As major dad Says “And This Is Why…”
“… since these are the same people who didn’t know a single person who’d voted for Nixon instead of McGovern.”
NYT Keeps Readers In The Dark
…Read the piece and see for yourself. It is long, exhaustive and deeply misleading. This goes beyond bias; it is the most foolish and self-defeating propaganda. If you want to know why liberals are so frequently surprised by events that other people saw coming, why so many well educated and well meaning people are so pathetically clueless about American politics and American culture — read this piece.
Their level of cocooning isn’t a surprise in the traditional sense ~ I suppose you could say it’s more a source of perpetual bemusement…and frustration for those of us who have to present established fact as bright and shiney new concept to unbelievers because they hadn’t heard it in their trusted, closed circles. But as VRM says in this blogpost, once you’ve forgotten to mention all the facts in the case ~ regardless of how you choose to slant them ~ you’ve forfeited your “journalist/paper of record” title and succumbed to the siren song of “advocate”. You lose much in the process. The respect of your able and honorable adversaries, for starters.
“If there were an anti-Pulitzer Prize for the worst journalism of the year — this would be a contender.
What he said.
Media, Politics | tree hugging sister | 
May 26, 2012 9:06 pm
Subscribe
“Via Meadia” also makes this point:
That the Times takes sides in this contest neither surprises nor disturbs the Via Meadia team. We know the Times is a liberal newspaper (often a very good one) whose readers are primarily liberal and want the news reported and analyzed from that point of view. The paper doesn’t try to hide this from readers and its editors, reporters and proprietors are doing nothing wrong in producing a paper of this kind.
I disagree with this. Not because I don’t think there shouldn’t be liberal (or conservative) media sources; that would be silly. No, I disagree because the NYT tries to pass itself as a “fair and balanced” (if I may borrow that phrase from Fox) media source. And all-to-often in a dishonest fashion, in much the same manner that “via Meadia” decries in this particular article.
Does “via Meadia” think the NYT just figured out how to write agitprop? They’ve been doing it for years. Balanced articles by the NYT are the exception, not the rule. And that’s why a lot of liberals wouldn’t know a single person who voted for Nixon.
The Grey Lady is indeed a liberal newspaper, and it sucks at it. There’s a reason why it’s stock value dropped from around $50 in 2001 to $6.55 today.
Ge what a surprise the Slimes trying to smear a governor who saved his state from debt without raising taxes and is looking at a good surplus in 2013.
The Milwaukee Urinal Septical has been trying to talk up that waste of space Barrett even thought they gave their official endorsement to Walker.
Here’s the rub: the NYT doesn’t consider conservatives – or Republicans in general for that matter (yes David Brooks, I’m talking to you) – ‘able and honorable adversaries’.