TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,925
Assuming you are correct, Junebug, and this is big news, what exactly are the implications?
Outgoing NY Times Editor admits to liberal bias
- Thread starter Junebug
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Junebug
Well-known member
The difference is all I did was post an article I read on another news source. Some people deemed this "not newsworthy" and launched in with personal attacks.
With you, you say shit (like "political ads aren't speech") that is so stupid nobody with 2 brain cells to rub together believes. You then defend this position until your head explodes and you start talking about the other side spitting on our servicemen's graves and other crazy talk that causes everyone to question your sanity.
I don't really care if a few pricks are irritated at me for posting an article from another news source that they think isn't newsworthy. If I were you though, I'd wonder whether the fact every debate you get into ends the same way didn't have a little something to do with the man in the mirror.
Junebug
Well-known member
To be clear, I'm not claiming this is big news. I'm claiming it's news. There are many people, a lot of whom are likely from the north east, who think the NYT is fair and balanced. (20% if you believe the Rasmussen poll.) For an insider to point out that it's not carries more weight than if some random schmo like me did.
If everyone on the board wants to accept that stories from the NYT should be taken with a grain if salt, the same way that people view stories from Fox, that would surprise me, but I'll be happy to move on if they do.
ConnorEl
Well-known member
Every news story should be taken with a "grain of salt". But that's not news either.
bigdoublezero
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 9,512
- Reaction score
- 678
The Public Editor isn't really an editor. It's an independent ombudsman position. He makes no editorial decisions and isn't a part of the editorial process. He just reacts to coverage and attempts to provide an impartial perspective in retrospect.
I think his description of the newsroom is pretty helpful for all the cynics on this thread, actually. No conspiracies and a genuine, professional attempt at impartiality. But yeah, when you get enough people who come from the same perspective, that tends to compound a bit in unintended ways.
That's in pretty stark contrast to an outlet like Fox News.
I think his description of the newsroom is pretty helpful for all the cynics on this thread, actually. No conspiracies and a genuine, professional attempt at impartiality. But yeah, when you get enough people who come from the same perspective, that tends to compound a bit in unintended ways.
That's in pretty stark contrast to an outlet like Fox News.