The media in this nation are pro-democrat/ anti-republican. It's all over the place. The Denver Post is a joke newspaper now. It's clearly an organ for one political party.
This is reality in America now. The media are not simply biased, they are mouth-pieces for one party, and antagonistic and negative towards the other party.
We don't have "news" anymore. We do not have professional "keep-em honest" journalism. It's dead.
Note: The NYT would never mention the value of the Clinton's home in upstate New York.
never.
"It was widely considered a strategic move to a politically appropriate suburban address when the Clintons, on the eve of Mrs. Clinton’s 2000 Senate run, bought the Dutch colonial on Old House Lane for $1.7 million. (They pay just over $50,000 a year in property taxes.)"
NYTimes May 29, 2012 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/nyregion/as-new-phase-looms-for-clintons-chappaqua-ny-ponders-future-of-great-neighbors.html
Some of you guys need to get real with yourselves.
The NYT always tries to undermine or destroy female conservative women -- name one they've ever supported. That predictability aside, I bet they secretly wish that Mary Cheney would run for something, though even her familial connections would conflict them. In the NYT's simplified world, all female politicians must be Dems.
Putting aside the politics and the NYT bias, it's just an amateur report. There are some beautiful shots of the countryside, but the interviews and narration are horseshit.
On the one hand, it's probably true that a lot of Wyoming Reps are wondering why she's running and whether it's worth replacing Enzi who has been pretty good. On the other hand, the people that the NYT finds to stand in for the alleged "many Republicans" who "question the political wisdom of this move" are obviously RINOs and people who are dialed in to establishment GOP politics, ie., natural Enzi supporters. This isn't political reporting, it's a non-paid political advertisement.
The NYT didn't make a video about the Clintons, now did they?
Read through that NYT link you just linked about the Clintons, PHX. It's 99% positive. No wait 100% positive. It's a fawning display of the usual pro-democrat bias at the NYT.
Compare that the 99% negative NYT Liz Cheney video.
Okay, I had to stop with the "Republican, Environmental Activist" guy. I'm not buying this.
Of course, I'm also unhappy with the creation of ANOTHER political dynasty, but what the Hell, the Republic is lost anyway.
Incidentally, it was funny that the NYTs was pointing out that she doesn't have much of a record besides having the last name Cheney. I'd think that the party of the Kennedy Clan and the Clinton Clan and the soon to be Obama Clan would be knocking someone on that point.
Personally I think that if anyone within two generations of you in your family has held federal office you should be banned from holding any federal job, save military jobs during war-time. But that's just me.
I've seen her on a few of the talk shows. She's poised, sharp,, and fresh. She looks like she might be as formidable as her father although the blond highlights make her look less sinister. (How much more affable Dick Cheney would have looked if he had worn a blonde wig.).....At any rate, when it comes to the Weiners and Spitzers, the Times is always saying it's something for the voters to decide. Ditto for Wyoming........I'm one of those guys who think that The Times would never do a piece like this on Chelsea or any of the Kennedys, not currently under indictment.
She's a smart woman, with a lot of background. I like her. Wyoming can choose what they want just fine without the NYT's help. I'm sure of one thing - if they check I.D. at the polls, it won't affect this race, and nobody will be standing outside the polling places brandishing clubs.
I forget, at the moment, what the subject(s) may have been. but I remember Liz saying over the last few years a lot of things I agreed with, and with which I respected her boldness.
And, this is the Times, so the old saw... the enemy of my enemy is my friend may be in play.
Man, I want to move to Wyoming. What a beautiful state. Motorcycled through it a couple of times; much of it is breathtaking. No state income taxes, either.
Where were we? Oh, Liz Cheney. She is a very smart woman. And much tougher than her appearance would cause you to believe. Good candidate; I hope she wins.
The NYT welcomed Arkansan Hillary Clinton to New York as a senate candidate, even though she had not previously lived there as a property owner. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, in case you forgot. Liz Cheney isn't, hence the NYT travelogue. They don't much care for conservative women.
Michael Haz said... Man, I want to move to Wyoming. What a beautiful state. Motorcycled through it a couple of times; much of it is breathtaking. No state income taxes, either.
