Bias? What bias?

Thursday, November 03, 2005
I have extraordinarily low expectations regarding the New York Times. It has not performed journalism for some time and its propaganda efforts are generally laughable. I realize that there is an ever diminishing segment of the population that turns to the Times in expectation of factual reports but there are segments of the population that will purchase tickets to see the amazing Egress. I'm sure that a Venn diagram would show an amazing overlap of the two groups. That said, every so often the Times prints something so egregiously base that attention must be called to it as a matter of common decency. I first saw reports of this recent dive into the cesspool at Tim Blair's place and at Michelle Malkin's. Today the New York Post picks up the cry.

I cannot add to the reporting on this. I admire Mrs. Starr's kindness regarding the Times but I am afraid that I do not possess it. I honor Cpl. Jeffrey Starr's courage, dedication and sacrifice and will pray that God comforts his family in this time of loss.

I will continue to disparage the Times as a contemptible propaganda organ that better serves the enemies of the United States than ever it has served American interests and commend others to do likewise. Suggestions as to how to hasten its decline are most welcome.


vnjagvet said...

When I first picked this up, I posted somewhere that it would be interesting to find out what a full page ad in the Times costs.

A collection could then be taken up to put a simple ad along the following lines: The full letter from Cpl. Starr and the excerpt from the times. Last two sentences. "Although a request for correction was made __________, the Times has not seen fit to issue one. We bring you this message as a public service to honor a brave soldier." Or words to that effect.

Syl said...

Also check out Mudville Gazette on this subject. He lists a couple more examples from the Times along with an email one 'journalist' sent to someone who complained. Incredible.

terrye said...

It is one thing to go after Bush, it is quite another to use a dead Marine.

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Wayne said...

In the late Seventies & early Eighties I looked forward to my morning coffee and a thorough devouring of the Gray Lady. Not only were the editorial standards high, but stories were covered with a depth unmatched by the local papers.

As for bias, I felt at the time that there was really only the 'establishment' point of view and the 'counterculture' POV, and I tolerated the first while sympathizing with the second.

At about the time of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, I remember remarking on the massive front-page coverage of the accident itself, while a story about Exxon making deals with property owners to head off class-action suits was buried on the last page of section C.

The discussion had to do with the subtleties of which stories to cover and how to place the articles; nobody in the room imagined a time when the NYT would sink so low as it has in the last decade.

IMO, journalism in general and the major 'branded' media in particular merely reflect the general corruption of standards--above all, blurring the lines between editorializing (proselytizing?) and objective reporting-- and the 'gotcha!' nature of politics.