Greg's Opinion Greg's big blog of whatnot


A Refutation in 19 Parts

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.
Enjoy ...

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:

  • Iraq does not possess facilities to produce fissile material in sufficient amounts for nuclear weapons.
  • It would require several years and extensive foreign assistance to build such fissile material production facilities.
  • It could, however, assemble nuclear weapons within months if fissile material from foreign sources were obtained.
  • It could divert domestic civil-use radioisotopes or seek to obtain foreign material for a crude radiological device.
    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:

  • nice "new york times" ashcroft - 6,720 results!!!
  • pleasant "new york times" ashcroft - 1,130 results!!!
  • sexy "new york times" ashcroft - 950 results
  • cuddly "new york times" ashcroft - 101 results
  • adorable "new york times" ashcroft - 116 results
    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.

    Related Posts:

    • No Related Posts
  • Comments (39) Trackbacks (0)
    1. So Greg, would you say that the Houston Chronicle has a pro-business establishment bias or would you just say that they’re sloppy and that it always seems that way to the right and left alike is just a figment of our collective imaginations?

    2. Based on the brown nosing that went on with Enron prior to their decline, what do you think? Having sat through a Young Democrats meeting in ’92 and hearing gripe after gripe about the Chron’s editorial pages, I can assure you that there are no liberals who will tell you they have a bias in their favor. The rail bias also points clearly that as goes the downtown business establishment, so goes the Chron.
      The surprising thing about this is that its a carryover from the days when the Chron was a family paper. I don’t quite get why it still exists now that its a conglomerate rag.

    3. “implying a deeper meaning behind them than the story really gives…”
      “So let’s get to the real story here. The only thing that this story was all about was jealousy. Nothing more, nothing less.”
      Did I just read those two comments within 100 words of each other? Brilliant.
      “Lemme just go out on a limb here and assert that NR is more biased than the NYT”
      Greg, that’s just ridiculous: of course NR is… HELLO!!!! It’s an OPINION MAGAZINE, for chrissakes!!!!! They freely admit they’re biased!!! But the NY Times is supposedly “the paper of record.” When will Raines admit it’s really an opinion newspaper?
      “implying a deeper meaning behind them than the story really gives…”
      “So the National Review doesn’t want people to talk about race.
      Nice work, that’s 2…..
      ” 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.”
      Physician, heal thyself!
      “What exactly were the Bush hardliners thinking?”
      They were thinking exactly what the majority of the country was thinking… that is, everyone except the Times… they’d rather just talk about the “hard-liners”
      “the Times, in their gall, noted that Kissinger was against Bush’s goal.”
      Yes. And then they corrected themselves. Didja miss that part? Nerve indeed. If Kissinger said their interpretation was wrong, and they agreed, and they corrected it, why are you the only one still defending it?
      10) No one said they contradicted, did they? Are you reading something I didn’t write, Greggo? The point is the emphasis. THAT’s the bias, if you choose to remove the blindfold.
      ” not a connection between business lobbyists and the GOP”
      We apologize. God forbid somebody stand for business interests. And if someone does, that somehow implies an unthinking reflexive defense, not a thought-out principled opposition, right? Is your point that there are not any interests that coincide but separate? Fine then, as long as you acknowledge Democrats are in bed with labor and education unions, abortionists, trial lawyers, atheists and racist demagogues and that Democrats don’t so much as breathe without asking their permission. After all, they support the same causes, right? So they must be in bed with them right? I read you loud and clear, Mr. Stone….
      15) see point 10.
      16) Uh, yeah…. nice defense. They were flatly wrong and you’re defending it. Now who’s biased?
      That’s funny, the piece I gave you had nothing to do with Google. Google is not AI, there is no context. If I axed 57 people, became national news, and the only quote I gave when I was arrested was “John Ashcroft is nice”, it would give huge returns in Google. Is that an ink blot? Kudos for trying to rearrange the argument.
      Congratulations!! You’ve spent a tremendous amount of time defending the NY Times against liberal bias, probably more time than even Raines himself would have. Your weakest argument is the ink blot and if you’ve taken a logic class, you know why. Your simple reiterations that they are ink blots begs the question and is an attempt to use the deliberative point as inarguable fact. It’s poor logic. I’ll use a metaphor to illustrate:
      If you and I see a shadow being cast without knowing for certain what casts it, and I say the source is a dog and you say it is a cat, you do not win the argument by simply saying “There’s no question it’s a cat, but I suppose if you want to see a dog, you can.” You’ve not proven it’s a cat, and I fear you’ve proved nothing in the arguments above either. The amazing thing is the near hypocrisy: that millions of people can and will skewer their interpretation of an article while reading it, but the person writing it cannot and would not write with any bias whatsoever… as long as it’s the NY Times.
      I’ve never seen someone fight such an uphill battle in my life and believe you probably have little support, even among lefties. I think almost everyone with some astute political sense agrees at this point that the major networks slant mostly left, Fox slants mostly right, the Wash Post slants somewhat left, the Wash Times and WSJ slants right, and the NY Times slants left. You see the bias at Fox, the Wash Times, the WSJ and that’s it.
      Talk about puffy clouds and red dragons……

