beetwasher]

11. Good Question

I wish I knew, it's a major problem.

One part of the answer is to not rely on the traditional media, but instead to develop the alternate media (internet) into the new MSM. Do an end around.

[UpInArms]

16. a complete reinstatement of The Fairness Doctrine would be a start

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html

Released: July 25, 1997

WASHINGTON, DC -- The passing of media ownership into fewer hands, the potential for conflicts of interests, and the virtual exclusion of significant opposing viewpoints are good reasons to reevaluate the broadcasting Fairness Doctrine, and it's potential for obtaining more balanced coverage of Islam and Muslims.

The Fairness Doctrine from 1949 until 1987, when it was discontinued by the Federal Communications Commission, required broadcasters, as a condition of getting their licenses from the FCC, to cover controversial issues in their community, and to do so by offering some balancing views. It did not require equal time for opposing views. It merely prevented a station from day after day presenting a single view without airing opposing views.

The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). The Court ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights. Five years later, however, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364).

The Court's decision led to the FCC reevaluation and discontinuance of the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC stated: "We no longer believe that the Fairness Doctrine, as a matter of policy, serves the public interests. In making this determination, we do not question the interest of the listening and viewing public in obtaining access to diverse and antagonistic sources of information. Rather, we conclude that the Fairness Doctrine is no longer a necessary or appropriate means by which to effectuate this interest. We believe that the interest of the public in viewpoint diversity is fully served by the multiplicity of voices in the marketplace today and that the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of the doctrine unnecessarily restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters. Furthermore, we find that the Fairness Doctrine, in operation actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and in degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

In 1987 a bill to place the Fairness Doctrine into federal law passed the House by 3 to 1, and the Senate by nearly 2 to 1, but it was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Among those voting for the bill were Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). In 1989 the Fairness Doctrine easily passed the House again, but didn't proceed further as President George Bush threatened to veto it. In 1991, hearings were again held on the doctrine, but President Bush's ongoing veto threat stymied passage.

...more...

[UpInArms]

17. The Fairness Doctrine - How we lost it, and why we need it back

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053

excerpt:

The FCC stopped enforcing the doctrine in the mid-’80s, well before it formally revoked it. As much as the commission majority wanted to repeal the doctrine outright, there was one hurdle that stood between them and their goal: Congress’ 1959 amendment to the Communications Act had made the doctrine law.

Help would come in the form of a controversial 1986 legal decision by Judge Robert Bork and then-Judge Antonin Scalia, both Reagan appointees on the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Their 2–1 opinion avoided the constitutional issue altogether, and simply declared that Congress had not actually made the doctrine into a law. Wrote Bork: “We do not believe that language adopted in 1959 made the Fairness Doctrine a binding statutory obligation,” because, he said, the doctrine was imposed “under,” not “by” the Communications Act of 1934 (Califor-nia Lawyer, 8/88). Bork held that the 1959 amendment established that the FCC could apply the doctrine, but was not obliged to do so—that keeping the rule or scuttling it was simply a matter of FCC discretion.

“The decision contravened 25 years of FCC holdings that the doctrine had been put into law in 1959,” according to MAP. But it signaled the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed in 1987 by the FCC under new chair Dennis R. Patrick, a lawyer and Reagan White House aide.

A year after the doctrine’s repeal, writing in California Lawyer(8/88), former FCC commissioner Johnson summed up the fight to bring back the Fairness Doctrine as “a struggle for nothing less than possession of the First Amendment: Who gets to have and express opinions in America.” Though a bill before Congress to reinstate the doctrine passed overwhelmingly later that year, it failed to override Reagan’s veto. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.

...more...

[robbedvoter]

18. Break monopolies, reinstate fairness & develop better outlets

There's a shortage of local news outlets - TV and radio. And support the internet sources.

[Supersedeas]

12. working that right wing bait and switch propoganda

[Ms. Clio]

13. "Representative Tom Delay"

My god, that is just stunning. Never, "Republican Representative," or "Texas Republican."

k & r.

[Beetwasher]

14. Yup, Stomach Churningly Stunning

n/t

[girl gone mad]

19. I noticed the same thing on CBS news.

It's anecdotal, but a few weeks ago I was watching the evening news with my husband and they were covering a scandal involving a Republican congressman (I'm sorry, I can't remember which one at the moment). I remember telling my husband that you wouldn't know from the story that the guy was a Republican, because they never mentioned it.

Well, last night, the lead in to the Jefferson story said "Democrat congressman.." and they also mentioned at least a couple of times during the piece that he was a Dem.

[dogday]

20. The same paper that sat on the NSA

story until after the elections? Think that story could of helped the Dems before the election? We will never know, will we??? I don't see the liberal bias....