How many lies will the NY Times promote to get that "right wing" buzz?
By John Amato Thursday Oct 08, 2009 5:00amFollowing in the footsteps of the Washingtn Post, The NY Times mad fools of themselves when they suddenly decided that Glenn Beck and his right wing cohorts like Andrew Breitbart are credible news sources.
Eric Boehlert explains in his excellent article: The NY Times' pointless pursuit of right-wing "buzz" stories
Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was "slow off the mark," and blamed "insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio." She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies.
-- New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt, September 26 column [emphasis added]
Talk about great timing!
Just after The New York Times announced it would appoint somebody to monitor the partisan opinion media more closely, and right after editors were chastened for reacting too slowly to buzzworthy news scoops launched by the conservative media, the right-wing press went into overdrive last week.
Like a proud peacock showing off its feathers, the right-wing media was in full bloom, showing the Times all the tricks that have made the movement's trade so renowned. There was outright lying, lying by omission, attempted guilt-by-association, U.S.-bashing, hateful smear campaigns (lots of those), fearmongering, incompetence, and just batshit crazy stuff. (Did I mention the heavy dose of crazy?) All the key notes were hit -- and in just one epic week. I hope the Times is enjoying its new-found, front-row seat to the right-wing media's slow-motion crack-up...read on
Please read the entire article for a list of lies the right has been pimping. Does the media really have to ask why Americans don't trust the traditional media as much anymore? When the Washington Post and the NY Times turn to FOX Noise for what the now seem to believe is legitimate news sourcing one has to wonder what ever happened to the meaning of the word "journalism." Acorn, dudes!
Login or Register to post comments.
The Gray Lady is down .
All the news (truth) that's fit to print, maybe.
Those front page pictures of dead Afghans being blow apart by drones is some mighty fine reporting.
subscription renewal envelope in my glove box for the time being.
I can always steam off the stamp.
Apparently the Times wants to experiment by trying to make money off its dead format by covering "stories" that are entertainment staples for other media formats. This is like Democrats hoping to attract teabaggers by going to meetings and screaming for gun control. Fans of that sort of thing will settle for the original.
Update: John, the Times seems to be giving Blanche Lincoln a run for the money in the Disinterested Derby.
The Gray Lady is down .
And the right wing is happily humping her corpse.
let it rest
we don't need it
they have cast their tomb and altar
Objective journalism is making value judgments without personal bias.
Contemporary media has this confused with 'equal time for bullshit'.
that sounds more like editorializing.
Basically journalism just relays what happened. Editorial/Opinion pieces are the ones making a judgement call on a news piece.
Journalism ended in this country when the networks were allowed to fold their news divisions into their entertainment divisions.
Use the Google. The argument made by public advocates at that time was that it would blur the line between news and entertainment...and understand...this was before the advent of cable. Of course, the pat answer was "No no no. Trust us."
How'd that work out.
Newspaper? What's that?
is what we put on the floor of the birdcage. It's that wet mess of paper Mr. Moose brings into the clubhouse every morning.
There is this notion in the US. And I am speaking of everyone, not just liberal or conservatives. The notion that if there are two sides to a story that the "truth must lie somewhere in the middle". This is absolutely false! Sometimes one side can be right and the other side can be wrong. And not only does this apply to all walks of people, it also applies to a lot of different topics. Ex: evolution vs. creationism. Or medicine vs. quakery. etc. This nonsense is pervasive in american culture and IMO liberals need to get on board to stop it.
Listen to him, we did not.
And what's your point? Oh...it's the liberals again. Got it.
Thanks for your concern.
Because for many liberals (not all, but IMO too many) they seem to value tolerance over truth.
And I don't know what the heck you are talking about "my point" or "it's the liberals again". I am a liberal. I just want my fellow liberals to think hard about certain things because IMO liberals (in general) have clearer heads than conservatives.
For example: Flat Earth and Spherical Earth: we will be hearing both sides of the debate.
WTF? There is no truth halfway between the two supposed "viewpoints."
Crazy bullshit is given a "fair chance" by the media.
Liberals in general have a sense of "fair play" and have shown too much patience to people with batshit crazy ideas.
Though I think that this has changed quite a bit as a result of the Bush Junta. Liberals are now more willing to call "BULLSHIT" on the crazy talk.
Liberals are beginning to realize that you cannot have a reasoned argument with a rabid pitbull.
No amount of 'fair play' will turn a pile of shit into a steak and lobster dinner.
But that's what the media tends to serve us, time and again. "Hey, look, it's steak and lobster!"
Audience: "It's a pile of shit!"
Media: "Yummy steak and lobster!"
Audience: "It's a pile of shit!"