    4. I have a point to make with the Chron question, but I think I’ll hold off until Ulysses is done with ya.

    5. The Chronicle is scatty. They seem to be a front for the Greater Houston Partnership in some ways, and part arbitrarily on other issues. You can’t really point to a profound liberal or conservative bias save on individual issues with the Chron — all you can be really certain of it that it’s a bad paper.
      As for the New York Times, they’ve become insanely biased, and they become fixated on individual stories and drive their position home over and over until anyone who disagrees becomes downright nauseated. It isn’t just anti-authoritarianism either — that’s a very flimsly and self-serving rationalization on your part — it’s a clear left-wing bias. Whether it is comparable to other news outlets is debatable, but it’s existance hardly is.
      Anyway, here are a few more objections:
      On point #4: Can we please distinguish between ideological political opinion magazines and the New York Times? If there isn’t a difference, THAT’S troubling and the point of conservatives is proven.
      On point #8: I haven’t seen a study on this recently, but I believe it is true that most readers don’t go beyond headlines or the first few paragraphs, so whatever you lead a story with colors the perceptions of the reader. It’s a minor point, but if the Times does this on a regular basis with liberal advocacy groups, that would be a possible sign of bias.
      On point #9: I’ll simply say this: claiming that one goal should be subordinate to another is not the same as opposing that goal – and Kissinger never said specifically that he opposed Bush’s policy. The Times stepped over the line and offered a reckless interpretation. They shoved words down Kissinger’s throat.
      On point #12: Come on, the title was biased. This isn’t ink blots, it’s a grossly misleading headline. The results of the poll could not evoke “Gee, support for war with Iraq has dropped,” unless you’re Howell Raines.
      On point #15: Why did the Times’s headline differ? It’s a good question, although I’d admit that it could be an isloated occurrence. Point #12 as well as general perceptions make me doubt it though.
      On point #16: Maybe sloppiness… Maybe bias… It’s still funny how their mistakes tend to have a leftist tinge, though. Taken individually, yes, it might not mean anything. Taken as a whole, it seems to be a pattern of behavior.
      On point #18: The Angry Clam’s support doesn’t change the fact that having a cavilier attitude about civilian casualities doesn’t help a public figure’s popularity. The Times’s “mistake,” may have been just that, but don’t tell me it worked in Rove’s favor. That’s just stupid.
      That’s about all I can comment on. I’m anxious to see how Ulysses responds.