For the typical NYT reader, natural beauty scores pretty low. When they hear Wyoming, they think Dick Cheney politics and Matthew Shepard hospitality.
The NYT mentioned Liz Cheney's "two million dollar home" as a negative.
The NYT mentioned the Clinton's 1.7 million dollar home in New York (they are not from New York, they are from Arkansas, remember?) as positive and delightful. Oh and they didn't buy the 10 million dollar home, but they could have! But aren't the Clinton's amazing?! Let us, along with the media, celebrate the Clintons.
There are two major papers in NYC, the NYT and the WSJ. The WSJ editorial pages are more slanted than anything in the NYT. They constantly push the wealthy/Republican line, often to an absurd degree. Why not make an issue about the one-sided nature of this paper?
ARM - The difference between the NYT and THE WSJ is on one page, if that. The WSJ may have some conservative views on it's editorial page, but the balance of the newspaper is quite liberal.
Most conservatives in business read Investors Business Daily in lieu of, or in addition to the WSJ.
Michael, I read the WSJ regularly. It is a hard argument to make that it is a liberal paper. The news is presented in a neutral fashion but there are three pages of editorials, commentary etc. that are almost invariably slanted right.
More broadly, as you point out, there is an even more right wing paper in the the IBD. And then there is the New York Post. The argument for an overall liberal bias in NYC papers is pretty weak.
The argument for an overall liberal bias in NYC papers is pretty weak
Not so sure I agree. The NYT is a broad-market newspaper. The WSJ and IBD are very narrow-market, single focus newspapers. Neither the WSJ or IBD place much focus on social policy in their reporting, and report politics usually as it applies to business matters only.
The constant whining about the liberal bias in the media is largely unfounded. Take FOX TV, not FOXNews. It's owned by Murdoch yet the stuff they show is not particularly conservative. Why is this? Market forces. Nothing else. No liberal agenda. No Hollywood conspiracy. Just plain old market forces. Capitalism at work in its purest form. Murdoch will do whatever makes the most money. Exactly the same agenda drives the other stations, which do not differ significantly in content, arguably more conservative in some cases.
Market forces indeed. That is why MSNBC and CNN are losing audience. No matter, all they need is a charitable donation. A sugar daddy to keep them afloat.
MSNBC and CNN do have an audience. They make money, not as much as FOX News, but FOX News doesn't have the revenue of CBS either. A smaller market doesn't mean a station cannot be profitable.
Don't confuse market with distribution. The WSJ has a narrow market - business readership. It is widely read in its market because it is one of just two news dailies that serve that market.
The NYT is a general news paper. It has a broad market, and is widely distributed. It has a lot of competition, so it has a lower readership.
Anyhow, that's my take. Now I'm going to spent the rest of the day outside in this glorious weather, far away form desk and computer.
The biggest rap against Enzi is the Internet tax...
I'd say that lead sponsor ship of the Marketplace Fairness Act qualifies him as a ultra-RINO and an Idiot, both in my opinion. Nothing proposed in the Senate would increase bureaucracy more and inhibit small business management more that this absurd proposal.
Further, IMO it was an attempt by the camel to get his nose in the tent, so to speak...precursor to a federal Internet sales tax ... we-do-not-need-any-more-taxes-or-tax collection-schemes. Period.
I pay my Michigan sales and use tax, for untaxed Internet purchases, on my MI1040. This year I am up to $1997.39 taxable Internet purchases, or $115.65 tax due on 15 April 2014...as of this date and my last purchase [advance] of a book via Amazon. It would be more but Dell and Canon both collect taxes on the POS now.
We need people to obey the laws of their own state and not make everyone their collection nanny. When a purported "conservative" proposes more nanny-hood, he/she is no conservative and presumes a majority are law breakers. Screw him.
Enzi reminds me of Sen. Jeff Sessions(R-AL) and his "Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act" which allows prosecution for capital crimes based upon hearsay alone. Screw him too.
Enzi looks old. Time to go. ... Serve your time and gracefully bow out.
