Beau Ouiville would have us believe the NYT isn't biased

[BenGarrett]

The Times isn't biased because they printed Barack Obama's op-ed on Iraq but refused to print John McCain's rebuttal. At least that's what Beau Ouiville claimed in the discussion on that subject. But another example of the Times' liberal bias is becoming extremely obvious, and it's receiving much less attention.

Earlier this year, after it had become apparent that McCain would be the Republican nominee for president, the Times ran a front page piece accusing McCain of an extra-marital affair. It was an affair for which there was, at best, shaky evidence, and an affair that still has not been proven. McCain vehemently denies it.

Now, like its mainstream counterparts, the Times is being silent on John Edwards' supposed affair (and love child). Like McCain, Edwards vehemently denies the affair. The evidence here, too, is somewhat shaky, though perhaps a bit more substantiated than the evidene of McCain's affair.

Why the silence? I'm sure the Times would use some justification, such as there isn't sufficient evidence. Yet, that didn't stop them from printing the McCain story. And, as Powerline Blog points out, the Times wasn't just reporting on a rumor with the McCain story; it started the rumor.

The bias of the mainstream media has been pretty evident for over a decade now, but it is on the verge of becoming completely irrelevant this election campaign.

Only a top-notched idiot left or right would not know that the NYT is not left biased. Nuff said.

[Beau Ouiville]

Why must you personalize all this?

1. I have seen many reports of McCain's affair and I ignored them. But I have not seen one refutation of them. So I guess the Times' report may have been accurate. And the Times certainly did not dwell on it.

2. Does John Edwards even have a job now? How is any affair of his news?

3. For investigation, deflating rumorsand for coverage no US paper can compare with the NY Times. It is truly the best paper in the country.

4. How would people react if __________ called the Times "the white man's news"; a far more accurate portrayal than calling it a ' biased liberal mouthpiece'. Folks would call that a victim's whine and say the Times is even-handed. Maybe the conservatives should think about that.

5. Whine, whine, whine. Conservatives need to understand that Obama and the Obama campaign are just more exciting than the GOP counterpart. So they get more ink. McCain needs more oomph.

6. Folks here need to follow all reputable papers in one aspect: Try supplying a little underlying verification to your opinions. Silly buzzwords get us no farther forward.

And leave me out of it.

ORIGINAL: Beau Ouiville

Why must you personalize all this?

1. I have seen many reports of McCain's affair and I ignored them. But I have not seen one refutation of them. So I guess the Times' report may have been accurate. And the Times certainly did not dwell on it.

2. Does John Edwards even have a job now? How is any affair of his news?

3. For investigation, deflating rumorsand for coverage no US paper can compare with the NY Times. It is truly the best paper in the country.

4. How would people react if __________ called the Times "the white man's news"; a far more accurate portrayal than calling it a ' biased liberal mouthpiece'. Folks would call that a victim's whine and say the Times is even-handed. Maybe the conservatives should think about that.

5. Whine, whine, whine. Conservatives need to understand that Obama and the Obama campaign are just more exciting than the GOP counterpart. So they get more ink. McCain needs more oomph.

6. Folks here need to follow all reputable papers in one aspect: Try supplying a little underlying verification to your opinions. Silly buzzwords get us no farther forward.

And leave me out of it.

This cracks me up. You come to this forum, post and run constantly with anything related to race or bama, and anything negitive about him, wright, you ignore, but when the truth slaps you in the face, its "leave me out of it", or "Why must you personalize all this". And what make me grin is you still don't get it.

[BenGarrett]

ORIGINAL: Beau Ouiville

Why must you personalize all this?

1.Â* I have seen many reports of McCain's affair and I ignored them.Â* But I have not seen one refutation of them.Â* So I guess the Times' report may have been accurate.Â* And the Times certainly did not dwell on it.

2.Â* Does John Edwards even have a job now?Â* How is any affair of his news?

3.Â* For investigation, deflating rumorsÂ*and for coverage no US paper can compare with the NY Times.Â* It is truly the best paper in the country.

4.Â* How would people react if __________ called the Times "the white man's news"; a far more accurate portrayal than calling it a ' biased liberal mouthpiece'.Â* Folks would call that a victim's whine and say the Times is even-handed.Â* Maybe the conservatives should think about that.

5.Â* Whine, whine, whine.Â* Conservatives need to understand that Obama and the Obama campaign are just more exciting than the GOP counterpart.Â* So they get more ink.Â* McCain needs more oomph.

6.Â* Folks here need to follow all reputable papers in one aspect:Â* Try supplying a little underlying verification to your opinions.Â* Silly buzzwords get us no farther forward.

And leave me out of it.

When you post opinions on a messageboard, you are part of it. You're part of it because you were the one who posted the opinion on the other thread that the NYT isn't biased. It isn't personal; it's debate. If you're going to be thin-skinned, a political messageboard probably isn't the place for you.

As for your points:

1. How about the Senator's statements himself? And many news reports carried his response. If you didn't read them, you were simply ignoring them.

2. As recently as last month he was being mentioned as a vice presidential candidate.

3. OK. You stick to that opinion. There's a reason its profits are tanking.

4. I would roll my eyes and probably laugh at them. Or, using your logic, we could say, "Black people need to understand that white people are just more exciting, so they get more ink. Deal with it." That would be pretty silly, wouldn't it? BTW, why is everything about race to you? I don't think I've read a single thread on this forum that you've responded in where you haven't brought race into the debate, such as you're doing here.

5. See #4. A news organization's purpose is not to be lopsided because one campaign is perceived as exciting and the other isn't (a silly assumption, incidentally; if Obama's campaign were really that exciting and McCain's were really that dull, the polls wouldn't be nearly dead-even, would they?). A news organization's purpose is to be fair. Or, to use the NYT's slogan, to print "all the news that's fit to print."

6. Who's using buzzwords? I must've overlooked them.

Incidentally, your argument that the NYT isn't biased would carry more weight if the Times' own public editor hadn't previously opined that his newspaper does have a liberal bias.

[Whitehorse]

The NYT & many other old Media icons are getting close to life-support status. Biased "reporting" is a huge part in that - coupled with the changing face of media & the rise of the new media.