Difference between revisions of "Talk:The New York Times"

Revision as of 00:59, September 21, 2007

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

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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 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-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 20:52, 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)