Enzi is two years younger than me, at 68 years old versus my 70. However, Surprise!...I agree with you. I am more cranky in my old age than ever before....and maybe a bit daft, too :(
He's been in politics in one office or another since 1975. Time to move, move out, go home. He has a degree in accounting yet he proposes an absurd accounting cluster-bang-up? He's daft, period.
I hope the GOP follows through on it's threat to boycott CBS, NBC and ABC in their debates because of the Hillary Clinton campaign bio that they want to show before the primary season.
They should bar the so called "journalists" from these propaganda sites from all of the debates and refuse to let them moderate them. No more Candy Crowley's lying and running interference for the Democratic candidate.
Trooper York said... You really are silly AReasonableMan when you claim there is not discernible liberal media bias.
The New York Times has not published a positive story about a conservative Republican in the last twenty years. Seriously dude. Get a grip.
But the point is the NYT is not the only paper in the marketplace. I said there was no overall liberal bias in NYC newspaper market. The WSJ, IBD and Post are all major players in that market. Why only focus on the NYT?
With regard to the networks. The obvious question is why does FOX TV look just like the other networks?
There are five major newspapers in the New York Area.
Liberal to the exteme: New York Times New York Daily News Newsday
Conservative Fiscally Wall Street Journal
Tabloid Conservative (Bill O'Reilly style) New York Post
The editiorial and news stories in the Times, Daily News and Newsday could come right out of the Democratic National Committee. Each of them has one phony conservative columnist who are Rhino's at best. If they ever espoused true conservative thought they would arrested for a hate crime.
Trooper York said... Fox TV looks like the other networks because these news bunnies want to make nice at the cocktail parties with the rest of the journalist pack.
They are like the Rhinos. It is more important to be invited to the right cocktail parties and get their bullshit awards.
Fox should serve as a counterweight to the overwhelming bias of the left wing main stream media. Sometimes it does so but most times it falls short.
I think it is all about making money with the networks. I don't watch much TV but based on the program lineups FOX is not as conservative as CBS, in the traditional sense of conservative. There is a reason for this, money. There is no money in being too right or too left. As FOX NEWS shows, when there is money in it Murdoch is happy to go in that direction.
Trooper York said... There are five major newspapers in the New York Area.
Liberal to the exteme: New York Times New York Daily News Newsday
Conservative Fiscally Wall Street Journal
Tabloid Conservative (Bill O'Reilly style) New York Post
Newsday has largely left the NYC market although it is still competitive on the island. I find both the WSJ and the Post to be very conservative/Republican. You are clearly using different standards here. Again it is the marketplace that decides. The Post and the Daily News are pretty much the exact same paper with different political/cultural biases. The News wins, marginally, the circulation battle presumably because there is more of a market for a liberal leaning tabloid. I don't read either paper often but my impression is that the Post is actually the better paper. The WSJ is unquestionably a better paper than the NYT. Murdoch knows how to run a newspaper.
You must realize that your view is skewed ARM. What you view as "very Republican" is not what conservative Republicans and especially socially conservative Republicans view as supporting their interests. At best they are fiscally conservative and they are very much in the Bush mold.
You can not measure this from a New York perspective.
72 comments:
The anti-republican NYTimes created the video to prove it.
Note: The NYT would never mention the value of the Clinton's home in upstate New York.
never.
I'm in the Liz Cheney bandwagon early.
She is going to win by a nose.
The media in this nation are pro-democrat/ anti-republican. It's all over the place.
The Denver Post is a joke newspaper now. It's clearly an organ for one political party.
This is reality in America now. The media are not simply biased, they are mouth-pieces for one party, and antagonistic and negative towards the other party.
We don't have "news" anymore. We do not have professional "keep-em honest" journalism. It's dead.
Note: The NYT would never mention the value of the Clinton's home in upstate New York.
never.
"It was widely considered a strategic move to a politically appropriate suburban address when the Clintons, on the eve of Mrs. Clinton’s 2000 Senate run, bought the Dutch colonial on Old House Lane for $1.7 million. (They pay just over $50,000 a year in property taxes.)"
NYTimes May 29, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/nyregion/as-new-phase-looms-for-clintons-chappaqua-ny-ponders-future-of-great-neighbors.html
Some of you guys need to get real with yourselves.
