OK, finally, the massive result of Ulysses' happy hour at work is now refuted. Read for fun, but make sure you've got a little time set aside for it. The original war started here. My own refutation is done point by point based on his examples.
I'm getting Ulysses a set of ink blots for Christmas just to see him tell me how they all represent liberal bias in the psychiatric industry next.
1. Krugman? You start off your definitive treatise on the liberal bias of the NYT with KRUGMAN??? Well, let's see. If only I had a viable defense to this charge. But I guess its true. Any publication that has Paul Krugman writing for them is destined to be a liberal rag. Guess that means Fortune was a liberal mag between 1997 & 1999. I guess that means Ronald Reagan was a died-in-the-wool liberal too. Krugman was, after all, on the staff of the Council of Economic Advisors back in the day, along with Larry Summers. So of course everyone who's a columnist for the Times is a liberal. Like William Safire. I recall fondly that Bill Clinton just crowed from the positive press he got out of Safire. And I guess everyone who appears in the Op/Ed pages of the Times is also reflective of the CLEAR liberal bias of the paper ... like that ultra-lib George Will. We all know he wouldn't be caught dead helping out a Republican in a clandestine manner, would he? You know where I'm going here ... columnists & op/ed writers aren't the same as reporters. You know better ... for shame.
2. Amazing, you pan Michael Moore, but when a conservative does the very trick Moore uses in print form, you fall for it. Selectively picking out quotes and implying a deeper meaning behind them than the story really gives is nothing new. The article noted the timing of the funding request as it actually happened. It didn't state that it would have changed the outcome of 9/11.
3. Gee, never mind that the story is factually correct, it just gave the RNC, er, I mean Fox News too low of a billing. So let's get to the real story here. The only thing that this story was all about was jealousy. Nothing more, nothing less. When Fox ran the story, they got no followup from other news sources on it. By 41's very own tennis partner, Brit Hume's account, they thought it was a dog of a story at Fox. But when the NYT ran it, they got followup on it from every other news outlet. Nevertheless,
4. So the National Review doesn't want people to talk about race. What else is new? Lemme just go out on a limb here and assert that NR is more biased than the NYT. Yet in claiming that the NYT peice is a work of bias, we once again see the pot calling the kettle black.
5. Talk about agitprop ... since the Times won't cover a story in the manner that Stanley Kurtz demands, its clearly the Times that is biased. Nevermind that Kurtz himself notes the Times ran a front page story on the Horowitz ad he obviously has a hard-on for, the fact that the Times wasn't cowwed into covering it even more means he has to egg on the process. This is precisely what conservatives such as yourself should be outraged over. In order to shut down free speech, writers such as Kurtz try to hammer away at other media outlets that fail to parrot their obvious partisan agenda in order to get the coverage they want. Would the world be a better place if liberals did this? Would the world be a better place if conservatives did this? Here's a novel idea ... let the media outlets do their job as they see fit. If they want to take on all established authority forms, as the Times obviously does, then so be it. If they want to mimic the RNC's talking point memos, as Fox does, then so be it. Let the ideas stand on their own and stop making up inane bias assertions like this in order to try and get all the media in a state of fear over being called liberal.
6. WTF? The Times has an article that highlights a study on how a parent raising a child is better than having a day care raising one. Exactly what are we calling "liberal" nowadays?
7. What would make the poor little Bushies feel better: "War Mongering Axis of Evil Demon Questioned Intelligently by Bush Peacenicks"? Classify this under "The Meaning of 'Is' Is ..." What exactly were the Bush hardliners thinking? That everything was just hunky dory?
8. Whoa there ... let's read what you just posted here: "If you read further"?!?!?! So if I read the very article that is claimed as biased, I'll see both sides of the story? Amazing! A balanced story even gets labelled as biased. I guess it is true that people see what they want to see.
9. So at a time when Bush was notoriously advocating the offing of Hussein, the Times, in their gall, noted that Kissinger was against Bush's goal. Scandalous!!! Actual quote from Kissinger: " ...the objective of regime change should be subordinated in American declaratory policy to the need to eliminate weapons of mass destruction from Iraq as required by the UN resolutions." The nerve of the Times for interpreting that as opposing Bush's insistence on regime change first.
10. From the IISS (report authors) itself:
Our net assessment of the current situation is that:
The headlines don't even contradict themselves. But that shouldn't stop anyone from reading their own biases into the headline.
11. Interesting, because the Media Research Center took offense that Domenici's description as a fiscal conservative. Nevertheless, the question is how part B can logically follow part A. Here's how: the business lobby as opposed Dominici's Mental Health Parity bill and he had to make deep concessions on it with Trent Lott to get it passed. That's how. But we all know there's not a connection between business lobbyists and the GOP, right?
12. Been discussed on this very site before. Comes down to interpretation and whether one sees a puffy cloud or a dragon in the inkblot.
13. See Krugamn rant on point 1.
14. Now this one's fun to read, because it is patently laughable. The assertion is basically that the Times &/or the author are biased because they fail to parrot the bias of the individual mocking the article. The reference to "so-called" is a perfect case in point. Read the article. That term is used because the author is introducing the term "marriage benefit" into the article. Not quite the case to be made for bias. The basic giveaway in this article, though, is in the end. Alleging that the author's prior work involved "skewering" Bush Administration Marriage promotion efforts. Here's a nice little excerpt from her "skewering" article:
Poor kids?40 percent of whom already live in two-parent families?are at the center of the debate about marriage promotion. There's little dispute that children who live with both parents tend to do better than those living with just one; according to recent comparisons, children of single moms have five times the chance of living in poverty and roughly twice the risk of dropping out of school. But while being unmarried is often seen as the cause of misery?and the Bush proposal rests on that logic?a large swath of experts see the sequence of events the other way around. That is to say, poor couples' primary problem is being poor?not being unmarried.
Wow! I think I'll vote Democratic.
15. From the AP story itself: "Even though the third quarter GDP performance was the strongest since the economy posted a brisk 5 percent growth rate in the first three months of this year, it was weaker than the 3.6 percent pace that many analysts were predicting." Egads ... how dare the Times report pure fiction in their headline!!!
16. Current Map here - Welcome to election day, when papers all across the country scurry to make as up-to-date maps as possible. In fact they still show Vermont as a Win rather than a Gain ... you wanna call John Ashcroft over this, or shall I? Sloppy, sure ... but if you want to play Rorschack with it, feel free to.
17. And the meaning of "is" is ...??? I thought Clinton and his legal team were the ones who parsed words? Nevertheless, I go where all good men and women go when proof is needed: Google! So I did a search on: fervent "new york times" ashcroft. I got 517 results. Granted, its not a qualitative answer. There's an article about fervent supporters of Hillary Clinton near the top. But still, its somewhat helpful. I needed some contrast so I did the following searches as well:
So there ya go. The New York Times obviously thinks John Ashcroft is nice, pleasant, and sexy ... moreso than he is fervent. Biased indeed!!!
18. This one also makes me chuckle. You can't seriously claim this as prima facie evidence of liberal bias can you? The central element at the center of this is whether Rove was asked about 200,000 potential civilian deaths in Iraq or 200,000 marchers in an anti-war rally. Now, why do I dare mock the suggestion that this implies a liberal bias? Because at least one prominent conservative blogger basically hailed an Amen at the original story! (ie - Angry Clam) Now, to be sure, there were liberal blogs/columnists/whatnots who likewise claimed this as proof that Rove & Bush were more concerned about killing innocents abroad. Its almost as if people see what they want to see in a news report sometimes. Now where have I heard that before?
19. See Krugamn rant on point 1.