Limbaugh: "See, there's something wrong with the media. Who would serve up a plate of shit and call it a steak and lobster dinner? Now, THIS is a steak and lobster dinner."
Audience: "It's a pile of shit!"
Limbaugh: "See, there's something wrong with these liberals! Who would turn down a steak and lobster dinner?"
Audience: "But it's a pile of shit!"
Beck: "It's socialism. It's insisting those of us who eat steak and lobster dinners share with everyone else."
Audience: "But it's a pile of shit!"
Jonah Goldberg: "Yes, but we all know that shit is a liberal phenomenon. Right wing shit doesn't stink. IOKIYAR, and all that."
Audience: "IT'S STILL A PILE OF SHIT!"
.
'journalists' are taught to report on both sides of an issue
So what happens is that some right wing nut makes a claim, other right wing nuts repeat it, then it makes it to the 'news' where the it gets legitimized.
Journalists are taught to be objective reporters of fact.
This 'equal balance' nonsense is catering to an audience who isn't hearing what they want.
Forwarding to a couple of RW "friends" with your permission...
n/t
Who says there's only two sides to a story??
WaPo and the NYT's need some kind of bailout to stay in business.
I wouldn't line a birdcage with either worthless rag.
I wouldn't spend a dime on this rag. It's really no different than the others - which is why it is also dying.
*
quite some time ago actually with their lies and propaganda pushing the capital crime of war of aggression against Iraq.
jumped the shark 15 years ago. It's been all downhill from there.
... will be when the general populace is as dumb as the rest of the teabaggin' faithful, dependent on their corporate masters for even a glimmer of thought.
Ought to just rip up the Constitution and anoint us a frackin' king. Start checking ponds for strange women handing out swords ...
Absolutely! Take Glenn Beck for example. He is worth the watchful eye of the NYT if they want to know the real story of how an insane man can lead a part of this country right off the edge of the flat earth. Front page news? Maybe not but neither is what my old fart neighbor has to say today, but for old farts, it might be interesting and some might call it news.
Hmmm...it may finally be time. The time may be right and may finally have come...for The Old Fart Network.
Or does FOX News already occupy that niche?
The number one goal is profits not the truth. Murdoch bought the Sunday Times in Perth, Western Australia and, using the tabloid techniques of his father's mentor Lord Northcliffe, made it a success.
Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe, famed for buying stolid, unprofitable newspapers and transforming them to make them lively and entertaining for the mass market.
It's a shame... on that I'll agree. Telling the truth and or revealing the truth can no longer be controlled by MSM; With these internet-tubes, the playing field will no longer take place on paper. Once our media vehicles mature and converge, as describe in Bill Gates book (The Road Ahead) we'll see much more truth, IMO. Why you ask? Nobody likes to be labeled a liar... that's where you and us come into play.
Some of them are just lazy journalists and some have ulterior motives, as long as their making money... that's the bottom line. The truth will come out eventually... keep hittin'em!
"Once we accept our limits, we go beyond them." --Albert Einstein
You won't see much of anything if there's not net neutrality. Otherwise, the people who ran the newspapers and the broadcast venues will be running the aggregate web sites.
You need:
a) a demand for objective journalism
b) a viable business model, where you're not reduced to whoring out content for operating costs
There's nothing spiritual or humanitarian about it.
Things are going to change with the Net and it ain't going to be free.
to bad no one noticed the sinkhole in the road.
fake NYT edition and the reaction from the NYT spokesman (at the 1:20 mark)?
My fav
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Fake_New_York_T...
As many as they need to. Lies, crap, and bad news sells.
Lies, crap, and bad news sells.
What's the problem. It worked for the American car industry for decades!
we have 75 Million Y's addicted to instant gratification now what products appeal to instant gratification? Where a person buys something then tires of it by the end of the day? Why not just make products that auto self destruct in 24 hours.
It was obvious to all those paying attention that the NYT "fix" was in when Judith Miller led the front page with information that was widely known to be false. Her WMD and related stories were used to "seal the deal" on our neo-con dreams of world domination.
Just imagine the world today if those nightmares had been fed with only a hint of success!
Please go out and proclaim your support of Obama in his continuing reigh of lunacy. Who doesn't now understand that his administration is Bush-lite. Half the conviction, same acrid taste.
How many lies will the NY Times promote to get that "right wing" buzz?
http://www.kerryzukus.com/blog/wp-content/upl...
after watching their performance in the lead up to the Iraq war,I have serious doubts that they are a credible news source.
after watching their performance in the lead up to the Iraq war,I have serious doubts that they are a credible news source.I love what Ray Mc Govern said in a talk I saw in New York:"I now wrap the garbage in it.
Login or Register to post comments.