AprilApple said...
Note: The NYT would never mention the value of the Clinton's home in upstate New York.
never.
I'm going to pile on a bit here. The NYT has been very critical of the Clintons on a range of issues over the years.
The NYT always tries to undermine or destroy female conservative women -- name one they've ever supported. That predictability aside, I bet they secretly wish that Mary Cheney would run for something, though even her familial connections would conflict them. In the NYT's simplified world, all female politicians must be Dems.
On the video, Cheney has sleek lines, a comfortable ride, and good handling on the curves.
Oh, sorry.
That's the Acura RLX.
"I couldn't name one thing that she's done..."
O.
Ba.
Ma.
Video wouldn't load for me. Probably something to do with all the blocking and privacy shit I've got.
But I question the wisdom myself. I'm not a fan of Enzi on some things, but he's really good on a lot of things.
And nothing I've seen or heard from Liz shows me she's going to be any more conservative than Enzi.
I keep getting emails telling me how she's going to be just like Ted Cruz--and I don't buy it.
I love her old man.
Putting aside the politics and the NYT bias, it's just an amateur report. There are some beautiful shots of the countryside, but the interviews and narration are horseshit.
Some of you guys need to get real with yourselves.
phx, I luv ya and all, but jesus get a grip (and a hearty fuck you silver).
One person says something about it and suddenly it's all "you guys".
She should have shot the reporter in the face and went 'oopsy'.
One person says something about it and suddenly it's all "you guys".
Get a grip, CEO-MMP. I said "SOME of you guys."
But Jesus loves you back, CEO-MMP.
Some of you guys. LOL.
One person is still not a 'some of you guys'.
And tell Jesus thanks, I appreciate it, but I don't want his love, I want yours.
On the one hand, it's probably true that a lot of Wyoming Reps are wondering why she's running and whether it's worth replacing Enzi who has been pretty good. On the other hand, the people that the NYT finds to stand in for the alleged "many Republicans" who "question the political wisdom of this move" are obviously RINOs and people who are dialed in to establishment GOP politics, ie., natural Enzi supporters. This isn't political reporting, it's a non-paid political advertisement.
I am idiosynsomething.
I love me some Cheney, Lisbeth style and of course Dick, as well as Paul in the Rand form.
New York Times and donkey balls are close to synonymous in my mind's vernacular.
The NYT didn't make a video about the Clintons, now did they?
Read through that NYT link you just linked about the Clintons, PHX.
It's 99% positive. No wait 100% positive. It's a fawning display of the usual pro-democrat bias at the NYT.
Compare that the 99% negative NYT Liz Cheney video.
"female conservative women"
Sorry for the redundancy. I was trying for emphasis.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/10/ron-paul-interviewed-by-william-f.html
This is a link to a perhaps didactic person; or not "as they say."
A lot of Wyomans like Enzi and see her as something of a carpetbagger.
The biggest rap against Enzi is the Internet tax, but, as we see here, a lot of Conservatives are willing to look past that.
The anti-republican NYTimes created the video to prove it.
If the NYT made a video about The Clintons or Weiner, it would be positive, fawning and wonderful.
Nothing says "Wyoming Native" like a home in Jackson Hole.
Enzi looks old. Time to go.
yes, I'm ageist when it comes to our government. I don't want these old times in there at all. Serve your time and gracefully bow out.
Okay, I had to stop with the "Republican, Environmental Activist" guy. I'm not buying this.
Of course, I'm also unhappy with the creation of ANOTHER political dynasty, but what the Hell, the Republic is lost anyway.
Incidentally, it was funny that the NYTs was pointing out that she doesn't have much of a record besides having the last name Cheney. I'd think that the party of the Kennedy Clan and the Clinton Clan and the soon to be Obama Clan would be knocking someone on that point.
Personally I think that if anyone within two generations of you in your family has held federal office you should be banned from holding any federal job, save military jobs during war-time. But that's just me.
She should have shot the reporter in the face and went 'oopsy'.
If only....
"female conservative women"
Sorry for the redundancy. I was trying for emphasis.
