Saturday, August 03, 2013

The Ole Gray Lady, for my money the most biased paper in America

Media bias is often in the eye of the beholder but I think it's getting harder to deny. The homepage of my mobile browser has been revamped nicely and so I clicked on the NY Times mobile site and read this and there seemed a most definite skewing. The debate is not a new one and it's not really like I mind media bias just be upfront about it. If FOX swings to the Right and provides a kind of counterweight to the predominant leftward tilt of the press it would seem to be a good thing like a menu.  Media bias, why care?
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

15 comments:

  1. Anonymous8/04/2013 6:53 AM

    pro-choice, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-life!

    Is that all you people think about?

    Wake the hell up, there's a whole world out there that's Fucked up. How about discussing Obama and the other scumbags?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8/04/2013 11:16 PM

    I just want to hear the truth. When the media slants or ignores things that are going on because it doesn't fit an agenda, it isn't cool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z-man8/05/2013 1:21 PM

      Pro-life is so alien to the Times' whole POV that they probably don't even consider it a bias just reporting in a reasonable way. The subject of fetal pain, honestly it's never been a concern among pro-choicers, makes no difference to them and I find this reassuring statement that the fetus probably doesn't feel pain until just right before the birthday to be too convenient. The thing with the choicers is some of them come across as ghouls.

      Delete
  3. Z-man8/05/2013 1:09 PM

    I don't share Ham Bone's Obamacentric political obsessions, simply wanted to broaden the subject matter.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BB-Idaho8/05/2013 1:55 PM

    Never been exposed to the Gray Lady, but-
    "The New York Times has won 112 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspaper. The prize is awarded for excellence in journalism in a range of categories. Its reputation for accuracy is such that it is often used as a reference." -doesn't sound too bad, considering the range of idiotic media these days.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z-man8/05/2013 2:22 PM

      There was the former journalist at the NY Times who once caused a huge problem. I'm also sometimes interested in what the omdudsmen have to say.

      Delete
  5. Z-man8/06/2013 12:07 PM

    But BB here's what I don't get. Now most major newspapers in this country have what is called an ombudsman, a kind of independent auditor if you will to call them out on media bias among other things when the situation warrants it. I know the LA Times has had one. Now the Executive Editor of the NY Times Jill Abramson has publicly said she disagees with her own outgoing ombudsman Mr. Arthur Brisbane so my question is if you're not going to listen to your own ombudsman why have one?

    ReplyDelete
  6. BB-Idaho8/06/2013 1:25 PM

    Ombudsmen are supposed to be quite independent. BTW, the first
    ombudsman in Catholic Diocesan
    history was recently appointed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. BB-Idaho8/06/2013 1:30 PM

    Speaking of newspapers, the billionaire founder of Amazon.Com bought the Washington Post (for cash). He tends to be liberal, sort of a counter to Rupert Murdoch and Allan Ailes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z-man8/06/2013 1:41 PM

      Rupert Murdoch. My friend says Rupert Murdoch is part of the dumbing down of America, think Family Guy. I mean just look at some of the right-wing blogs out there, like the opening credits of some pornos they can't even spell:)

      Delete
  8. Z-man8/06/2013 1:39 PM

    That's interesting. Getting back to Abramson of the Times she'd probably like an ombudsman for the ombudsman.

    ReplyDelete
  9. BB-Idaho8/12/2013 1:57 PM

    We have the National Inquirer and World Net Daily...

    ReplyDelete
  10. BB-Idaho8/12/2013 2:02 PM

    Here's how I see it: People that believe in Sasquatch read only favorable pieces about Sasquatch sightings, Sasquatch footprints and Sasquatch habitat. If their narrow reading reinforces their belief they think it is unbiased. Any article that suggests Sasquatch
    does not exist, they consider biased. Like Moynahan noted, we are entitled to our own opinions, but no our own facts and Julius Caesar noted early on that people believe what they want to believe. Gotta go feed the sasquatch now....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z-man8/12/2013 3:58 PM

      That's a clever response but as I see it not believing in media bias in this day and age is kinda like believing in Sasquatch.

      Delete
  11. Z-man8/14/2013 1:43 PM

    BB don't get me wrong, the NYT is a very well written paper with very well written and often interesting articles. The structures of the articles are also very well done all I'm saying is I've read more than one article in the Times where I've detected palpable biases. People are human and being human have biases. Now unless the Times someday gets published by a group of Androids or Cyborgs I'll continue to hold to my bias charges. BTW has the Ole Gray Lady ever done any hit pieces on Bigfoot?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)