NY TIMES

[DangerDave921]

I have been yelled at before on here for saying that the NY Times is a liberal paper that supports Dem candidates. NO NO NO I have been told, the TImes is part of the RW monopoly.

Well folks -- the Times is bashing Palin no end. So I stand vindicated. The Times clearly wants Obama to win. No doubt about it.

[cali]

1. Whatever else the NYT does, they consistently support dems

for office.

[Gman]

2. The NYT is not liberal enough for the purists here

overall they lean liberal and are a good paper.

[Captain Hilts]

6. It's still the greatest paper in the world with resources - especially for foreign news -

that other papers can't touch.

I've grown to hate the columnists since they belittled Al Gore and helped give us GWB. Folks here forget Rioh and Herbert's role in doing so, but seem to remember Dowd's.

[El Pinko]

10. Yes, they are liberal - IE centrist.

Personally, I'm a leftist and that is not good enough for me, especially since their slavish devotion to Bush after 9-11 and whorish reporting of the illegal Iraq invasion still leave a bitter taste in my mouth.

I have to love a military-industrial-complex whore paper because it occasionally helps out the less right-wing party? Pshaw.

[marmar]

3. The NY Times editorial board tends to be center-left, though they've added right-wing trash like....

.... Kristol. And I'm sure there are many reporters who are liberals.

BUT the paper itself is part of a big corporation with lots of stockholders.

[flor-de-jasmim]

4. sorry, but your vindication is based on faulty logic

Only parts of the NYT are liberal. In this case, I'd say that any THINKING person is scared s***less with the idea of a McCain/Palin presidency. So their wanting Obama to win does not necessarily indicate a liberal bias.

[Captain Hilts]

5. The Op page HATES the Clintons. The Op and Eds don't always agree. nt

[DemoRabbit]

7. Ever consider she deserves to be bashed?

How is it possible we have a republican VP candidate who lies and continues to lie even when caught, is under an investigation for abuse of power, has a pregnant teenage daughter (the party of family values?) and is for abstinence-only education, has zero foreign relations experience (but she can see Russia from her house), doesn't even know what the Bush Doctrine is (yeah, maybe you and I wouldn't have known, but we're not running for VP), has been accused of trying to ban books as mayor of her town, has mislead anyone listening to her on earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere (easy to say "no thanks" when Congress has already pulled the plug), YET the NYT is liberal for mentioning any or all of it?

Maybe the rest of the media is asleep at the wheel.

[iamahaingttta]

8. The NY Times is Corporatist.

They are about the bottom line, like any other large corporation.

My father spent his career as an editor at the Times, and retired from there heartbroken at how far to the right they had swung, and how they were willing to give up credibility for access. It's just that compared to the rest of the media landscape, they didn't swing quite as far, or stoop quite as low.

Right now, they just want to go with the winner. Don't give yourselves any delusions that they want to "do the right thing." They simply want to protect the bottom line...

[DangerDave921]

11. Swung to the right?

You mean like in 2006 when they endorsed every single Dem candidate for Congress? That's a weird definition of swinging to the right.

Of course the Times leans left.

[MinM]

9. Great point. How dare they criticize the Great Sarah Palin?

:sarcasm:

Here's a good take on the 'Times':

Democracy Now! | New York Times Trumpets Pentagon's Claims Over Iran Sending Bombs to Iraq

The Times is without question an establishment newspaper; I always read the New York Times the way Sovietologists used to read Izvestia, the government newspaper, and I half-kiddingly always ask the question: is the New York Times playing the role of Izvestia or the role of Pravda, which was the party newspaper.

The New York Times owes its success, its long-term success, economic and otherwise, to being close to the government, to being sort of the semiofficial government newspaper and giving the administration line to the public fairly unfiltered. And Michael Gordon is just a tool. He’s just a conduit for this policy that the paper has been pursuing for decades...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2783702&mesg_id=2785509