Well, these days you can't be too sure of what constitutes "female" or "woman" anymore, what with everything being constantly redeconstructed.
Media template and narrative:
Democrat family legacy = good.
Republican family legacy = bad.
From what I have seen Enzi is not and never will be an impact player. We need impact players. Cheney has the potential to be an impact player.
From what I have seen Enzi is not and never will be an impact player. We need impact players. Cheney has the potential to be an impact player.
In other words, Cheney could actually threaten the Republican status quo.
That's awesome!
n other words, Cheney could actually threaten the Republican status quo.
That's awesome!
Come on. You really believe that Dick Cheney's daughter is a threat to the Republican Party Establishment?
...
Speaking of nepotism, I dropped this in another thread, but it works here too.
Opportunity in Obama's America - ya gotta be connected.
And I'm sure that this connection (had it lasted) would have in no way shaped the coverage CNN gave Cory Booker in the future. No way, no how.
I've seen her on a few of the talk shows. She's poised, sharp,, and fresh. She looks like she might be as formidable as her father although the blond highlights make her look less sinister. (How much more affable Dick Cheney would have looked if he had worn a blonde wig.).....At any rate, when it comes to the Weiners and Spitzers, the Times is always saying it's something for the voters to decide. Ditto for Wyoming........I'm one of those guys who think that The Times would never do a piece like this on Chelsea or any of the Kennedys, not currently under indictment.
Come on. You really believe that Dick Cheney's daughter is a threat to the Republican Party Establishment?
Just trying to second guess the threat the NYT feels.
She's a smart woman, with a lot of background. I like her. Wyoming can choose what they want just fine without the NYT's help. I'm sure of one thing - if they check I.D. at the polls, it won't affect this race, and nobody will be standing outside the polling places brandishing clubs.
I know nothing of Enzi.
I forget, at the moment, what the subject(s) may have been. but I remember Liz saying over the last few years a lot of things I agreed with, and with which I respected her boldness.
And, this is the Times, so the old saw... the enemy of my enemy is my friend may be in play.
Man, I want to move to Wyoming. What a beautiful state. Motorcycled through it a couple of times; much of it is breathtaking. No state income taxes, either.
Where were we? Oh, Liz Cheney. She is a very smart woman. And much tougher than her appearance would cause you to believe. Good candidate; I hope she wins.
The NYT welcomed Arkansan Hillary Clinton to New York as a senate candidate, even though she had not previously lived there as a property owner. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, in case you forgot. Liz Cheney isn't, hence the NYT travelogue. They don't much care for conservative women.
Earlier I wrote The NYT always tries to undermine or destroy female conservative women -- name one they've ever supported.
Ha, I actually threw that out here without thoroughly checking. But I see that no one bothered to name a counterexample.
Michael Haz said...
Man, I want to move to Wyoming. What a beautiful state. Motorcycled through it a couple of times; much of it is breathtaking. No state income taxes, either.
For the typical NYT reader, natural beauty scores pretty low. When they hear Wyoming, they think Dick Cheney politics and Matthew Shepard hospitality.
Anybody heard from Wyo Sis?
Anybody heard from Wyo Sis?
There was also Kentukyliz.
"How much more affable Dick Cheney would have looked if he had worn a blonde wig."
Paging Chip Ahoy. Pretty please?
I just finished the worst Steven King book I ever read - "Joyland".
Right there, out of the blue, two pages from the end, having nothing to do with the ghost story, is a Dick Cheney insult.
The skeezy old bastard. King, that is.
Read through that NYT link you just linked about the Clintons, PHX.
It's 99% positive.
I knocked you out in the first round. Get back in line.
PHX - What's it like to live with all that blind faith?
The NYT mentioned Liz Cheney's "two million dollar home" as a negative.
The NYT mentioned the Clinton's 1.7 million dollar home in New York (they are not from New York, they are from Arkansas, remember?) as positive and delightful. Oh and they didn't buy the 10 million dollar home, but they could have! But aren't the Clinton's amazing?!
Let us, along with the media, celebrate the Clintons.
PHX, you'll have me beat if you can show me a negative NYT story about the Clintons that reads as negative as that Liz Cheney story.
