6 ms·

I can't stand this false equivalency. You are conflating the entire media landscape with the New York Times. NYT has its bias, but you are effectively saying t

I can't stand this false equivalency. You are conflating the entire media landscape with the New York Times. NYT has its bias, but you are effectively saying that NY Times is just as a responsible for the destruction of journalism as the likes of Fox News and Breitbart.

weberc2 10y ago
You misread my post. I made no such equivalency. The industry as a whole created its problems (the NYT included); the NYT is just well-known for framing those problems as the effect of conservative rhetoric.
rfrank 10y ago
During the election cycle they openly defended their bias, and have continued to produce extremely biased coverage since then. They are just as responsible as anyone else. If their bias is acceptable, why is bias from Fox or Breitbart unacceptable? How is NYT meaningfully better, if they present an equally biased perspective, just from a side you agree with? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness...
- eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y ago
  What made you think I agree with all of their bias? I specifically said they have a bias, just like everyone does. But there is also a huge difference between individual reporter bias, the entire bias of the paper, the bias of the editorial board, etc. Just like WSJ op-ed pages are not the same as the rest of the paper. I am fully aware NYT screwed up stories, they generally back a globalist tilt, they screwed up the Iraq/WMD story, etc. But I also know they are, overall, committed to the truth. And Fox News and Breitbart are committed to propaganda. To compare the two is an absolute joke.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    > What made you think I agree with all of their bias? Your defense of it. Their entire organization is biased, just like Fox or Breitbart. Why are they "committed to the truth" when conservative outlets are "propaganda"? Do you think conservatives view NYT/CNN bias as "truth telling" or "propaganda"?
    - x0x0 10y ago
      > Do you think conservatives view NYT/CNN bias as "truth telling" or "propaganda"? What on earth do their views have to do with reality?
      - rfrank 10y ago
        Hey really great comment that's worth taking seriously!
      - rjeli 10y ago
        His point is obvious. Please, please don't comment in bad faith.
    - brazzledazzle 10y ago
      Personally I view Fox and Breitbart as being on a scale of propaganda with Brietbart near the extreme end and Fox somewhere in the middle. But while I don't always agree with The Wall Street Journal or The Economist I don't think they're anything like Fox/Breitbart. There's a difference between bias and propaganda.
      - rfrank 10y ago
        > There's a difference between bias and propaganda. Then actually define it, and provide examples of them being literal propaganda. Otherwise the discussion is just a political version of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
        x0x0 10y ago
- jbooth 10y ago
  Look at the numbers: Something like 50% of Fox News viewers believe ridiculous falsehoods, like Obama wasn't born in the country or Saddam really had WMD. There are studies showing that Fox News viewers are less informed than no-news viewers. There are no such studies for the NYT, editorial page bias notwithstanding.
  - jrs95 10y ago
    Those demographics aren't necessarily a reflection of the degree of bias in the media coverage. More educated/well-informed people could just have a preference for one form of bias over another.
  - goldenkey 10y ago
    Well he wasn't. The birth certificate has been shown to have many signs of forgery [1]. The Hawaiian Health department worker who signed off on the copy of it died mysteriously in a plane crash. [1] https://youtu.be/yuhF-Ok3djI https://youtu.be/yuhF-Ok3djI [2] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/health-director-who-approved-obama-birth-certificate-dies-plane-crash-f2D11732106 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/health-director-who-approv...
    - Nimitz14 10y ago
      7/10 troll
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - ThomPete 10y ago
    How is that different from the liberal left to believe trump is a sexoffender for saying "grab them by the p"? There are just as many angled stories in the mainstream media and they are actually worse because they claim to be objective.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- BigJono 10y ago
  > if they present an equally biased perspective Where has it been said that they're both equally biased? I don't know anything about American news, this is all from an Australian perspective, but if a right-wing paper runs fairly standard stories and occasionally has an opinion piece on stricter border controls; and a left-wing paper runs page after page after page of manipulative appeals to emotion full of terrible anecdotal "evidence", nobody would suggest that they were equally biased. The same works in reverse. You don't get to declare a Facist state and openly call for the execution of all Muslims because your rival paper ran an investigative story into refugee camp abuse and then go on to claim an equal bias.
- MaysonL 10y ago
  How much coverage did they do of Trump's scandals as opposed to Clinton's emails?
  - rfrank 10y ago
    Is that supposed to be a point? Look it up.
    - MaysonL 10y ago
      See https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-ele... Overall the media gave Clinton a bit more (by percentage) positive coverage in the general, while Trump got more if you include the primaries. However, Trump got much more coverage overall. The negative coverage of Clinton spiked during the last two weeks of the campaign.
jamez1 10y ago
The very fact it is held to a better standard means it is more responsible when it mucks up. If NY Times is the vanguard of journalism, would you not find it atrocious the precedent they set in partisanship and misrepresentation of the people they are supposedly reporting to?
nebabyte 10y ago
You should read more carefully. He said they're framing their industry as the victim. The NYT could be saints and that wouldn't change the fact that the industry they're in is what it is now. And if they can't identify that and instead just say that industry's the victim, weberc is 100% correct.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

weberc2 10y ago

You misread my post. I made no such equivalency. The industry as a whole created its problems (the NYT included); the NYT is just well-known for framing those problems as the effect of conservative rhetoric.

