- Joined
- Dec 12, 2012
- Messages
- 2,263
^^ It gets more complicated with the media in today's highly politically charged environment. Accusing the media of being 'too conservative' or 'too liberal' is more about the person making the accusation trying to discredit the media and muddy the waters rather then being an objective assessment of what the media is writing.
I think it's fair to criticize the media. The media should be held as accountable as they hold others. Don't you agree?? In pointing out some of the following NYT reporting/non-reporting decisions & one interpretation, I wish to offer some observations:
#1, It's often interesting to view what is not said as much as what is.
#2. For example, in their coverage of the "Gold Star Wife" controversy, the NYT had a front page article on General Kelly's error concerning the MOC's actions of a prior unrelated event. With everything the general said (& he said a lot), that error was the news event that the NYT chose to be it's lead story for Saturday, October 21st. That wasn't what I took away from the General's insights into what is involved in a difficult phone call. I did read about his error, & I have been fully advised of it, & also that you must fact-check everything before you say anything nowadays. But was his misrepresentation of the MOC's unrelated past really the most important issue of last Saturday's "Gold Star Wife" coverage (top story for the day, 1st article, right-side of the paper)?? I guess so.
I think that as a long-time daily reader of the NYT, one would be hard-pressed to find positive articles about the current administration, for sure in the OpEd/ Editorial section. I have steadily read this paper for 40 years, & currently an active daily subscriber for almost 20. That being said, looking back over 40 years I think I have the knowledge to say objectively, that the paper I love is biased in it's coverage of this administration.
#3. Next is the NYT 's decision to kill the Weinstein article outing him as a sex-offender/harasser in 2008. It's hard for me to believe that if the 08 subject was Bill O'Reilly (or anyone else not in their favor) that no-publish decision would've held. One has to wonder how many victims of Weinstein would have been spared if the story ran. I am no fan of either man nor have ever watched O'Reilly's show. It's just that while both men were targets of NYT investigations, only one investigation was published, the other was not. Why?? It would be fair, of course, to know the reason(s) for the no-go on the Weinstein article, but if the NYT has addressed that, I 'm unaware.
#4. Finally the NYT's continuing interpretation to call the events that occurred in Ferguson, MO after the verdict was announced "unrest". That was no "unrest", that was a riot. Unrest is when people are protesting, marching, shouting, & visibly upset, (non-criminal actions) that's unrest. When you loot, assault, & commit arson (criminal behavior) that's a riot. I have been in both & it's real easy to tell the difference. Can't explain why the paper can't... or won't. The only thing answer I have is that a conscious decision was made do always report that riot as unrest. If that wasn't a riot, what has to occur in order for "unrest" to become one? Sometimes it is what it is... & should be stated as such especially when it doesn't fit with your editorials. That's being unbiased.
To conclude, I take issue with your post quoting mine. It was, first of all tongue-in cheek. Anyways, I hope the above gives you some insight into my observations; the attempt was to un-muddy some waters about the NYT & my thoughts about them. They were really great at one time. I am interested in your thoughts either here or as a PM.