There are two major papers in NYC, the NYT and the WSJ. The WSJ editorial pages are more slanted than anything in the NYT. They constantly push the wealthy/Republican line, often to an absurd degree. Why not make an issue about the one-sided nature of this paper?
ARM - The difference between the NYT and THE WSJ is on one page, if that. The WSJ may have some conservative views on it's editorial page, but the balance of the newspaper is quite liberal.
Most conservatives in business read Investors Business Daily in lieu of, or in addition to the WSJ.
ARM- Because the editorial pages are just that. Editorial.
The rest of the news media ARE the editorial pages masquerading as "news".
Michael, I read the WSJ regularly. It is a hard argument to make that it is a liberal paper. The news is presented in a neutral fashion but there are three pages of editorials, commentary etc. that are almost invariably slanted right.
More broadly, as you point out, there is an even more right wing paper in the the IBD. And then there is the New York Post. The argument for an overall liberal bias in NYC papers is pretty weak.
The argument for an overall liberal bias in NYC papers is pretty weak
Not so sure I agree. The NYT is a broad-market newspaper. The WSJ and IBD are very narrow-market, single focus newspapers. Neither the WSJ or IBD place much focus on social policy in their reporting, and report politics usually as it applies to business matters only.
The WSJ is not a narrow-market paper.
"The WSJ has an average weekday circulation of 2.4 million. The New York Times has 1.9 million weekday readers."
The constant whining about the liberal bias in the media is largely unfounded. Take FOX TV, not FOXNews. It's owned by Murdoch yet the stuff they show is not particularly conservative. Why is this? Market forces. Nothing else. No liberal agenda. No Hollywood conspiracy. Just plain old market forces. Capitalism at work in its purest form. Murdoch will do whatever makes the most money. Exactly the same agenda drives the other stations, which do not differ significantly in content, arguably more conservative in some cases.
Market forces indeed. That is why MSNBC and CNN are losing audience. No matter, all they need is a charitable donation.
A sugar daddy to keep them afloat.
MSNBC and CNN do have an audience. They make money, not as much as FOX News, but FOX News doesn't have the revenue of CBS either. A smaller market doesn't mean a station cannot be profitable.
The WSJ is not a narrow-market paper.
Don't confuse market with distribution. The WSJ has a narrow market - business readership. It is widely read in its market because it is one of just two news dailies that serve that market.
The NYT is a general news paper. It has a broad market, and is widely distributed. It has a lot of competition, so it has a lower readership.
Anyhow, that's my take. Now I'm going to spent the rest of the day outside in this glorious weather, far away form desk and computer.
edutcher said...
The biggest rap against Enzi is the Internet tax...
I'd say that lead sponsor ship of the Marketplace Fairness Act qualifies him as a ultra-RINO and an Idiot, both in my opinion. Nothing proposed in the Senate would increase bureaucracy more and inhibit small business management more that this absurd proposal.
Further, IMO it was an attempt by the camel to get his nose in the tent, so to speak...precursor to a federal Internet sales tax ... we-do-not-need-any-more-taxes-or-tax collection-schemes. Period.
I pay my Michigan sales and use tax, for untaxed Internet purchases, on my MI1040. This year I am up to $1997.39 taxable Internet purchases, or $115.65 tax due on 15 April 2014...as of this date and my last purchase [advance] of a book via Amazon. It would be more but Dell and Canon both collect taxes on the POS now.
We need people to obey the laws of their own state and not make everyone their collection nanny. When a purported "conservative" proposes more nanny-hood, he/she is no conservative and presumes a majority are law breakers. Screw him.
Enzi reminds me of Sen. Jeff Sessions(R-AL) and his "Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act" which allows prosecution for capital crimes based upon hearsay alone. Screw him too.
AprilApple said...
Enzi looks old. Time to go. ... Serve your time and gracefully bow out.
Enzi is two years younger than me, at 68 years old versus my 70. However, Surprise!...I agree with you. I am more cranky in my old age than ever before....and maybe a bit daft, too :(
He's been in politics in one office or another since 1975. Time to move, move out, go home. He has a degree in accounting yet he proposes an absurd accounting cluster-bang-up? He's daft, period.
