Did you see

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by GarthB

What is the basis for your opinion that "it should be pretty good?" Is it because that the author writes for the NY Times?

in part, yes, but there is more. he is an established writer that did a story about umpire school after attending Jimmy's for a few days a couple of years ago. he was so intrigued by the "umpire world" that he never knew existed that he enrolled in the 5 week course last year as a student, went through all the same things that the students went through, and also got a behind the scenes view from the instructing staff. he is also out on the road this year and has spent 3 days with an A ball crew, 4 days with a AA crew, plans on spending 5 days with a AAA crew, and has met with various big league guys as well. at the and of the season he plans on getting on the field and actually working some games around his hometown area, something he has never done before. the guy is putting in the effort to try and shed a little light on what all of us know is a tough job, but that somebody that has never called a game knows anything about. maybe we should all pitch in and buy McCarver a copy of it when it comes out...

[UMP25]

The fact that the guy writes for that piece of trash called the New York Times is enough for me not to read the article.

[aceholleran]

Originally Posted by UMP25

The fact that the guy writes for that piece of trash called the New York Times is enough for me not to read the article.

Why? Too many polysyllables? Crossword too hard? No restaurant reviews of Cracker Barrel?

Ace

[mrm21711]

Originally Posted by aceholleran

Why? Too many polysyllables? Crossword too hard? No restaurant reviews of Cracker Barrel?

Ace

Because UMP25 is right.

[waltjp]

The New York Times is a first rate newspaper. You may not agree with everything they have to say but it's their constitutional right to publish it. Why everyone is so quick to deprecate The Times, when our nation was built upon the principle of free speech, is beyond me.

I guess most would prefer to have their news and information spoon-fed to them in neat, little sound bites so they don't have to take the time to research and think for themselves.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by waltjp

You may not agree with everything they have to say...

That's the problem I have with it. They don't differentiate between the news and the opinions. If they just gave the facts in their news stories and left the commentary to the opinion page, the NYT would be more reputable than it is today. I have a problem with any newspaper, no matter the slant, analyzing a story for me in the body of a news article.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by voiceoflg

That's the problem I have with it. They don't differentiate between the news and the opinions.

Where did you read that?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by waltjp

The New York Times is a first rate newspaper. You may not agree with everything they have to say but it's their constitutional right to publish it. Why everyone is so quick to deprecate The Times, when our nation was built upon the principle of free speech, is beyond me.

What does Freedom of Speech have to do with this? I am a staunch defender of the First Amendment, but with Free Speech comes the responsibility of what to say and when.

The NYT is a piece of schit, pure and simple. They no longer have an ounce of credibility and have had a dangerous agenda for years. To put it mildly, they're nuts. They've become so bad that they're hurting big time. Their subscription numbers are down dramatically, and their ad revenue is also down. They've fired hundreds of employees lately as a result. And why is this so? Because people with common sense realize this newspaper is nothing but a partisan rag with no qualms about harming the United States. I say this not as some right-winger, either.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by UMP25

What does Freedom of Speech have to do with this? I am a staunch defender of the First Amendment, but with Free Speech comes the responsibility of what to say and when.

The NYT is a piece of schit, pure and simple. They no longer have an ounce of credibility and have had a dangerous agenda for years. To put it mildly, they're nuts. (edit)
Because people with common sense realize this newspaper is nothing but a partisan rag with no qualms about harming the United States. I say this not as some right-winger, either.

Neither do you say it as matter of fact, but rather as matter of opinion.

(If you don't mind, I will use this post during my next lesson on the differences between fact and opinion.)

Personally, I enjoy the writing style of most Times journalists. I also prefer the Times Style. Back in the day, we were required to use the NYT style guide for our term papers and thesis projects. I do, however, refrain from reading much of the editorial page.

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by UMP25

What does Freedom of Speech have to do with this? I am a staunch defender of the First Amendment, but with Free Speech comes the responsibility of what to say and when.

The NYT is a piece of schit, pure and simple. They no longer have an ounce of credibility and have had a dangerous agenda for years. To put it mildly, they're nuts. They've become so bad that they're hurting big time. Their subscription numbers are down dramatically, and their ad revenue is also down. They've fired hundreds of employees lately as a result. And why is this so? Because people with common sense realize this newspaper is nothing but a partisan rag with no qualms about harming the United States. I say this not as some right-winger, either.

Sorry. You couldn't say anything that would be more wrong.

The Times is the newspaper of record in the USA, and their stance on current issues is progressive, intelligent, and well-supported.

The only place they have lost credibilithy is where they never had it, with the right-wing, your protestation to the contrary notwithstanding, as the cliche goes.

Take a look even at the rags you're fond of. EVERYBODY quotes the Times.

BTW: Could you give a source for your figures on the decline of the Times?