About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

The NYT now predicts the news on the front page?

July 31, 2010 9:53 am ET by Eric Boehlert

I prefer it when the Times simply reports the news on A1, and leaves the prognostications to the opinion pages. 

But today the Times can't help itself. Wildly impressed that the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement in opposition to the Islamic center and mosque planned for the Ground Zero neighborhood, the Times hypes the move on A1, above the fold, and treats the press release as a game changer [emphasis added]: 

[T]he unexpected move by the ADL, a mainstream group that has denounced what it saw as bigoted attacks on plans for the Muslim center, could well be a turning point in the battle over the project.

Even though the ADL statement has been widely, widely condemned as illogical and ill-advised, the Times adopts the stop-the-mosque viewpoint and announces the ADL's move "could" change the whole debate over the proposed community center. (Then again, it "could" not.)

But the Times provides no supporting evidence. Is Mayor Bloomberg, a fierce supporter of the Islamic center, suddenly going to abandon the project because of the ADL press release? Is the local NYC community board, which has "has given overwhelming backing to the project," suddenly going to reverse course because of the press release? 

There's no indication that will happen. But the Times still predicts the press release "could be a turning point." Why, because mosque opponents say so? 

Note this passage as well: 

The issue was wrenching for the Anti-Defamation League, which in the past has spoken out against anti-Islamic sentiment. But its national director, Abraham H. Foxman, said in an interview on Friday that the organization came to the conclusion that the location was offensive to families of victims of Sept. 11, and he suggested that the center’s backers should look for a site “a mile away.”  

How does the Times know for a fact that the decision was "wrenching"? And what evidence is given by Foxman to support that sympathetic characterization. 

And lastly, the Times notes that the Islamic center debate has been embraced by Republicans nationwide who are driving the opposition and that the GOP is using the issue to try to help election candidates. i.e. It's become a partisan issue. 

So how many Republicans are mentioned in the story? Six. How many Democrats are mentioned in the story? One. 

UPDATED: The Times should fix the article by making this wording change: 

Mosque opponents hope the unexpected move by the ADL, a mainstream group that has denounced what it saw as bigoted attacks on plans for the Muslim center, could well be a turning point in the battle over the project.


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by The_Cat (July 31, 2010 10:13 am ET)
      10  
      And lastly, the Times notes that the Islamic center debate has been embraced by Republicans nationwide...


      Which is where the entire impetus for putting this story on the front page came from. This is just more proof that 'the liberal media' is a Faux Con myth. It should be pointed out that it is one myth among many many myths.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© (July 31, 2010 10:42 am ET)
        10  
        Agreed. We don't have a liberal media.

        We have a corporate media, with the NYT acting in the role of the acceptable left edge of debate, while FAUX pushed the envelope ever rightward.

        It's been a disaster for the nation as a whole, but it's working pretty well for plutocrats and their heirs. This includes the Sulzberger and Graham families, publishers of the NYT and the Washington Post.
        ~
        Report Abuse
        • Author by puttforever4682 (July 31, 2010 12:02 pm ET)
          5  
          See Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media to find documentary evidence of how the republicans have "worked the refs" and changed the media to their side.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by MickD (July 31, 2010 3:58 pm ET)
          2  
          The fellow travelers here should all adopt 'corporate media' as the first retort, then follow up, 'have you ever worked for a corporation?' When the master debater on the other side says yes (or if no, ask them how they would assess corporate culture), ask him what he/she thinks the corporations politics are, or lies? That should keep the conversation flowing...:o)

