Home > Community Lounge > Politics > New York Times Objectivity

New York Times Objectivity

  1. Wow, you may or may not be in favor of Ron Paul, but the NYT is really showing some unmistakable bias today.

    Here's a summary of the primaries thus far, and Ron Paul is fully excluded from their summary. He took 2nd place in the state of Nevada, and is fully excluded from this NYT chart of the results.

    As I said, you may or may not support this candidate, but do take notice of the objectivity of this New York Times reporting. This isn't a beauty pageant, this a market dominant US newspaper's coverage of primary election results in the State of Nevada.

    http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/index.html
     
  2. The NYT excluding important facts?!? Wow, there's a first....

    Not.
     
  3. the NYT needs to lose the misleading banner font. it conveys an inaccurate level of journalistic integrity.

    it's not a newsflash to you, but i'm honestly surprised to see a factual misrepresentation of this scale in a voting chart. it's not editorial or even a story. it's just supposed to be a tabular summary of election results, yet it displays 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th place, with 2nd place simply unreported

    several weeks ago i picked up on anti-paul bias after the way they characterized him in a quote summary of an early GOP debate... but to me this is significantly more revealing than normal editorial bias
     
  4. What is the point of fair and balanced reporting? People too lazy to make up their own mind? The 50 cent butler? Tell me what/how should I think?
     
  5. fair question.. i mean a lot of typical ppl seek information from the mainstream press expecting it to be objective reporting. the editorial page supposedly exists to differentiate opinions from objective reporting..

    personally i would like to see news aggregation replace objectively branded single sources. google news approaches greater objectivity by citing multiple sources for similar headlines over the course of the day. they could improve it by aggregating a spectrum of contrasting views and presenting them together at the same time.

    then you also have the issue of msm vs independent across sources. even a diverse aggregator is still likely to contain consistent bias if all the sources are large corporate pubs

    anyway, manipulating a tabular representation of election results just seems over the line to me.
     
  6. I find it frightening that the mainstream media can simply declare a legitimate candidate not to exist. In this case it is worse because Fox News has also toed the mainstream media line and excluded Paul from any and all coverage. He has easily the most compelling story on the Republican side, an outsider doing far better than expected against a field that no one likes. But he might as well not be running, as far as the media is concerned.
     
  7. If the media doesn't present a candidate as electable, then the masses will not think he/she is electable. If people don't think someone is electable, nevermind why they think that, they won't want to vote for them, no matter if they agree with said candidates ideas.
     
  8. anyone that thinks the mainstream media doesn't have an agenda is a fool. they think you people are idiots because well... most of you are.
     
  9. The days of print newspapers are numbered. They only have a couple of elections left before they are history.

    But even after they are gone candidates like Paul are still not going to be elected. He isn't serious about campaigning. He could start by finding out how much the income tax brings to the treasury, (can be found in pie chart form on the back of the 1040 instruction book), before going on MTP to discuss it.
     
  10. Very true. You only need to observe the Obama phenomenon. An unqualified candidate with no experience and recycled "ideas" blabbering about "change" and the media is having orgasms. Or McCain, a media favorite because he has always been available to trash other republicans and support liberal ideas.

    If Paul were a liberal promoting big government, the media couldn't get enough of him.
     
  11. Indeed it looks like they did. I'm surprised and really happy to see that.

    I also noticed yesterday and this morning that he wasn't mentioned in any of the NYT online stories covering NV and SC. Even the story directly discussing each candidate's showing in NV. All I found was a one paragraph AP piece in the NYT on Paul's NV result, and it was only by doing a search for his name. I couldn't find even a single mention of him in any of the coverage, browsing from the front page into the expanded coverage.

    Same for CNN. Only one small obscured piece, but none of the comprehensive coverage even contained his name.

    The most thorough coverage seems to have been the LA Times.
     
  12. Also perhaps a bit revealing in a more subtle way. Observe the photograph selection for each candidate in the NYT profiles.

    http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/candidates/index.html

    Most of them are flattering, optimistic looking, chin-up, smiling shots. Paul? Depicted looking down, darkly, and as though he's about to gnaw someone's face off.
     
  13. the mainstream media is losing all credibility in the way they treat Ron Paul. these are subtle.. they are much more overt in other ways. as the economy worsens, more and more people will wake up to these shenanigans.
     
  14. unfortunately, i agree and have felt that way for a long time. money is increasingly the primary medium of representation in our society
     
  15. You're right... wow. So, they just conveniently replaced Rudy with Ron (assuming that Rudy had been included in that chart before). That makes perfect sense - hey, let's drop the only major contender (other than any notable carpetbaggers) hailing from the Times' own backyard.

    Wait, I get it: clearly, their graphic design software is limited to 10 columns max... date, state, 8 candidates. :p
     
  16. The press wants Mccain and Clinton as the nominees.

    That way, no matter who wins, they get their guy/gal in office. :D
     
  17. Yeah, look at the delegate counts. Blatant misrepresentation. Showing Mac with a commanding lead. Just because delegates aren't bound doesn't mean that they haven't selected a candidate already. Really Mitt has over 70 delegates and almost double what Mac has right now.

    We know who the NYT wants to win. they've been propping him up for a month now.