Newsweek Exposes New York Times' Leftist Bias

NewsMax | Dec. 2, 2002 | Carl Limbacher

[smurk]

Monday, Dec. 2, 2002 Newsweek Exposes New York Times' Leftist Bias

This would be like Tom Daschle accusing Al Gore of being a whiner, but Newsweek magazine is pointing out the growing left-wing bias at the New York Times.

In its Dec. 9 issue, liberal Newsweek notes how the Times turned a non-story into its own crusade: Augusta National Golf Club's policy of male membership. (How come the Times and its allies don't want America's countless women's clubs broken up?)

A Page One story Nov. 25, "CBS STAYING SILENT IN DEBATE ON WOMEN JOINING AUGUSTA," was the Times' 32nd item in less than three months on Augusta's choice not to admit women as members.

Newsweek notes, "The story spanked the TV network that has a contract to air the Masters for 'resisting the argument that it can do something to alter the club’s policy,' although it was unclear who — other than the Times — was making the argument; as the piece eventually noted, 'public pressure on CBS to take a stand has been glancing.'”

'Shocking'

One Times staffer told the magazine: "That was just shocking. It makes it hard for us to have credibility on other issues. We don’t run articles that just say so-and-so is staying silent. We run articles when something important actually happens.”

Newsweek says that "the chorus of complaints at the Times has been getting louder" and that executive editor Howell Raines is "in danger of losing the building” because of his injection of political bias into so-called news stories.

"This is certainly a shift from the New York Times as the ‘paper of record,’” noted Alex Jones, a former Times media reporter and co-author of "The Trust,” a book about the paper. "It’s a more activist agenda in terms of policy, especially compared to an administration that’s much more conservative.”

Slate’s media critic, Jack Shafer, observed, "The Times has assumed the journalistic role as the party of opposition.”

The Talk of the Town

Newsweek's article concludes with this juicy bit:

"In August, the paper printed two consecutive front-page stories incorrectly including Henry Kissinger among the 'prominent Republicans' opposing war with Iraq (Kissinger had expressed realpolitik reservations but stopped far short of arguing against an attack). After an ensuing flap, the paper assigned a media reporter a story on how the American press was increasingly seen as driving the debate on Iraq.

"According to a number of sources at the Times, the reporter, David Carr, went back to his editors and told them the media, per se, weren’t driving anything: the only publication injecting itself into the policy debate was the Times itself. (Carr did not return calls seeking comment.) The story never ran. An editor’s note, explaining the Times’s mistakes, was printed instead. But people were talking."

[smurk]

Long live the demise of Howell Raines.

[Naspino]

In a way I think this is a ploy. I cannot count how many times I've heard in the past week that the New York Times is leftist because of its "crusade" against Augusta National. Those exact words have been repeated far too frequently to be trustworthy anymore. What I think is happening is that either (1) the public gets the sense that the NYT is being attacked for bias based on a single story or (2) getting out the message that the NYT is trustworthy as Tony Snow reminded viewers last night that the NY TIMES has a long history of being UNBIASED in its news coverage.

Everytime I fly I pick up a NYT and it has always been evident to me that its a biased paper -- even its new coverage. Its bias is through the wording that the authors choose. Rush pointed it out the other day when the author of an article reported on Bush's signing of a new environmental law by first stating that Bush was seeking to improve on his dismal environmental record. Fact reported as bias by painting Bush as the evil politician doing a good thing out of necessity not will.

[ClearCase_guy]

I generally think that businesses are not dumb. Sometimes, yeah -- but mostly they make sensible decisions. But the Times is going about this in a crazy fashion. All across the country newspapers are in decline. NYC is heavily in decline economically. Over 50% of the US population would disagree with the Times opinion of where the US should be headed. Probably over 50% of the US would think that the Times is laughably biased. Best-selling books have spelled out how biased the Times happens to be. Now other major media players are saying that the Times is laughably biased.

And the response? "Oh, but we're not biased at all."

Bad business decision.

[Wright is right!]

Best way I can put it -

The New York Times thinks that the more times you press the "UP" button, the faster the out-of-service elevator will arrive.

There are very primitive animals that learn faster than Howell Raines and the NYT. Raines performs action "A" hoping for result "B." Instead, result "C" occurs. Does Raines learn that action "A" will produce result "C?" No. He continues to madly perform action "A" hoping for result "B." Result "C" only makes his repetition of action "A" more frenzied.

His lead continues to be picked up and followed by Democrats around the country. Pavlov would be STUNNED.

Michael

[KellyAdmirer]

The bias goes beyond just the words - it extends to choice of stories, to outright advocacy, even to the pictures used to illustrate stories. During the 1992 Presidential campaign, for instance, every picture of President Bush on the front page was unflattering in some way - he had a momentary strange look on his face, or was flinching, or something else. Every picture of Bill Clinton, on the other hand, had a flag waving in the background, or he had a big smile on his face, or something similar. The same kind of subtle bias can be seen in the paper every day.