You really are silly AReasonableMan
when you claim there is not discernible liberal media bias.
Just silly.
The New York Times has not published a positive story about a conservative Republican in the last twenty years. Seriously dude. Get a grip.
I hope the GOP follows through on it's threat to boycott CBS, NBC and ABC in their debates because of the Hillary Clinton campaign bio that they want to show before the primary season.
They should bar the so called "journalists" from these propaganda sites from all of the debates and refuse to let them moderate them. No more Candy Crowley's lying and running interference for the Democratic candidate.
I think regular Americans should moderate the debates and ask the questions. Not journalists. People that actually work for a living.
Businessmen who run a company. Factory workers. Deli clerks. Doctors. Maybe a judge to be the moderator. Or better yet a baseball umpire.
Trooper York said...
You really are silly AReasonableMan
when you claim there is not discernible liberal media bias.
The New York Times has not published a positive story about a conservative Republican in the last twenty years. Seriously dude. Get a grip.
But the point is the NYT is not the only paper in the marketplace. I said there was no overall liberal bias in NYC newspaper market. The WSJ, IBD and Post are all major players in that market. Why only focus on the NYT?
With regard to the networks. The obvious question is why does FOX TV look just like the other networks?
There are five major newspapers in the New York Area.
Liberal to the exteme:
New York Times
New York Daily News
Newsday
Conservative Fiscally
Wall Street Journal
Tabloid Conservative (Bill O'Reilly style)
New York Post
The editiorial and news stories in the Times, Daily News and Newsday could come right out of the Democratic National Committee. Each of them has one phony conservative columnist who are Rhino's at best. If they ever espoused true conservative thought they would arrested for a hate crime.
Fox TV looks like the other networks because these news bunnies want to make nice at the cocktail parties with the rest of the journalist pack.
They are like the Rhinos. It is more important to be invited to the right cocktail parties and get their bullshit awards.
Fox should serve as a counterweight to the overwhelming bias of the left wing main stream media. Sometimes it does so but most times it falls short.
Trooper York said...
Fox TV looks like the other networks because these news bunnies want to make nice at the cocktail parties with the rest of the journalist pack.
They are like the Rhinos. It is more important to be invited to the right cocktail parties and get their bullshit awards.
Fox should serve as a counterweight to the overwhelming bias of the left wing main stream media. Sometimes it does so but most times it falls short.
I think it is all about making money with the networks. I don't watch much TV but based on the program lineups FOX is not as conservative as CBS, in the traditional sense of conservative. There is a reason for this, money. There is no money in being too right or too left. As FOX NEWS shows, when there is money in it Murdoch is happy to go in that direction.
Trooper York said...
There are five major newspapers in the New York Area.
Liberal to the exteme:
New York Times
New York Daily News
Newsday
Conservative Fiscally
Wall Street Journal
Tabloid Conservative (Bill O'Reilly style)
New York Post
Newsday has largely left the NYC market although it is still competitive on the island. I find both the WSJ and the Post to be very conservative/Republican. You are clearly using different standards here. Again it is the marketplace that decides. The Post and the Daily News are pretty much the exact same paper with different political/cultural biases. The News wins, marginally, the circulation battle presumably because there is more of a market for a liberal leaning tabloid. I don't read either paper often but my impression is that the Post is actually the better paper. The WSJ is unquestionably a better paper than the NYT. Murdoch knows how to run a newspaper.
You must realize that your view is skewed ARM. What you view as "very Republican" is not what conservative Republicans and especially socially conservative Republicans view as supporting their interests. At best they are fiscally conservative and they are very much in the Bush mold.
You can not measure this from a New York perspective.
Murdoch is about money first. On that we can certainly agree.
Aridog- I'm glad we agree. BTW- I'm not ageist in other areas. Just politics.
Liz Cheney's got tons of awesome qualifications for the Senate. For example, she's the daughter of an important Republican.
And... er, that's it, actually.
Seriously, it would be nice if at least ONE of the two major parties would stop acting like elective office is hereditary.
Post a Comment