Did you see

[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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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

An "opinion" I am happy to say that is shared by more and more Americans each day. It's no wonder the NYT is bleeding, with no coagulation in site.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by UMP25

An "opinion" I am happy to say that is shared by more and more Americans each day. It's no wonder the NYT is bleeding, with no coagulation in site.

Let's see, the NYT, with 116 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspater, according to it's SEC filings had increases in both subscription and ad revenues during Q2, 2006, this while much of the media suffered from a decline of ad dollars spent in several of the industry segments, including entertainment and automotive.

You need to get your news from someone other than Bill O'Reilly.

I read the NYT to balance the local neanderthal press. I add Time Magazine and NewsWeeK to the mix and I believe I get a fairly god picture.

(Sources: NYT Q2 Filing and "Seeking Media.")

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Let's see, the NYT, with 116 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other newspater, according to it's SEC filings had increases in both subscription and ad revenues during Q2, 2006, this while much of the media suffered from a decline of ad dollars spent in several of the industry segments, including entertainment and automotive.

You need to get your news from someone other than Bill O'Reilly.

I read the NYT to balance the local neanderthal press. I add Time Magazine and NewsWeeK to the mix and I believe I get a fairly god picture.

(Sources: NYT Q2 Filing and "Seeking Media.")

Garth,

The NYT has increased circulation and revenues only by trying to sell more subscriptions outside of its home area.

"Falling home-market circulation. Circulation has fallen 16% in the NYT’s home market in this decade, from 665,000 to 556,000, but you can’t find the numbers in the Company’s 10K. Rather, you have to perform some arithmetic gymnastics on old and new 10K’s to uncover these figures about its poor performance in its 31-county home market. The Times has seen its comparable circulation decline by 27% since 1993 (the first year that such figures were available online), when it had a circulation of 758,000. Its current 556,000 circulation places it a dismal number three in its home market behind the Daily News (689,000) and the NY Post (663,000)."

--Rich

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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.

It can never be seen as fact that the NYT is a very left-leaning rag, true. However, it can be seen as fact that the Times has employed some people who have no qualms about writing fiction and passing it off as news.

I live in Madison. There are two daily papers here -- morning and afternoon. Morning is seen as more conservative and afternoon is off the charts liberal which sees nothing wrong with putting anti-Bush articles on the front page and spinning them as "News."

My opinion, as someone who has lived elsewhere is that BOTH papers are quite left of center, with the afternoon one almost a parody. But I subscribe to both -- I love newspapers and I can always get a chuckle out of the editorial pages.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

It can never be seen as fact that the NYT is a very left-leaning rag, true. However, it can be seen as fact that the Times has employed some people who have no qualms about writing fiction and passing it off as news.

Yes, and the last such example of that was with a reporter named Judith Miller.

Is the "not some right-winger" guy as upset with the Wall Street Journal as he is with the New York Times. If you compare their reporting - particularly on the stories that have gotten the current administration all hot and bothered with respect to the allegation that they have spilled state secrets, you will see that both publications have reported the same things, with the same level of detail, at the same time.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Dave Hensley

Yes, and the last such example of that was with a reporter named Judith Miller.

Is the "not some right-winger" guy as upset with the Wall Street Journal as he is with the New York Times. If you compare their reporting - particularly on the stories that have gotten the current administration all hot and bothered with respect to the allegation that they have spilled state secrets, you will see that both publications have reported the same things, with the same level of detail, at the same time.

Dave,

I hate the WSJ. It has a lousy sports section.

I consider myself middle of the road these days, so you must be talking about someone else

--Rich

PS -- Isn't it about time for the traditional LL bashing threads? I mean, U1 kicked the crap out of that call last night and I haven't seen anything here posted about it.

[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?

[UMP25]

Ah, "progressive," "intelligent"--the euphemisms of the uber-left. That doesn't surprise me, just as it doesn't surprise me that you'd lump me into the right-wing because I happen to agree with more and more Americans who see the NYT for what it is--a piece of rag that gets its jollies bashing anyone to the right of Ted Kennedy.

"Progressive," huh? Is that why the Times hasn't endorsed, for example, a Republican for president in 50 years? The only reason the Times is the newspaper of record is because it's in our largest city, and NY is the largest media outlet in the country.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

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?

Progressive is just a fancy word for "really, really liberal." I live in the Berkeley of the Midwest and our afternoon paper is called "progressive." It editorializes on the front page without apology. I subscribe cause it only costs an extra $5 a month and it gives me a good laugh in the afternoon.

If the Times is the paper of record and their stance is "well-supported" why did the Republican win the 2004 presidential election? I mean, the Times endorsed Kerry.