Don't trust a thing about the paper, it is losing itself in its agenda. I used to prefer it to Newsday, the ultimate liberal rag - but at least Newsday makes no bones about its bias.

[ClearCase_guy]

It would be interesting to do a study of the first 100 pictures of Bill Clinton published in the NYT after his election in 1996, with the first 100 photos of Bush after his election. And compare also, the first 100 photos of Bush published by, say, The Washington Times. It might become obvious that the NYT chose good photos of Clinton and bad photos of Bush.

Also, I'd like to see comparison of column inches devoted to stories in which palestinians die, compared with column inches of stories about Israelis beign killed. Page placement could also be brought into the picture.

I used to read the NYT every day. It's is grossly biased if you look for it. If you are a blissful idiot, it might go right over your head.

[aristeides]

Anybody know what's been happening to the Slimes's circulation and ad revenues?

[aristeides]

I heard Raines and publisher Pinch Sulzberger speaking at some forum on C-SPAN Radio over the weekend. Boy, did they sound smug and satisfied with themselves. And the other people at the forum (journalists and journalism professors) were sycophantic in their praise of them. They're living in a world of delusions.

[hot august night]

I do know that the circulation of the NY Post, which I read faithfully every day, and is the only conservative paper in the city (outside of the Wall Street Journal -- which annoys me because its editorial page is always swinging its pom poms in favor of illegal aliens), is accelerating at a faster clip than any of its competitors, and is pummelling Zuckerman's (and big Clinton fan) Daily News. I loathe the Slimes so much that even when they periodically hand out free copies at Penn Station, I refuse to take them (since I'm not paper-training a puppy currently).

[proxy_user]

In the Newsweek article referred to, they owners of the Times state that circulation and revenue are up, and therefore they think their approach is correct. Ah, good old capitalism!

[aristeides]

In the Newsweek article referred to, they owners of the Times state that circulation and revenue are up, and therefore they think their approach is correct.

Do you trust them to tell the truth about that?

[Guillermo]

Sounds like the definition of a Zealot: one who has lost sight of his goal, and so redoubles his efforts.

[Psycho_Bunny]

Ring.....Ring....

"Hello?"

"Hey Kettle, it's Pot."

"Heyas Pot.  Wassup?"

"Yer Black!"

Click

[albee]

I used to buy the Times 2-3 times per week and always on Sundays (I loved their crossword puzzle). However, several years ago, it dawned on me that the news was always slanted to the left, the positions they took were always pro liberal and conservative commentary accounted for about only 5% of their stories.

I figured I could get the "Left Side Story" from any one of the major networks for free so why should I pay good money to the biased Times?

I still miss their crossword puzzle...but that is the only thing I miss about the NYT.

[Republic of Texas]

Martha Burke thinks Augusta is bad. However, Arab Muslim countries that torture and enslave women are ok. Orwell would be proud.

[Media Insurgent]

"Do you trust them to tell the truth about that?"

Yes, actually. The Times might be able to print whatever outlandish stuff they want on their pages, but when it comes to the business side they are a bit more accountable.

The circulation gains are verifiable because they are audited by an independent entity called the Audit Bureau of Circulations. There are some tricks that newspapers can do to cheat a little bit on these audits, but for the most part, I trust them.

The main reason for the NYT circulation gains is because they have been working hard at improving their distribution channels throughout the country, and the world for that matter. They now have home delivery in a lot of areas they didn't just a few years ago. So basically they are gaining among people who probably always wanted to read the Times, but weren't able to find a copy in the past. So it's a bit like a retail chain that opens a store in a new market- it pretty much goes without saying that they will increase sales, even if they decline a little bit in their original markets.

As for the revenues, they are a publicly traded company, so unless there is any Enron style funny business going on with the books, that's easy enough to check out as well. Keep in mind that 2001 was an absolutely horrible year for advertising across the board. They didn't have to work too hard to beat last year's numbers.

Politics aside, never lose sight of the fact that newspapers are a business, and an extremely profitable one at that. Profit margins for most chains are around 20%. They might talk like socialists on their editorial page, but they are enthusiastic capitalists in the way they conduct business. Once you get outside the newsroom all these organizations exist to make money and the New York Times Co. makes more than most of their peers.

[Turbodog]

“His lead continues to be picked up and followed by Democrats around the country. Pavlov would be STUNNED.”

Even the renowned and celebrated Dr. Pavlov had to account for the occasional statistical anomaly when he conducted his famous experiments!

It’s amazing that liberal rag can continue to generate enough profits to carry on with its foremost ambition of total destruction of the planet by wiping out all things that are green. The environmentalist should shudder! They are presiding over an evil empire of rats. DeMoRaTs!

[Fintan]