    6. Interesting… Things heated up while I was writing.

    7. A single problem with your metaphor. While I do state that the Times has an anti-authoritarian bent, I’m covering a ton of ground refuting arguments to the contrary. Arguments, I might add, that aren’t inconsistent with my stance. Anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment … whatever way you wish to define it … presently means tilting at Republicans. Where were you from 1992 to 2001? Do you really think the Clintonistas woke up every day during the Lewinski witch-hunt or during missle-gate and said to themselves: “Thank goodness the Times is on our side.” Do ya really??? Do you think the Clinton campaign in 1992 was relieved when they broke a story on Clinton’s letter to the draft board? Was Hillary greatful when they ran a story on her miraculous investments? I could go on and on … but where on earth was this liberal bias when Democrats were in power? Its the failure to even merely acknowledge that and view the consistency of a paper which has such a case against whoever’s in power. So there’s examples to state my claim. They aren’t in the original treatise because that wasn’t the point of it. But go ahead and tell me the puffy cloud is really a red dragon.
      Case #2 … “the majority of the people think …” blah blah blah blah blah. I know you’re better than using this as an argument. Old trick trying to say “Gee, you’re the only one who thinks that.” As if I needed to have strength in numbers for anyhing. Fact of the matter is that the majority of people think that Elvis is alive, that UFOs are real, that the babies in a jar at the county fair are really babies, and a bunch of other meaningless drivel. After all, it was William Buckley himself who stated “it is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.” Of course, he was talking about white supremecy at the time, so take it for what its worth. And on the topic of uphill battles: if one only faught downhill battles, they’d only win half the time. Try talking to a bunch of lefties and see if they’re really as big a fan of the major networks as you think. See if they think the Times and WaPo are really their allies. Try this first … go to and see the mocking assertion that WaPo FINALLY runs an anti-war story. Ask a politically astute lefty what they think of the NYT’s Jeff Gerth. The answers may surprise you. The fact of the matter is that the many substantive studies that have been used to point out a liberal bias don’t hold up … especially when they can be used to point out the Washington Times is even more liberal by the same definition. But that needn’t stopped a good cottage industry or a GOP fundraiser, should it?
      Required reading for the “liberal media bias” believers:

    8. The Atlantic – Clinton Scandals, Inc.
    9. FAIR – Whitewater Under the Bridge
    10. FAIR – Gee, liberals really do love the Times, don’t they?
    11. Practical Radical … another lefty who thanks Satan for the NYT
      From the “I’ve never seen someone fight such an uphill battle in my life and believe you probably have little support, even among lefties” Department:
      (you’re right …. I hope these righties are convincing enough, though)
      “I’ve gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage – all we could have asked. … For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every republican on earth does that.”
      Pat Buchanan
      “I admit it : The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.”
      William Kristol
      “You know, I could run for governor but I’m basically a media creation. I’ve never done anything. I’ve worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that’s not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office.”
      George W. Bush, 1989
      “There’s a big conservative press unabashedly and for the Democrats and even people to the left of the Democratic party, there’s almost virtually no outlets that you can compare with the vast array of conservative press that’s out there.”
      President Bill Clinton
      ** Couldn’t resist the Clinton one 😉 **
      But hey, at least you have Ann Coulter on your side, though.
  • ‘course, there’s this from BartCop. Not a source I normally give a rats behind about, but surprisingly poignant.

  • “the majority of the people think …” blah blah blah blah blah. I know you’re better than using this as an argument. Old trick trying to say “Gee, you’re the only one who thinks that.” As if I needed to have strength in numbers for anyhing. Fact of the matter is that the majority of people think that Elvis is alive, that UFOs are real, that the babies in a jar at the county fair are really babies, and a bunch of other meaningless drivel.”
    I’ll wait for the data I’m sure you’ll provide that proves your assertions here. After all, you wouldn’t just make that up. All in all, your contempt for the public is astounding. We are talking about an interpretive issue here. We’re discussing whether the Times is to the left of the majority of people in the country, so to claim that their perception is meaningless is utterly ridiculous, but I see where disregarding their opinion helps you. Democrats might want to look into using that strategy elsewhere. Wait a minute……!
    “You know, I could run for governor but I’m basically a media creation. I’ve never done anything. I’ve worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that’s not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office.”
    George W. Bush, 1989
    You’re about to argue that the media-described persona Bush had before he ran was FAVORABLE??!!!!! Ok, Greg….
    And take some time to explain how the raving article on the North Korea nuclear agreement in 1998 was the Times railing against the party in power.

  • “Mr. McClure, I have this CRAZY friend who thinks the NY Times is liberal. Is he CRAZY?”
    “No, Timmy: just ignorant. You see, there’s this thing called objectivity. Don’t kid yourself, Timmy: if that paper had its way, it would scandalize Al Gore and everyone who’d serve in his cabinet!!”
    Still waiting for the Simpsons screed. You live and die to serve us. Serve us, damn you!!!!!!

