3 ms·

> The New York Post, like every other New York paper, does its damnedest to appeal to the widest possible spectrum. The Post is a liberal paper. No it's not. I

> The New York Post, like every other New York paper, does its damnedest to appeal to the widest possible spectrum. The Post is a liberal paper. No it's not. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch (also the owner of Fox News), and it's considered a conservative paper. The Daily News is a more liberal paper. Wikipedia confirms this, though I'm sure you could look for more definitive sources if you want to surf around. Frankly, I would fully expect the Post to try to scapegoat liberal activist groups. > The author, Stan Liebowitz, is "the Ashbel Smith professor of Economics in the Business School at the University of Texas at Dallas"---not exactly unqualified to speak on the subject. The author is certainly qualified. On the other hand, it's apparent from reading his piece that (rightly or wrongly), he's had this axe to grind about redlining that has left him out of the mainstream consensus for quite a long time. It could be that this makes him uniquely qualified to make an assessment that no one else needs to hear, or it could mean that he's a kook that no one with any sense listens to. Personally, I'm certainly not qualified to say that the article is wrong, because it may be 100% correct. However, I would like to see more evidence than the word of a guy who's been arguing a minority position for 15+ years in a newspaper that is not known for its commitment to balance.

xlnt 19y ago
Who cares who's "qualified" to say what? Is there a part of the article you feel is mistaken, and if so which part and why?
- wanorris 19y ago
  Well, for starters, the author's baseline claim that there was no factual basis for redlining, which he freely admits is the minority opinion in the matter. More importantly, the claim that the government and the liberals hounded banks into offering subprime loans, and that it wasn't just the dollar signs in their eyes that made them do it. These things may be true or may not, but I would like to see better evidence before I simply accept them as facts.
dissenter 19y ago
> nypost ain't liberal We would classify the the Village Voice as a very liberal paper, but send it to someone in Nebraska and they'll tell you it's pornography. Political ideals may draw on universal principles, but the line of scrimmage is different in every district. Murdoch is a businessman first, and he likes to own news companies. He happens to prefer to play one side of the line of scrimmage. The combination means his mouthpieces say different things in different areas. In some areas they endorse Hillary Clinton for re-election to the senate... I tried to sidestep this criticism, but I was wrong to even sound the terms. The point is that the NYPost doesn't usually run articles like this---otherwise I wouldn't have read it. This tidbit is so salacious it even got my attention. > Wikipedia Wikipedia indeed.
- wanorris 19y ago
  > Wikipedia indeed. If you're going to impeach what you believe to a a secondary source of questionable veracity, it might behoove you to use something other than baldfaced assertions yourself.
- yummyfajitas 19y ago
  >He happens to prefer to play one side of the line of scrimmage. Or at least prefers to play on the side he feels is an underserved market. Most people want a news source that agrees with them. If a fact doesn't support your views, it must be a lie, right? In the TV news market, this means that left wing types are split between CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. Murdoch figured this out, and right wing types all watch Fox.

xlnt 19y ago

Who cares who's "qualified" to say what? Is there a part of the article you feel is mistaken, and if so which part and why?

wanorris 19y ago
Well, for starters, the author's baseline claim that there was no factual basis for redlining, which he freely admits is the minority opinion in the matter. More importantly, the claim that the government and the liberals hounded banks into offering subprime loans, and that it wasn't just the dollar signs in their eyes that made them do it. These things may be true or may not, but I would like to see better evidence before I simply accept them as facts.

dissenter 19y ago

> nypost ain't liberal We would classify the the Village Voice as a very liberal paper, but send it to someone in Nebraska and they'll tell you it's pornography. Political ideals may draw on universal principles, but the line of scrimmage is different in every district. Murdoch is a businessman first, and he likes to own news companies. He happens to prefer to play one side of the line of scrimmage. The combination means his mouthpieces say different things in different areas. In some areas they endorse Hillary Clinton for re-election to the senate... I tried to sidestep this criticism, but I was wrong to even sound the terms. The point is that the NYPost doesn't usually run articles like this---otherwise I wouldn't have read it. This tidbit is so salacious it even got my attention. > Wikipedia Wikipedia indeed.

wanorris 19y ago
> Wikipedia indeed. If you're going to impeach what you believe to a a secondary source of questionable veracity, it might behoove you to use something other than baldfaced assertions yourself.
yummyfajitas 19y ago
>He happens to prefer to play one side of the line of scrimmage. Or at least prefers to play on the side he feels is an underserved market. Most people want a news source that agrees with them. If a fact doesn't support your views, it must be a lie, right? In the TV news market, this means that left wing types are split between CNN, CBS, NBC, etc. Murdoch figured this out, and right wing types all watch Fox.