Talk:The New York Times

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The news sections of the New York Times certainly don't have a "liberal stance," even if the editorial page does.

Contents

Subsidizing MoveOn claim false

Hi Rob,

Rather than possibly instigate an edit war I thought I'd talk with you about this here first. As explained in this week's Advertising Age, the reason that the MoveOn ad was cheaper than the rate card lists is because they used a lesser-used but publicly available "standby rate," which is a contract that allows an advertiser to choose a date but does not guarantee publication. It's like flying standby, for example.

The standby rate is the same rate that the Guiliani campaign used when they published their rebuttal/condemnation of the MoveOn ad. It's completely understandable why this misinterpretation was first made, as (like many discounted rates across many businesses) it isn't the most prominently-displayed rate. It does exist, however, and it's how both of the above-mentioned ads were purchased.

I'll wait for your acknowledgment before editing this article, or you can do it yourself if you prefer; no skin off my nose either way. :) Aziraphale 18:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT) <-and that's a lot of skin...

Removal of my edit?

Tash, why did you remove the part about the WP vandalism staying up less than a minute?

I wouldn't even call that a controversy to begin with. Somebody inside the NYT offices made a silly edit that got instantly reverted. It's not exactly something that led to frontpage news, angry comments, or whatever. (If there were any, please add references to them - I don't see any) --Jenkins 19:36, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

  • What you added, Jenkins, is spin, worthy of a Times employee or a Liberal. But it was an unsubstantiated conjecture as to their intent, eh? And please stop with fact templates on stuff that is a truism, such as the politics of the publisher. If you have time to run around inserting those, you have the time to find the appropriate citation to prove or disprove. That is the job of an editor. Not some other editor, YOUR job. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
What I added was a simple, sourced fact. "Spin" might have been if I had rephrased the first part of that entry to remove the "most vile hate speech" bit. And I still don't see the "controversy" - especially when sites like WikiScanner have been doubted in the past. But thanks for the recommendation, I might apply for a NYT job later ;)
And no, it would be the fact of the editor who MAKES THE CLAIM. I happen not to know that guy, and he doesn't seem to have an article. So to casual readers, it's not a truism, it's an unsourced claim. And from what I see, the claim becomes "true" with the reasoning "The NYT is liberal because the guy is liberal, and the guy is liberal because he's the chief of the NYT". But fine, I'll do the job of whoever made the claim and do his/her research. --Jenkins 20:43, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
Wow, googling for "Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr" radical leftist gives this article as the first result. Truism indeed... but maybe there actually is a source... --Jenkins 20:45, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
  • I will soon be wishing you Godspeed, Jenkins, I can just feel it in my bones! You can take your attitude and pack it up anytime you are ready. You are full of deceit in your twisting of everything, and we can do without that. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
My aim is to improve Conservapedia. I'm not sure why a simple content question sparked such hostile tones to begin with. Are we talking about potential blocking basically just because I dared to insert a fact tag and added true and sourced information? If so, I shall back off from this article. It seems to be good for my wiki-health. --Jenkins 21:01, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
  • Your aim is obviously to use Deceit and always misstate or justify your own words and deeds, spin them after the fact, when caught. Then when given an instruction from an Administrator, you came back and told me what an editors job is. I am not hostile, I am merely stating facts in a clear and concise manner, that you obviously cannot handle anyone being so direct, and interpret it as hostility. That is a Liberal trait. Anything they do not agree with is not factual. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
...I think this qualifies as a Catch-22 situation, doesn't it?
If I say "Yes" to your accusation, I'm a deceitful liberal. If I say "No" to your accusation, I deny that I'm a liberal, my denial can be seen as deceit, and I'm a deceitful liberal. So no matter what I answer, the outcome is the same. I guess the best course of action is for me to let you guys doing your thing while I edit in less controversial articles. --Jenkins 21:22, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Liberal bias and the NY Times

I am doing research on the Times and liberal bias. It also appears as if the management denies there is a liberal bias but I have not fact checked that part.

Here is what I found:

Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? By DANIEL OKRENT[1]

This appears to be Mr. Okrent's position in the company: the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent,[2]

I need to fact check this blog report about his boss denying the liberal bias: His boss was quick to correct the wayward editor. The Times wasn't liberal: it merely reflects a flexible urban viewpoint. Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban." He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means "We're less easily shocked," and that the paper reflects "a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility."[3] Conservative 20:54, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

And are you surprised that the New York Times denies that it has a liberal bias? It seems to me to be yet another example of liberal deceit. CalebRookwood 20:59, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
NO, but we should support it and cite it via reputable sources. Conservative 21:02, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
I added them about 2 minutes before your reply here. CalebRookwood 21:05, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
here is a confirmation of the blog from Okrent himself: "Times publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. doesn't think this walk through The Times is a tour of liberalism. He prefers to call the paper's viewpoint "urban." He says that the tumultuous, polyglot metropolitan environment The Times occupies means "We're less easily shocked," and that the paper reflects "a value system that recognizes the power of flexibility."[4] Conservative 21:04, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
  • The Times own ombudsmen wrote in answer to the same question: "Of course it does!". Better check the available sources again.....[5]--
This critical election year is different than most. Usually, news organizations try to maintain they're fair and objective. But the public editor of the New York Times has written a column saying that it's absolutely true that the Times is a liberal paper on such issues as gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental issues. He says, "…if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."

şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:11, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

NY Times liberal Bias affects other media according to reporter John Stossel

Here is what I found: "Stossel also used the occasion to take a swipe at The New York Times and The Washington Post. While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents. "The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."[6] Conservative 20:59, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

citation and elaboration needed

The article states: "Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr, who is a radical leftist in his political opinions." We need to support this and cite it and the material i put on the talk page will help. I think we need further support though and elaboration. Conservative 21:16, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Yes, it has been all of 20 minutes! Truisms are not necessary to support, as the Publisher himself has so stated his politics. Thanks, however, for reminding another Sysop of what is needed. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:21, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

more evidence of NY Times liberal bias from Accuracy in Media

"The New York Times forbids donations, but that didn't stop Randy Cohen, who writes a syndicated column for the Times called "The Ethicist," when he gave $585 to the far-left activist group MoveOn.org in 2004 to organize get-out-the-vote efforts to defeat President Bush. Cohen said he understands the Times' policy and won't do it again, but that he had "thought of MoveOn.org as no more out of bounds than the Boy Scouts." [7] Conservative 21:19, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Also: "In 2004 the Pew Center found that the New York Times received a credibility score from Republicans of 14% compared to Democrats with 31%. Republicans' perceived bias of the New York Times is most likely caused by the Time's reputation for a relatively liberal editorial page, and because the paper has not endorsed a Republican Presidential candidate since Eisenhower in 1956."[8] Conservative 21:21, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Sulzberger/liberalism/Epstein of American Scholar

"In an article entitled “The Degradation of the New York Times,” Joseph Epstein—former editor of the American Scholar—writes, “the true politics of the new New York Times are to be found at work on the issues of feminism, racism, homosexuality—usually funneled through the totem of ‘diversity,’ which, reinforced by political correctness, I prefer to think of as totalitarian pluralism.” Epstein adds, “The way Sulzberger has backed up his conviction is not only through the writing he publishes but also through hiring and promotion practices inside the paper.”[9] Conservative 21:28, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Gay Lobby honors NYT and related material

Gay Lobby Honors New York Times [10]Conservative 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

"At the recent New York Times annual meeting, Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. turned in another amazing performance, acting ignorant about the paper's pro-gay bias that is becoming a national embarrassment. A year ago we had raised the issue of Jesse Dirkhising, the 13 year-old boy who was raped and murdered by two homosexuals in Arkansas in September 1999. The media's general failure to cover the murder stands in sharp contrast to the massive coverage of the death of Matthew Shepard, the gay college student in Wyoming. The Times hadn't published a word on the Dirkhising case."[11] Conservative 21:32, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

Reversion

It makes no difference. We've identified the (a) the extremist nature and intent of paid staff, and (b) the use of NYT offices and facilities to perpetuate vicious and defamatory smears. Until we have evidence of an internal investigation and disciplinary action, the rather lame excuse they were caught wtih thier hands in the cookie jar is insufficient. Rob Smith 13:51, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Radical?

According to the link, the New York Times is "a member of the liberal party in the French National Assembly." You might want to either delink the word "radical", or else add the intended meaning to the radical page. Feebasfactor 21:18, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Thank you for pointing that out! Fixed. Feel free to dive in and do those things yourself. I'll give you a day-pass. ;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:43, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Not what you meant to say!

"The radical liberal group MoveOn.org ... ran a full page ad in the Times ... impugning Gen. Petraeus credibility as a traitor." Whoever wrote this really needs to revise it. Dadsnagem2 15:49, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Fantastic NYT Joke

A Harley rider is passing the zoo, when he sees a little girl leaning into the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The biker jumps off his bike, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch. Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A New York Times reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter says, "Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I saw a man do in my whole life." The biker replies, "Why, it was nothing, really; the lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger, and acted as I felt right."

The reporter says, "Well, I'm a journalist from the New York Times, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?" The biker replies, "I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.'"*

The following morning the biker buys The New York Times to see if it indeed brings news of his actions, and reads, on front page:

  • U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT AND STEALS HIS LUNCH!!

--Jpatt 12:39, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Paywall

7 more ways to smash through the New York times paywall: http://www.businessinsider.com/best-ways-to-get-around-the-new-york-times-paywall-2011-3 Conservative 09:33, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

Article needs to be moved

The proper name of the newspaper is The New York Times; this article should moved to reflect this. SharonW 13:57, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

All links to AIM stories in the footnotes have expired.

Which means there's no substantiation for any of the claims made referring to them. --Esseph 22:45, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Good point, but current links to replace the broken ones can probably be found. AIM may have simply move some material around on its website.--Andy Schlafly 23:03, 6 August 2012 (EDT)
I've found some working links to replace the broken ones, and done a general tidy-up, including removing the prediction that the Boston Globe would go out of business in 2009. --Esseph 11:16, 7 August 2012 (EDT)
Personal tools