  • From my recollection, the Times covered Monica well, but they were some of the early pushers of the public/private rating theory that made Clinton pretty invulnerable from the get-go. And if you think their coverage of Clinton was harsh, consider their coverage of the House Managers and the Republican congress in general. The entire debate was framed:
    1. Clinton popular, Republican congress not
    2. Republicans hypocritical puritans, “everybody does it”
    3. 90 bazillion dollar investigation
    4. Clinton sleaze, but no effect on professional performance
    The entire debate was set up on terms that all but assured Clinton’s survival. I do not believe this would have been the case with, say, President Packwood.

  • UZ –
    ROFL … I would have had you served by now had you not started this damn trifling war!!! Now shut up you ignorant slut and let me write. I’ve got a Simspson paper to write, a TV series to write, Christmas shopping to do … and kiss my ass while your at it 😉

  • Greg,
    Ack! Don’t tell me that complaints from the Noam Chomsky set (i.e. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) qualify as evidence that the New York Times isn’t left-wing. Of course FAIR complains about the NYT being too far to the right – FAIR IS TO THE LEFT OF THE NYT! Few organizations can hold that rather dubious distinction, but FAIR is far enough at the fringes that they manage.
    This reminds me of a panel discussion I saw this weekend. Howell Raines was taking questions from a UC-BERKELEY PROFESSOR about how the Times needs to do more left-wing advocacy, and Raines was defending the paper’s current strategy. This is how the NYT functions – in a virtual echo chamber. All they hear are nut-jobs at the fringes of the left telling them to go further left, and take this as evidence that they’re objective. Not that they believe this, mind you, but it’s like Bill O’Reilly reading errant viewer mail that describes him as a communist – it is used to mollify anybody that dares identify any ideological inclinations.
    Come on… Just accept the situation… The NYT is hopelessly left-wing… You know it to be true!

  • Merely refuting the case that even lefties think the Times is liberal. I’m still trying to figure out where all the “NYT is liberal” crowd was in the Clinton administration, though. Its almost as if they only come out of the woodworks when a Republican is in the White House. Coincidence???

  • Greg,
    Do you seriously think that we thought the Times was all well and good prior to Bush’s election?
    During the 2000 election, Professor Dick Murray scoffed at the notion that the media was liberal. He made one exception, though, and that was the New York Times.
    It’s become more pronounced in the past couple years for a couple reasons. One is President Bush (or, more generically, a president they can truly rally against) and the other is the ascension of Howell Raines.

  • Damn straight!!! One more among the many reasons I respect Professor Murray. Was happy to remind him of that a couple of weeks ago, almost a decade after taking his class.

  • And as much as I share in the respect for Prof. Murray, I’ll still decline the bait.
    Look, when I go to a hockey game (don’t worry UZ, this applies to all sports), all the fans around me whine about the ref, how he’s missing every blatant penalty out there, how he has it in for our good guys, etc, etc, etc … I check the various message boards and read about how the opposing team has the same view of the same ref, but that he’s biased against them … even in the same freakin game.
    What we see here is the same phenomenon.
    1) NYT attacks Clinton
    – Republicans ignore
    – Democrats vetch about how Gertz is out to get them
    2) NYT attacks Bush
    – Republicans claim bias
    – Democrats wonder when Gertz switched sides
    Puffy cloud, I tell you all! Or at least a dragon to all sides.

  • If this is your sincere belief, why do you assume that it’s any different for Fox News, WSJ or the Wash Times? Are you simply being coy when you assert that they are the RNC’s bitch or do you really believe that? If you do believe they’re biased, why are you unable to apply your own standards to your own thoughts and talk yourself out of it?

  • Please to be presenting any and all prima facie articles of evidence that the WSJ, Fox News, or WaTi have slammed Bush. Show me where they’ve broken a major story along the lines identified, and I’ll change that tune a little. But if the best you can do is a spat over tariffs, I’m going back to K-GREG.

