The New York Times

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
NewYorkTimes.svg
You gotta spin it to win it

Media

Icon media.svg
Stop the presses!
We want pictures
of Spider-Man!
Extra! Extra!

The New York Crimes Slimes Times is a major US daily newspaper and winner of over a hundred Pulitzer Prizes.[1] The Times is best known for its crossword puzzle and for Paul Krugman, both of which send secret messages (through clues and op-ed columns, respectively) that only liberals can understand properly.

If someone is scanning the Times in public, you can be sure they're either a deceitful liberal, or a good conservative checking out what liberals are up to. Someone who laughs while reading the Times is a liberal, as no conservative would ever find the un-American, Muslim-loving articles humorous!

The Times also is widely read at many universities and environmental organizations. When visiting these locations, make sure to keep low by hiding your Wall Street Journal inside the front pages of the Times.

Contents

[edit] In reality

While the crazies over at the Media Research Center have accused the Times of having a liberal bias,[2] there have been several instances where the paper has blatantly supported neoconservative policies. For instance, in the wake of Iran-Contra, one editor acknowledged that the Times frequently adhered to the Reagan administration strategy of heavily reporting on human rights abuses in Nicaragua by the leftist Sandinista government as a means to support the right-wing Contras. At the same time, the newspaper usually ignored worse cases by other Central American governments supported by the Reagan administration.[3] More recently, Clark Hoyt, public editor for the Times, steadfastly refused to issue corrections for a discredited story involving the ACORN pimp hoax.[4]

It may be more reasonable to say that if the paper of today has any actual bias, it trends toward American exceptionalism and preserving the establishment status quo, rather than toward any broad political ideology. After all, the same newspaper which once published The Pentagon Papers now sidelines the release of leaked Afghan War documents in favor of personal attacks on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.[5] The Times' coverage of the leaks was strikingly suspect when compared with other media outlets; the paper chose to focus on doing its best to make sure the US didn't look bad, and refused to admit the documents showed that government officials had ever lied about anything.[6] Following the same lines, it also led the charge on not calling waterboarding torture when it was being done by the US,[7] while at the same time not caring to be pedantic when it came to the same abuses done by others.[8] It finally made a rule change in 2014.[9]

Liberal indeed.

On the other hand, some of the charges of liberal bias have some merit. For instance, while everyone agrees campus rape is a serious issue the Times has been at the forefront of turning the legitimate concern into hysteria. This dates back to at least 2006, when after a few solid articles on the Duke lacrosse case they replaced the original writer with one willing to drink from the race/class/gender Kool-Aid that proved so pervasive; they then ran some truly atrocious articles and subsequently refused to correct their blatant factual errors. Since then, they have unabashedly pushed the "1 in 5" statistic even after the study's author explicitly said it had not been a study intended to be authoritative.

[edit] Iraq War coverage

The most notable controversy the paper has faced was that centering on its coverage leading up to the Iraq War.[10] Especially troublesome were stories backing the American government's position on WMD's in Iraq, authored prominently by reporter Judith MillerWikipedia's W.svg.[11] Miller's articles, which more or less echoed the claims of Bush administration officials, were then cited by those very same officials as justifications for war. Truthiness in motion, you could say.

Not to be outdone, fellow Times journalist Thomas Friedman backed the war effort to the extreme, repeatedly asserting (contrary to the reality on the ground) that all was well, and that we were likely to see the end of the conflict somewhere within the next Friedman Unit. So widely criticized was the Times coverage on Iraq, they even had to print a half-hearted apology when all was said and done.[12]

Despite all of the above, the New York Times does manage to produce some high quality journalism, remaining one of the most respected published newspapers today.

[edit] Columnists we have articles on

[edit] External links

[edit] References

  1. Wikipedia pageWikipedia's W.svg, as it keeps increasing every year
  2. For example, the MRC operates a website critical of the newspaper, TimesWatch.org.
  3. Questionnaire for the New York Times on Its Central America Coverage, Extra!: January/February 1988.
  4. NYT and the ACORN Hoax
  5. The Times channels the Nixon administration
  6. NYT vs. the world: WikiLeaks coverage
  7. "From the 1930s to 1999 the New York Times described waterboarding as torture 81% of the time; from 2002 to 08, 1.4%" - Yep
  8. NYT and “torture”: Searching for a justification
  9. The NYT is calling CIA torture "torture" now that it's too late to do anything about it
  10. How Chalabi and the White House held the front page
  11. The Great WMD Hunt, Extra!: July/August 2003.
  12. NYT "Apology"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools