9 ms·

Condoleeza Rice its director, John Yoo is a Visiting Fellow, Donald Rumsfeld, Ed Meese, and Henry Kissinger are Distinguished Visiting Fellows. Non-partisan?

Condoleeza Rice its director, John Yoo is a Visiting Fellow, Donald Rumsfeld, Ed Meese, and Henry Kissinger are Distinguished Visiting Fellows. Non-partisan? Come on.

rayiner 6y ago
And what percentage of the New York Times editorial board is Democrats? I would still call the Times a non-partisan paper (albeit one with liberal leanings). A somewhat old (2000) Hoover Institution article notes that 1/4 of its Fellows are Democrats. I would be shocked if 1/4 of the Times editorial Board was Republicans. Or really if even one person on the Times editorial Board was a Republican.
- jacobolus 6y ago
  Not a single member of the NY Times editorial board ever worked in the White House (except as a reporter), worked as a full-time political operative, or the like. They’re all career journalists and scholars. It’s not remotely comparable to the Hoover Institution. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/opinion/editorialboard.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/opinion/editorialbo...
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Sure, because the Times is a newspaper and the Hoover Institute is a think tank. Part of the mission of a think tank requires having people with real world experience in government. I don’t think that’s a good proxy of whether the work is politically biased (rather than ideologically biased). Arguably, the Times is more overtly politically biased with its new “moral clarity” angle.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      I think if they didn't have an agenda, at least with this specific topic, they would have included data on other states to compare to.
  - stagehn 6y ago
    You're missing the point. Their bias doesn't come from whether they've literally worked in the White House, it comes from their political beliefs and how strongly those beliefs are held. How many in the NYT vocally support the Republican Party vs vocally support the Democratic Party?
  - verylittlemeat 6y ago
    The parent did say editorial board but I would suggest that a criticism of the NYTimes in the same spirit that actually warrants attention is its board of directors. Many if not all of them are wealthy lifelong democrats. I'm not trying to move the goal posts on you, just pointing out what I think was the original intent of the comment that - that left or right you should always follow the money.
    - jacobolus 6y ago
      Not a single member of the NYT board of directors ever worked in the White House or worked as a full-time political operative either. They’re a mix of people from the journalism industry and people who had senior management roles in other kinds of businesses: some lawyers, some finance people, etc. https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/ https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/ I certainly have problems with the NYT. It is generally pro-corporate and pro-establishment. It is under strong pressure to accept bullshit at face value, and often succumbs (e.g. in the run up to the Iraq War). It tends far too strongly towards nonsensical “bothsidesism” There are also a lot of excellent journalists working there, and they do a lot of important work. So it’s a mixed bag.
      - areyousure 6y ago
        John W. Rogers, Jr. "was a leading campaigner for ... Bill Bradley's 2000 United States presidential campaign" and "served as a fundraising leader in Project Vote efforts led by former United States President Barack Obama". "He was part of the inner circle of the Barack Obama presidential campaign. He is a long-time Obama associate who serves as the co-chair of Obama's Illinois finance committee and who has been a major fundraiser for Democratic Party candidates. He served along with Bill Daley, Pat Ryan, Penny Pritzker and Julianna Smoot on Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration committee." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Rogers_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Rogers_Jr.
        jacobolus 6y ago
        He’s a rich finance guy who is a major campaign contributor and fundraiser. That’s not the same as being a political operative, working in the White House, or the like. For example, Brian McAndrews (also on the NYT board of directors) maxed out his campaign contributions to the RNC, Mitt Romney, GOP PACs, etc. But he also isn’t a political operative.
- refurb 6y ago
  7% of reporters identify as Republicans versus 28% identify as Democrats.[1] If we're going to play the "this source is biased" with every article published on HN, then we're going to see a lot of "people should know this paper has a Democratic bias". [1]https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053 https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percen...
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    It's media owners who decide the direction of their holdings, not the lowly reporter on the beat.
    - refurb 6y ago
      I don't think that true, but if it was, that would be even worse since every single reporter for the NYTimes would have to tow the Democratic line. Thank god it's not that bad (they still will have a right-leaning opinion column once a month or so).
    - davidivadavid 6y ago
      From what I remember from the Gentzkow/Shapiro work on media bias, media owners isn't really the source of bias. Paraphrasing, it turns out the bias comes from... the readers, who want a paper where they can read what pleases them.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    One amazing fact is that the Democrat:Republican skew among reporters is higher than almost every group traditionally perceived to skew Democratic. Gay people, for example, skew Democrat versus Republican closer to 3:1. But circling back, this is a theme. Conservative organizations and think tanks (Federalist Society is another example) have more Democrats than putatively objective professions (journalism, academia) have Republicans. That’s bad.
    - taurath 6y ago
      Gay people are not 3:1. You’re making up statistics to further your argument, but it’s not helping. Any source I’ve seen in terms of voting record and polling it’s 5:1 or higher. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-lgbt-support-democrats-midterms-nbc-news-exit-poll-shows-n934211 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-lgbt-support-...
- messick 6y ago
  Guessing the NYTimes has less than 3 people on its board that would be put on trial for war crimes at the ICC if the US didn’t forbid it, which isn’t something an org with Yoo, Kissinger, and Rumsfeld can say.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Condoleeza Rice its director, John Yoo is a Visiting Fellow, Donald Rumsfeld, Ed Meese, and Henry Kissinger are Distinguished Visiting Fellows. Non-partisan? Come on.