  • I’ve offered some arguable evidence regarding the NYT, so there’s at least something there to discuss. Now you’re saying that not only is that evidence unsupportive, but that we should ASSUME a bias at Fox, WashTimes and WSJ because I can’t provide evidence of them slamming Bush? The absence of bashing is your proof?
    You have got to be kidding me.
    Is that anything like, “Well, I don’t see any evidence on Greg’s site of his disapproval of unprotected sex between adolescents and South Asian goats: therefore, he must be for it”?
    If that’s the extent of your argument, I’ll just sit back and wait for the Simpsons post.

  • My kingdom for one civil debate not ending up with a goat sex reference 😉
    But let me see if I get the Ulysses party line here. Correct me where I assume too much. The NYT hacks away at Clinton and Bush … they’re obviously liberal. The WaTi hails Bush and rips Clinton to shreds … they’re just offsetting the damage done to the world by the Times.
    Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got goat condoms to shop for.

  • Actually, what I was hoping for was some text regarding Fox, along the lines of what I provided.
    Meanwhile, you can start on #20 regarding the Catholic abuse scandal and David E. Kelley, courtesy the increasingly indispensable Mickey Kaus.

  • I also expect a revision to your stance on the Washington Times, but I won’t hold my breath.

  • Here’s your Bush-bashing from WSJ:
    Wall Street Journal Executive Washington Editor Al Hunt :
    “President Bush cut back on the pay raises scheduled for federal employees, saying we couldn’t afford it in a time of terrorist threats. He also opposed the expanding unemployment benefits. But if Mr. Bush asked Customs inspectors, Border Patrol, or CIA and FBI agents and the jobless to sacrifice, he needs to
    ask the same of wealthy executives and coupon-clippers, who can afford the most to sacrifice and cut back on those huge tax cuts for the very wealthy.”
    But I’m guessing that’s not harsh enough, eh?

  • Wow, Al Hunt … Congratulations, you’ve trotted out an Op/Ed article by the token Dem. Show me where a Barley, a Bray, or a du Pont have ripped into Bush. Show me counterintuitiveness. Show me a man biting a dog.
    Democrat takes on Republican = Dog bites Man
    Democrat takes on Democrat = Man bites Dog
    Republican takes on Republican = Man bites Dog
    (McCain doesn’t count, unless your just being silly)
    You get the idea. I’ll keep the “George Will proves the WaPo is conservative” material at bay in the meantime.

  • Umm, how about you show me something? No, I guess not. If you THINK it’s so, I guess that’s enough.

  • You can’t just SAY you’re anti-goat sex. That’s like Rupert Murdoch saying he’s fair and balanced.
    We want proof!!!!!!!!

  • Wow, two requests to prove a negative. Sure your not a lawyer?

  • No, the two requests were for you to prove Fox, the Wash Times, and WSJ are biased. That was a request for positive information. You attempted to prove a negative by saying those 3 must be liberal because of the ABSENCE of bashing. THAT’S a negative trying to prove a postive, Greg.
    Just so we’re clear: the absence of bashing Bush conclusively proves bias, but actual bashing of Bush doesn’t.
    And for the record, this doesn’t count:
    ?This is certainly a shift from The New York Times as the ?paper of record?,? says Alex Jones, a former Times media reporter and coauthor of ?The Trust,? a book about the paper.
    And this doesn’t count:
    Or as Slate?s press critic, Jack Shafer, puts it, ?The Times has assumed the journalistic role as the party of opposition.?
    And these don’t count:
    Paul Krugman, Andrew Sullivan, Richard Murray, Mickey Kaus.
    And finally, this morning, you post a link to a New York Times article about a Thomas Wyman, a CBS executive quitting Augusta as proof that Howell Raines is not pushing an agenda on Augusta.
    OK, you win.
    Well done!