          The truth has a liberal bias.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by soze169880 (July 31, 2010 10:18 am ET)
      6  
      The ADL's done a lot of great work over the decades, but I think they started to lose legitimacy around 2007 when they fired that guy for saying the Armenian Genocide was a thing.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mattcable250650 (July 31, 2010 10:50 am ET)
      5  
      Just to comment on predictions made by media people in general, the magazine Brill's Content ran a series where they took the predictions made by pundits and scored how well the pundit did. The magazine picked questions where the answer was yes or no. After a few issues, it became clear that nobody ever got less than a third right, nobody ever got more than two-thirds right and it was the middle third that was up for grabs. In other words, your gossipy neighbor leaning over the fence is just as likely to be right about anything as the professional pundits are.
      MMFA is absolutely right. Leave predictions to the horoscope column, the palm readers and to the opinion page. A news piece should look at the factors that may or may not affect future events and that's it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (July 31, 2010 12:01 pm ET)
        4  
        Not just a gossipy neighbor, but a monkey. George Will and Fred Barnes were documented stupider than a monkey years and years ago, and they're still working.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (July 31, 2010 11:03 am ET)
      3  
      People have accused liberal groups of using the liberal media to make things right.or wrong be their way.What do you call this?......Something that does not exist?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (July 31, 2010 11:43 am ET)
      5 2
      Can anyone tell me what would be an appropriate distance from ground zero, for this Islamic center? The ADL says it should be a mile away, but I thought it was already 2 miles away.

      Is it 3 miles, 4 miles , 12 miles, just what would it be?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ginnyinco (August 01, 2010 12:05 am ET)
           
        What I have heard consistently is 2 blocks. Some other person objecting to the site recommended a further distance but I can't remember the actual figure. It is, as your question highlights, a ridiculous idea.

        The ADL just went over the cliff as far as I am concerned. They were a respectable organization. They have completely devolved into supporting the Israel Zionists.

        Thank you MM for keeping up the watch and expose on our corporate protecting/promoting media.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by New Frontier (July 31, 2010 12:12 pm ET)
      2  
      Here's your ultimatum: Either build your mosque a mile away from ground zero, or else we will invade a Muslim nation. Maybe even two Muslim nations.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MiniTru (July 31, 2010 12:57 pm ET)
      5  
      But its national director, Abraham H. Foxman, said in an interview on Friday that the organization came to the conclusion that the location was offensive to families of victims of Sept. 11
      Mr Foxman, 10% of the victims of the attack on 9/11 were Muslims. I think your attitude is offensive to the families of those victims.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pattyk (July 31, 2010 1:24 pm ET)
         
      But the NYT habitually prognosticates on its front page, more often with the verb "may" than with "could." As a reader I want to know what IS happening or HAS happened not what "may" or "could" happen and I have often thought of telling Bill Keller that he should forbid the use of "may" in headlines forthwith.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by terrapin53 (July 31, 2010 1:35 pm ET)
        1
      I guess it was just be to easy to fgiure this is just a New York City zoning issue. How is that property zoned?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (July 31, 2010 2:45 pm ET)
         
      This is the continuing "Foxifacation" of the news. Facts are mixed with opinion in such a way that everything sounds as if it were being described as fact rather than being proposed. Readers that are not careful gulp down everything.

      FOX propaganda is like cartoon-like and is clearly not taken seriously by anyone without tin-foil hats. However, when the Times includes little bits like this, they are in danger of falling into the ranks of State-Level propaganda that is created by professionals for specific intent.

      Foxifying the news may be sexy and stir up the readers, but it degrades the craft of journalism.

      WHERE ARE THE EDITORS???????

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (July 31, 2010 4:00 pm ET)
        1  
        The editors are keeping their jobs by taking orders from the board room.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by j238 (July 31, 2010 9:48 pm ET)
         
      Really parsing the semantics here. Sort of thing I might have written in tenth grade.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by FGFM (August 01, 2010 10:33 am ET)
         
      I don't see where the anti-Muslim types have a chance of legally prevailing in all this, so I fearlessly predict that this complex will eventually be built.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by alandownunder (August 02, 2010 12:01 am ET)
           
        Whether it is built is not the point. The stories about whether it is to be built, the dignification of the notion that it should not be built, the failure to dismiss the notion as the unthinkably obscene racism that it is ... That is the point.
        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.