rfrank 10y ago

During the election cycle they openly defended their bias, and have continued to produce extremely biased coverage since then. They are just as responsible as anyone else. If their bias is acceptable, why is bias from Fox or Breitbart unacceptable? How is NYT meaningfully better, if they present an equally biased perspective, just from a side you agree with? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness-and-a-proudly-provocative-presidential-candidate.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness...

eeeeeeeeeeeee 10y ago
What made you think I agree with all of their bias? I specifically said they have a bias, just like everyone does. But there is also a huge difference between individual reporter bias, the entire bias of the paper, the bias of the editorial board, etc. Just like WSJ op-ed pages are not the same as the rest of the paper. I am fully aware NYT screwed up stories, they generally back a globalist tilt, they screwed up the Iraq/WMD story, etc. But I also know they are, overall, committed to the truth. And Fox News and Breitbart are committed to propaganda. To compare the two is an absolute joke.
- rfrank 10y ago
  > What made you think I agree with all of their bias? Your defense of it. Their entire organization is biased, just like Fox or Breitbart. Why are they "committed to the truth" when conservative outlets are "propaganda"? Do you think conservatives view NYT/CNN bias as "truth telling" or "propaganda"?
  - x0x0 10y ago
    > Do you think conservatives view NYT/CNN bias as "truth telling" or "propaganda"? What on earth do their views have to do with reality?
    - rfrank 10y ago
      Hey really great comment that's worth taking seriously!
    - rjeli 10y ago
      His point is obvious. Please, please don't comment in bad faith.
  - brazzledazzle 10y ago
    Personally I view Fox and Breitbart as being on a scale of propaganda with Brietbart near the extreme end and Fox somewhere in the middle. But while I don't always agree with The Wall Street Journal or The Economist I don't think they're anything like Fox/Breitbart. There's a difference between bias and propaganda.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      > There's a difference between bias and propaganda. Then actually define it, and provide examples of them being literal propaganda. Otherwise the discussion is just a political version of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
      - x0x0 10y ago
jbooth 10y ago
Look at the numbers: Something like 50% of Fox News viewers believe ridiculous falsehoods, like Obama wasn't born in the country or Saddam really had WMD. There are studies showing that Fox News viewers are less informed than no-news viewers. There are no such studies for the NYT, editorial page bias notwithstanding.
- jrs95 10y ago
  Those demographics aren't necessarily a reflection of the degree of bias in the media coverage. More educated/well-informed people could just have a preference for one form of bias over another.
- goldenkey 10y ago
  Well he wasn't. The birth certificate has been shown to have many signs of forgery [1]. The Hawaiian Health department worker who signed off on the copy of it died mysteriously in a plane crash. [1] https://youtu.be/yuhF-Ok3djI https://youtu.be/yuhF-Ok3djI [2] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/health-director-who-approved-obama-birth-certificate-dies-plane-crash-f2D11732106 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/health-director-who-approv...
  - Nimitz14 10y ago
    7/10 troll
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- ThomPete 10y ago
  How is that different from the liberal left to believe trump is a sexoffender for saying "grab them by the p"? There are just as many angled stories in the mainstream media and they are actually worse because they claim to be objective.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
BigJono 10y ago
> if they present an equally biased perspective Where has it been said that they're both equally biased? I don't know anything about American news, this is all from an Australian perspective, but if a right-wing paper runs fairly standard stories and occasionally has an opinion piece on stricter border controls; and a left-wing paper runs page after page after page of manipulative appeals to emotion full of terrible anecdotal "evidence", nobody would suggest that they were equally biased. The same works in reverse. You don't get to declare a Facist state and openly call for the execution of all Muslims because your rival paper ran an investigative story into refugee camp abuse and then go on to claim an equal bias.
MaysonL 10y ago
How much coverage did they do of Trump's scandals as opposed to Clinton's emails?
- rfrank 10y ago
  Is that supposed to be a point? Look it up.
  - MaysonL 10y ago
    See https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-ele... Overall the media gave Clinton a bit more (by percentage) positive coverage in the general, while Trump got more if you include the primaries. However, Trump got much more coverage overall. The negative coverage of Clinton spiked during the last two weeks of the campaign.

jamez1 10y ago

The very fact it is held to a better standard means it is more responsible when it mucks up. If NY Times is the vanguard of journalism, would you not find it atrocious the precedent they set in partisanship and misrepresentation of the people they are supposedly reporting to?

nebabyte 10y ago

You should read more carefully. He said they're framing their industry as the victim. The NYT could be saints and that wouldn't change the fact that the industry they're in is what it is now. And if they can't identify that and instead just say that industry's the victim, weberc is 100% correct.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]