  • Seems your early position has been that they were biased, just that you felt they were more open about it. Hence, not quite sure what proof you need if your already convinced of it. Still, in trying to find any info on the respective sites that said anything along the lines of “We’re conservative,” its not been found until Tony Blankley’s quote in the WaPo link above.
    To state that the NYT is positioning itself as an established party of opposition doesn’t negate the fact that they served the very same purpose during the Clinton administration … 8 years you seem to gloss over in favor of the recent two. Lest you forget which paper led the charge into Whitewater in 1992.
    My position is rather simple, yet you ignore it nevertheless. The Times takes on whoever is in power. Their record in the Clinton administration shows that. Their record in the Bush administration shows that. To ignore one side of that coin while only looking at the other is to make a half-accurate charge. If they’re liberal now, are you going to claim they were conservative once they started hammering away at Clinton?
    Andy Sullivan and Mickey Kaus have determined that there’s a dime to be made in taking on the Times. So be it. Free enterprise for all, I say. Nevermind the conservative voices who have openly mocked the liberal bias charge … you’ve got Ann Coulter.
    Then again, if you wish to take up the charge that the WaTi, Fox News, and WSJ AREN’T biased … then we really should discuss who’s fighting a lonely battle.
    So complain if you will about the referees … I’m watching the game.

  • Greg,
    To begin with, the New York Times is arguably to the left of Clinton, meaning that Raines and his ilk are the type of people that say “woe is me” when welfare reform is passed, and wish that we could draft the fictional President Barlett from the West Wing to become president in Clinton’s stead. This is the old liberal guard that doesn’t like New Democrats.
    Secondly, and more importantly, you’re using a straw man argument. To my knowledge, nobody ever claimed that the only influence impacting the Times’s news coverage was their crippling liberal bias. Most mainstream critics of media bias awknowledge other factors besides the ideological (i.e. scandalmongering, the drive for simplicity, the bottom line, gross stupidity, etc, etc). Additionally, you’re entire position is tangent upon one anecdote, and you choose to ignore all other evidence.
    Moreover, I don’t believe anybody claimed that the issue was a partisan, but rather ideological bias. One can lead to the other, but not necessarily in every circumstance. That means your Clinton anecdote is mostly irrelevant, since the Clinton scandals did not involve any significant aspects of conservative or liberal policy. That’s another straw man right there, and I believe you’ve managed to add a false dilemma or two as well.
    So the problem isn’t that you’re position isn’t simple enough, it is that it’s too simple. You’re trying to claim that the New York Times has no significant bias, unlike that evil Fox News, it’s just an iconoclast that seeks out entrenched power and attacks it viciously. You ignore their issue advocacy — their position against Iraq, and their typical spin on the Lewinsky scandal (those hypocritical Republicans! How dare they instigate a sex scandal! Bad, unpopular Republicans!).
    The New York Times is left-wing. Most of the world accepts it just as they accept that the Washington Times is right-wing. You’re being stubborn in rejecting all the evidence, Greg, and you can’t expect to seriously debate conservatives while rejecting a proposition that even most liberals, faithful to the Times as they are, are beginning to accept.

  • Ideology comes down to partisanship in the end, Owen. Clinton was conveniently ultra-liberal when it was convenient for conservatives to describe him as such, and to now come out and say that Clinton wasn’t so liberal after all, is more than a bit disengenuous. Pick one version of the truth.
    ONE antecdote??? Try a Google search on Jeff Gerth Clinton and take your pick! Whitewater, Lewinski, China, pick one …. I’ll rest my claim to the Times being an attack dog to all based on Gerth alone, the placement and length of the stories he’s gotten in the paper. The fact that conservatives have conveniently hit the delete button from their brains on this is likewise a key hurdle in the freeflow of a debate.
    But never mind, because someone thinks … THINKS mind you … that the word “fervent” might have been inserted deliberately in an attempt to smear Republicans.
    Its this inability to see the trees from the forest that amazes me. No straw man needed.

  • Greg,
    1) Ideology does not just come down to partisanship. You can dislike a politican who is a Democrat while still supporting the Democratic agenda. Many Republicans hated Tim Hutchinson in the previous election, for example, for reasons unrelated to his ideology. Furthermore, newspapers tend to latch onto scandals without regard to party ID.
    2) I never called Clinton “ultra-liberal,” nor did, to my knowledge, most mainstream conservative pundits. Besides, I just pointed out that he’s to the right of the New York Times, which shouldn’t a news flash.
    3) The Times attacking Clinton is woefully insufficient evidence that it does not possess a liberal bias. In fact, arguing this is illogical on multiple grounds (i.e. false dilemma and straw man). It’s like saying that they New York Post must be anti-Republican because they ran the headline “BUSH KNEW” in reference to the World Trade Center attacks. While everybody knows that the post trends conservative and generally supports Bush’s agenda, there were other influences that resulted in that headline.
    Similarly, it’s high time that you accept how the Times pushes a liberal agenda.

