Omissions
October 05, 2009 11:42 am ET by Jamison Foser
For the second straight week, New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt devotes a column to claims that the paper's supposedly-inadequate responsiveness to right-wing yelling about ACORN proves that the paper demonstrates liberal bias. This time, Hoyt's hook is reader response to his previous column.
This latest column does show some improvement: This time, Hoyt went to the trouble of acknowledging that not everybody thinks the Times is biased in favor of liberals. That's quite an improvement. Still, glaring flaws remain, most notably that Clark Hoyt has yet again managed to get through an entire column about whether the Times demonstrates liberal bias without using the words "Iraq" or "Gore" or "Whitewater."
That's a bit like writing a column about whether the Atlantic Ocean is a desert without ever mentioning all the water.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
However, many do feel that the paper is biased to liberals. That is the point. Just because MMFA does not agree, does not mean that the problem is not real and worthy of discussion.
Your viewpoint, that the newspaper leans left, is the position that the questioner held, so that was raised. Are you really this unable to comprehend the written word?
We don't believe the problem is real, but that's a matter of opinion, and when it's being discussed, it's only fair to talk about both sides of the argument. We've seen plenty of evidence that you're not willing to talk about both sides of an argument though, since you have no shame.
The fact that you think an impartial observer would come to the exact opposite conclusion is all the evidence I need to conclude that you are a twit. I backed my description of you as a twit in several ways above. Your suggestion that my description of you was a baseless insult and not accurate? Not so much.
Excuse me while I LOL. This, coming from you? Only fair? Puh-lease. So civil of you. You are so very respectful and willing to listen to both sides, I know. Like our enlightening and civil discussion on AGW over the last few days. Practice what you preach, (to borrow a phrase from you) dummy. And I noticed you used the term "we." Are you on the MMfA payroll or just a groupie?
"However, many do feel that the paper is biased to liberals." Many feel that Earth is flat, too. Hoyt wasn't accurate, he didn't address the reality of whether the NYT has a liberal bias, and didn't point out the fact that they're giving equal time to right-wing nutballs as if what they had to say was either accurate or relevant. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between the neocon point of view and actual facts.
You can't attack that position.
Hmm.kinda like "some say"
Most people that accuse the NYT of bias don't even read it.
Friedman is no liberal, neither are Brooks or Douthat.
The Times helped Bush push for war
There isn't any truth but "the truth" and just because "conservatives" don't like it doesn't make it biased.
Hell, try telling "conservatives" that Reagan nearly tripled the debt, Supply-side is a myth, raised taxes 7 times, had 32 officials from his administration convicted, sold arms to Iran, etc.