Comments on: The “death” of the NY Times

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 16:07:54 +0000

The media has always been in the tank with the democrats. I was in college when Nixon was running against Kennedy for the presidency. It was obvious the media loved Kennedy and loathed Nixon. It wouldn’t be much of an exaggeration to say the media worshiped Kennedy. Kennedy was from heaven and Nixon was from hell.

By: Sgt. Mom

Sgt. Mom — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:16:35 +0000

Over the last fifteen years, my own hometown newspaper has been dying on the vine. The print issue has shriveled into something the size of a small tabloid, and once-separate sections have merged. There are a few pages of print ads, and some obituaries, for which I understand that now the newspapers ask for a substantial payment to include. I dropped my own subscription when I realized that the national and international content was stuff that I was reading online, and several days earlier. I believe their only hope is to cover local matters much more deeply, but I don’t know if the city and environs really generate enough daily to fill even the reduced number of pages.

By: ericfromnewyork

ericfromnewyork — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 11:18:20 +0000

actually, the traditional old Chinese saying is pithier, and probably more germane: …and the grandchildren are beggars. (they go bankrupt)

By: Steve S

Steve S — Fri, 24 Feb 2017 02:35:04 +0000

But I know a lot of people (liberals rather than leftists) who still read the Times every day and trust that they are getting the truth.

I read the Houston Chronicle every day, and am under no illusions that I am getting the truth. But I do learn where my ungoodwrongthink is.

By: J.J.

J.J. — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 23:34:26 +0000

Prior to WWII most newspapers (and some radio stations – no TV then) advertised their political leanings. And they pushed the political line they favored. Most cities of any size had two papers with opposing political viewpoints. Knowing that, people could read their stories with an understanding of where the newspapers were coming from.

During WWII party lines faded and we all backed the government of FDR and the war effort. Newspapers began to assume a more bipartisan line of thinking and reporting. When the TV networks came along they tried to do the same. They all told us they were objective and trying to be informative rather than pushing one point of view or other. However, that only lasted through WWII and the 1950s to early 60s. By the late 60s the MSM had moved back into partisan reporting but they still posed as objective. Indeed, the MSM today will tell you they try to be objective and inform the people rather than take sides. They only believe that because they live in a bubble where they know few conservatives and where conservative viewpoints are constantly derided. (10 – 1 liberals over conservatives at MSM outlets.)

I would like to see all newspapers and TV networks admit their biases openly. At least it would be honest, like things used to be. Like Foxnews and conservative talk radio are now.

By: chuck

chuck — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:48:18 +0000

I first noticed the failings of the NY Times during the Kosovo War, 1998. They didn’t put any reporters on the ground because, IIRC, it was too dangerous. Primitive as the news resources on the net were at that time, I could read the British and French papers online and that is where I went, they did much better. Or at least they had more people closer to the fighting, I won’t vouch for the accuracy of the reporting. The NY Times still had the best science section around at that time (IMHO), but the people responsible for that have since retired or moved on.

By: Montage

Montage — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:44:18 +0000

Do you really think conservatives are reading or listening to full speeches by Trump and then fact checking them? Are any right wing sites doing that? I don’t believe so.

And so what happens is the things that might be misleading or outright lies are ignored by conservative sites and media but highlighted by liberal sites and media.

The same thing happened with Obama’s speeches, only the reverse. The key is to find a news media that is as close to unbiased [of our political spectrum] as you can get. That is not easy.

By: Alan F

Alan F — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:27:22 +0000

I see that “T” already commented on my additional complaint about Lee Smith’s:

“What was once an American political institution and a central part of the public sphere became something more like state-owned media used to advance the ruling party’s agenda and bully the opposition into silence.”

Just in the 21st Century, the MSC harshly criticized Bush’s efforts and praised Democrat efforts regardless of whether the Democrats were in power.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 22:11:02 +0000

I used to do some heavy-duty checking of one thing or another before the internet. Getting, say, a complete transcript was a lot of work for an ordinary person. Took time.
Some things that interested me I knew about already, that being normal, so I could object based on less research.
Still, it was a laborious process, but the result was the same as today; don’t trust them.

By: T

Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:47:56 +0000

“I think sometimes people look back at the press with rose colored glasses.” [Griffen @ 2:21]

No question about it. In fact, the press was always partisan and less-than-objective. It was always more about selling stories than reporting them accurately or at all; that’s why “if it bleeds, it leads!” Many newspapers began as mouthpieces for political parties and a few even today still have xxx-Democrat or xxx-Republican in their name.