  • Owen: When Greg talks about Raines hammering away at Clinton, he’s referring to this vicious quote from the Charlie Rose show in August:
    ?Huge political talent. Huge political vision and I suspect — none of us, I can’t predict who’s going to win the next election, much less what history is going to say about anyone. But I think President Clinton’s role in modernizing the Democratic Party around a set of economic ideas and also holding onto the principles of social justice. And presiding over the greatest prosperity in human history. Those would seem to me to have to be central to his legacy.?
    But remember that the Times takes on whoever is in power. So from the Charlie Rose show when Reagan was President… back in 1993:
    ?The Reagan years oppressed me because of the callousness and the greed and the hard-hearted attitude toward people who have very little in this society.?
    And then again from his book ‘Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis’ (also 1993):
    “We?re only about a mile from Camp David…. Of course, I liked Carter. Charlie Fox and Ben Schley taught him a lot about fishing, and he ties a good fly. Reagan couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended on it.”
    “Then one day in the summer of 1981 I found myself at the L.L. Bean store in Freeport, Maine. I was a correspondent in the White House in those days, and my work — which consisted of reporting on President Reagan’s success in making life harder for citizens who were not born rich, white, and healthy — saddened me.”
    “In 1981, shortly before the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, my family and I arrived in Washington. I was thirty-eight. I attributed any twinges of unhappiness I felt in those days to bad timing and the cycles of politics. My parents raised me to admire generosity and to feel pity. I had arrived in our nation’s capital during a historic ascendancy of greed and hard-heartedness.”
    As you can plainly see, he just takes down people in power 😉

  • Yeah, there was a lot of pity when the Times ran the first Whitewater story, the draft board letter, Hillary’s cattle futures investment results, and so on and so on. They really earned their Presidential knee pads with that.
    And as for the Times now being labelled so liberal that they attacked Clinton because he wasn’t a good enough liberal … where were the ideological attacks which MIGHT prove this? If you look at the attacks on Clinton in the Times, you’d assume they were prudes who abhorred oral sex, disliked investments which lost money (Whitewater), disliked investments which made money (cattle futures), and were highly suspicious of the Chinese. Does this really fit the bill for an ultraliberal paper?

  • Um… Greg, that doesn’t make much of an argument for an ideological edge to the Clinton scandals. Futhermore, I’d note that Republicans took at least as much of the brunt of the NYT’s rantings once the scandal kicked into high gear. And lastly, it still doesn’t change the fact that news outlets tend to cover scandals equally (it hurt Bush, but Fox News still broke the DUI story).
    Not good enough – not even close.

  • A brief anecdote:
    My boss is an Irish-Catholic born in Detroit, Michigan to a family of life-long Democrats. He went to Michigan last month to help his younger brother campaign for a spot on the Judicial Circuit. His older brother is a very wealthy Democratic contributor (Bill Clinton once stepped out of a receiving line at a private Democratic dinner gathering to greet and embrace him).
    My boss has met Clinton a couple of times, and proudly displays a picture in his office of himself, his older brother, and Clinton. He attended a post-election gathering at Ted Kennedy’s house a couple of years ago. He lobbied for a business cause in Washington in the late 70’s and suffered his greatest setback at the hands of the incoming Reagan administration. The word ‘Republican’ is uttered with the utmost contempt.
    I sincerely respect my boss, which is why, two years after having been laid off from a bank for which we both worked, I contacted him last March to seek employment with his company. Politics has never defined our friendship.
    As I was leaving work today, I casually mentioned the debate here about whether the NY Times leans left. He winced and said, “Even I wouldn’t deny that.”
    Made my day.

  • send him my way 😉

  • More traffic for your site = a very good thing!

  • No trackbacks yet.


    Blogroll (apolitical)

    Blogroll (TX)

    Blogroll (USA)

    Newsroll (Int'l)

    Newsroll (TX)

    Newsroll (USA)

    Fatal error: Call to undefined function xwp_footerx() in /nfs/c01/h12/mnt/4748/domains/ on line 18