rayiner 6y ago

And what percentage of the New York Times editorial board is Democrats? I would still call the Times a non-partisan paper (albeit one with liberal leanings). A somewhat old (2000) Hoover Institution article notes that 1/4 of its Fellows are Democrats. I would be shocked if 1/4 of the Times editorial Board was Republicans. Or really if even one person on the Times editorial Board was a Republican.

jacobolus 6y ago
Not a single member of the NY Times editorial board ever worked in the White House (except as a reporter), worked as a full-time political operative, or the like. They’re all career journalists and scholars. It’s not remotely comparable to the Hoover Institution. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/opinion/editorialboard.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/opinion/editorialbo...
- rayiner 6y ago
  Sure, because the Times is a newspaper and the Hoover Institute is a think tank. Part of the mission of a think tank requires having people with real world experience in government. I don’t think that’s a good proxy of whether the work is politically biased (rather than ideologically biased). Arguably, the Times is more overtly politically biased with its new “moral clarity” angle.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    I think if they didn't have an agenda, at least with this specific topic, they would have included data on other states to compare to.
- stagehn 6y ago
  You're missing the point. Their bias doesn't come from whether they've literally worked in the White House, it comes from their political beliefs and how strongly those beliefs are held. How many in the NYT vocally support the Republican Party vs vocally support the Democratic Party?
- verylittlemeat 6y ago
  The parent did say editorial board but I would suggest that a criticism of the NYTimes in the same spirit that actually warrants attention is its board of directors. Many if not all of them are wealthy lifelong democrats. I'm not trying to move the goal posts on you, just pointing out what I think was the original intent of the comment that - that left or right you should always follow the money.
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    Not a single member of the NYT board of directors ever worked in the White House or worked as a full-time political operative either. They’re a mix of people from the journalism industry and people who had senior management roles in other kinds of businesses: some lawyers, some finance people, etc. https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/ https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/ I certainly have problems with the NYT. It is generally pro-corporate and pro-establishment. It is under strong pressure to accept bullshit at face value, and often succumbs (e.g. in the run up to the Iraq War). It tends far too strongly towards nonsensical “bothsidesism” There are also a lot of excellent journalists working there, and they do a lot of important work. So it’s a mixed bag.
    - areyousure 6y ago
      John W. Rogers, Jr. "was a leading campaigner for ... Bill Bradley's 2000 United States presidential campaign" and "served as a fundraising leader in Project Vote efforts led by former United States President Barack Obama". "He was part of the inner circle of the Barack Obama presidential campaign. He is a long-time Obama associate who serves as the co-chair of Obama's Illinois finance committee and who has been a major fundraiser for Democratic Party candidates. He served along with Bill Daley, Pat Ryan, Penny Pritzker and Julianna Smoot on Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration committee." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Rogers_Jr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Rogers_Jr.
      - jacobolus 6y ago
        He’s a rich finance guy who is a major campaign contributor and fundraiser. That’s not the same as being a political operative, working in the White House, or the like. For example, Brian McAndrews (also on the NYT board of directors) maxed out his campaign contributions to the RNC, Mitt Romney, GOP PACs, etc. But he also isn’t a political operative.
refurb 6y ago
7% of reporters identify as Republicans versus 28% identify as Democrats.[1] If we're going to play the "this source is biased" with every article published on HN, then we're going to see a lot of "people should know this paper has a Democratic bias". [1]https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percent-of-reporters-identify-as-republican-188053 https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/survey-7-percen...
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  It's media owners who decide the direction of their holdings, not the lowly reporter on the beat.
  - refurb 6y ago
    I don't think that true, but if it was, that would be even worse since every single reporter for the NYTimes would have to tow the Democratic line. Thank god it's not that bad (they still will have a right-leaning opinion column once a month or so).
  - davidivadavid 6y ago
    From what I remember from the Gentzkow/Shapiro work on media bias, media owners isn't really the source of bias. Paraphrasing, it turns out the bias comes from... the readers, who want a paper where they can read what pleases them.
- rayiner 6y ago
  One amazing fact is that the Democrat:Republican skew among reporters is higher than almost every group traditionally perceived to skew Democratic. Gay people, for example, skew Democrat versus Republican closer to 3:1. But circling back, this is a theme. Conservative organizations and think tanks (Federalist Society is another example) have more Democrats than putatively objective professions (journalism, academia) have Republicans. That’s bad.
  - taurath 6y ago
    Gay people are not 3:1. You’re making up statistics to further your argument, but it’s not helping. Any source I’ve seen in terms of voting record and polling it’s 5:1 or higher. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-lgbt-support-democrats-midterms-nbc-news-exit-poll-shows-n934211 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/record-lgbt-support-...
messick 6y ago
Guessing the NYTimes has less than 3 people on its board that would be put on trial for war crimes at the ICC if the US didn’t forbid it, which isn’t something an org with Yoo, Kissinger, and Rumsfeld can say.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]