The New York Times Breaks My Heart

[swivel]

This is a sad day for me. I have long defended the NYT against my friends on the Right who claim that they are a tabloid, an arm of the "Liberal Media". I'll admit my bias: I used to live in Lower Manhattan, and my morning routine included the NYT. I loved their technology section. I loved the heft of their local Sunday edition. They were my pal.

When I heard the news about McCain last night, I felt bad for the guy. It looked horrible for him. There is no way the NYT would run a smear-campaign against the very candidate they supported out of the Republican camp. Right? Right? Wrong.

After reading the piece this morning, I felt a little sick. It sounded like the very "tabloids" my conspiracy-theory friends used to compare them to. There was only one named source. It was vague. It was the very sort of tactic the Right used on Clinton, and the Left decried.

Now, the full story is coming out. It sounds like the "New Republic" was going to run a piece on THIS piece, and how the NYT has not fixed itself "post Blair". The damage control? Running the piece to defuse the New Republic's argument. The only named source has come out and denied the story. Multiple people have come out to say that they were interviewed for the investigation, said that there was nothing there, and none of them had their story reported. Democrats have come out to call the piece ludicrous. The whole thing is imploding in just a day.

What has happened to my Times? Were the conspiracy theories true? I'm so heart-broken and confused.

[Kathy]

My condolences. :arf:

[Sea Hag]

After reading the piece this morning, I felt a little sick. It sounded like the very "tabloids" my conspiracy-theory friends used to compare them to. There was only one named source. It was vague. It was the very sort of tactic the Right used on Clinton, and the Left decried.

And the paper thin allegation they made talks about something that happened 8 years ago.

The Times has had a political agenda for some time now. This is just the most blatant example.

[swivel]

And the paper thin allegation they made talks about something that happened 8 years ago.

The Times has had a political agenda for some time now. This is just the most blatant example.

Well, I've always seen the lean in their Op-Ed pieces. But that is expected. It is a Left-leaning area and readership. My current local paper leans so far right it drags knuckles on that side.

I know readership is down for all papers, and shit like this is going to spell the end.

[taintfutcha]

This is a sad day for me. I have long defended the NYT against my friends on the Right who claim that they are a tabloid, an arm of the "Liberal Media". I'll admit my bias: I used to live in Lower Manhattan, and my morning routine included the NYT. I loved their technology section. I loved the heft of their local Sunday edition. They were my pal.

When I heard the news about McCain last night, I felt bad for the guy. It looked horrible for him. There is no way the NYT would run a smear-campaign against the very candidate they supported out of the Republican camp. Right? Right? Wrong.

After reading the piece this morning, I felt a little sick. It sounded like the very "tabloids" my conspiracy-theory friends used to compare them to. There was only one named source. It was vague. It was the very sort of tactic the Right used on Clinton, and the Left decried.

Now, the full story is coming out. It sounds like the "New Republic" was going to run a piece on THIS piece, and how the NYT has not fixed itself "post Blair". The damage control? Running the piece to defuse the New Republic's argument. The only named source has come out and denied the story. Multiple people have come out to say that they were interviewed for the investigation, said that there was nothing there, and none of them had their story reported. Democrats have come out to call the piece ludicrous. The whole thing is imploding in just a day.

What has happened to my Times? Were the conspiracy theories true? I'm so heart-broken and confused.

take a deep breath. it is true. you will have to take all the news you read with a
cynical eye. the times is a business-you will read what they want to tell you and they'll say whatever will sell. buck up.

[Athena]

The piece by the NYT was shoddy, certainly. I never use NYT pieces as sources during discussions. While I did not personally consider the paper to be particularly liberal, the bias was definitely perceived and sourcing it would have damaged my credibility in discussions that came down to the quality of the source.

That being said, it sucks to feel betrayed by an organisation you've relied upon for objective information. I remember when I was young(er) and discovered the true nature of the ACLU. It was tough.

It's interesting to see other reporting agencies respond to these types of situations. All the reporting on the reporting.

The published reports said McCain and Iseman each denied having a romantic relationship. Neither story asserted that there was a romantic relationship and offered no direct evidence that there was. Both stories reported that aides worried about the appearance of McCain having close ties to a lobbyist with business before the Senate Commerce Committee on which McCain served. The Times said top McCain aides also became "convinced the relationship had become romantic."


Keller, the Times editor, explained that the paper's judgment that the story was ready to print "means the facts have been nailed down to our satisfaction, the subjects have all been given a full and fair chance to respond, and the reporting has been written up with all the proper context and caveats. This story was no exception. It was a long time in the works. It reached my desk late Tuesday afternoon. After a final edit and a routine check by our lawyers, we published it."

Robert Bennett, a Washington attorney representing McCain, told NBC's "Today" show that McCain's staff provided the Times with "approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyist's clients and her public relations firm's clients," but none of the examples were included in the paper's story.
Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_lobbyist)

Nope...it's not looking good for the NYT.

[Sea Hag]

I know readership is down for all papers, and shit like this is going to spell the end.

And without a doubt this is going to have the opposite effect they hoped for. Generally speaking conservatives aren't too fond of McCain but they absolutely hate the Times.

I bet this will be a catalyst for conservatives to come out of the woodwork and rally around McCain.

[swivel]

Robert Bennett, a Washington attorney representing McCain, told NBC's "Today" show that McCain's staff provided the Times with "approximately 12 instances where Senator McCain took positions adverse to this lobbyist's clients and her public relations firm's clients," but none of the examples were included in the paper's story.

Goddamn.

I wish I would have put Rush Limbaugh on today. I bet he is high on the hog with this story.

You know, this makes that National Guard story on Bush, 44 days before the election, look like rigorous journalism by comparison.

[gprime]

I think that every news source has a bias, it is just more clear in some than others. Having read the New York Times on several occasions, it seems to me that it is bias to the left in fairly obvious way. But it is much less so than some other major newspapers. Take a look at The Guardian in the UK. They're a paper fit for Michael Moore. Or try reading Ha'aretz in Israel. With some of their reporting, you'd think Hamas was behind it. So in contrast, the New York Times is far more reasonable. I think the reason that allegations of bias come so quickly is because it is a major new sources. Those media sources with large customer bases and solid reputations will always be heavily scrutinized and subject to allegations of bias. But I think on the whole, the Times is no more strongly liberal than the Wall Street Journal is staunchly conservative.

[swivel]

gprime, I have no problem with them being biased. All papers are biased, and usually towards their paying audience. My solution is to understand the bias of every source of information, and take that bias into account as just more inflowing information.

My problem here is the lack of journalistic integrity. I think the NYT shamed itself today.

What fascinates me is flipping back and forth between CNN and FoxNews. On Fox, the story is how bad the NYT performed with the story. On CNN, the story is how badly the NYT is being attacked by Conservatives.

So, you have the CNN attacking FoxNews who is attacking the New York Times who is attacking John McCain who is attacking Barak Obama who is attacking Hillary Clinton who beats her husband who beats his cock which beats smoking a cigar!

[CPL CHUD]

So, you have the CNN attacking FoxNews who is attacking the New York Times who is attacking John McCain who is attacking Barak Obama who is attacking Hillary Clinton who beats her husband who beats his cock which beats smoking a cigar!Hahahahahaha! That's pretty much the sum of it. I can't say I was upset at the conduct, or even surprised, rather my lack of surprise is what in turn made me surprised, then upset at the lack thereof.