Posted on 04/22/2012 7:43:40 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
... Eight years ago, The Times offered comparably scant campaign coverage of the incumbent, George W. Bush, even as it blanketed readers with articles about Senator John Kerry and others competing for the Democratic nomination.
Now, though, the general election season is on, and The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president’s record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?
Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008. The company published a book about the country’s first African-American president, “Obama: The Historic Journey.” The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there’s nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.
Readers deserve to know: Who is the real Barack Obama? And The Times needs to show that it can address the question in a hard-nosed, unbiased way.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I thought the Times was already doing it - they are totally unbiased in their support of a Manchurian dictator's takeover of the Nation.
>>Readers deserve to know: Who is the real Barack Obama? And The Times needs to show that it can address the question in a hard-nosed, unbiased way.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *wipes eyes* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
The Times would rather go broke than abandon its agenda. The author came close to a mea culpa, then completely chickened out. Bernie Goldberg nailed it when he said these people are so isolated in their elitist bubble they’re incapable objectivity to any degree.
I wanted to read the article at the link. I can’t. I know what it is going to say and it will just make me angry this morning.
I don’t understand why people read the Times and think they are getting anything beyond left win dem raw propaganda.
Even better! I’d forgotten about that one.
The post says “Take A Hard Look At The President” but I just can’t do it. It’s “hard” for me to “look” at him at all. :)
No one is going to see it if you don't copy us all here.
ML/NJ
That’ll be the day
Perhaps the cracker jack investigative journalists at the Slimes will uncover the Kenyan’s golf handicap. Page 1, above the fold.
These newspapers can continue to lose money and still be worth the investment to their owners. Newspapers organize the herd into holding the bag for “pump and dump” stock schemes of monstrous scale. It has been so since the days when Mayer Amschel Rothschild made a killing on news from the Napoleonic Wars.
How do you copy everyone in s thread?
Pablum
I don't know of any way short of pasting each person's screen name into the "To" box. Some times I just put "All" in there, but that doesn't really do much except make me feel good.
ML/NJ
This is the most comprehensive I’ve ever read. Share it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2875042/posts
Mr. Brisbane:
The first step for anyone with an addiction is to admit you have one. It would appear the Times is continuing to deny their liberal bent and bias: “I asked Richard Stevenson, the political editor overseeing campaign coverage, about these matters, and he offered a detailed email response, noting that “we take very seriously our responsibility to report without favoritism” (Brisbane, 2012, pg 1).
Mr. Stevenson expects the majority of Americans to believe that the Times ignoring one of the most important and possibly the biggest scandal in American’s entire history is being fair and journalistic in nature as they (the Times) sees it:
Obama Lawyer Admits Forgery But Disregards “Image” As Indication Of Obama’s Ineligibility
4-11-12
DAMAGE CONTROL: A recent ballot challenge hearing in New Jersey exposes a desperate strategy by Obama to distance himself from his forged certificate and induce the contrived value of his transient political popularity as the only “legitimate qualification” needed to hold the office of the presidency.
By Dan Crosby of THE DAILY PEN
NEW YORK, NY – After a Maricopa County law enforcement agency conducted a six-month forensic examination which determined that the image of Obama’s alleged 1961 Certificate of Live Birth posted to a government website in April, 2011 is a digital fabrication and that it did not originate from a genuine paper document, arguments from an Obama eligibility lawyer during a recent New Jersey ballot challenge hearing reveals the image was not only a fabrication, but that it was likely part of a contrived plot by counterfeiters to endow Obama with mere political support while simultaneously making the image intentionally appear absurd and, therefore, invalid as evidence toward proving Obama’s ineligibility in a court of law.
Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate, Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”.
Right wrong or indifferent, the birth certificate is now a public record in open court and cannot be ignored, but, the Times is completely ignoring the issue!
Mr. Brisbane, the NY Times is engaging in conduct that is most favorable to this President’s reelection than to any kind of unbiased reporting or the news that most Americans have come to enjoy and seek out. No one wants to read an article in any paper or source that simply cheer leads this President’s reelection!
Every time President Bush sent more troops anywhere in the world, the NY Times blasted him on the front page of their paper for weeks!
SEPTEMBER 24, 2006: New National Intelligence Estimate determines Iraq war has increased terror threat.
“A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.” [New York Times, 9/24/2006]
Not to even mention the fact the NY Times every day reporting on the number of U.S. casualties from the war.
President Obama would appear to have escape the level of scrutiny from the NY Times:
JUNE 22, 2011: Obama Will Speed Pullout From War in Afghanistan.
WASHINGTON — “President Obama declared Wednesday that the United States had largely achieved its goals in Afghanistan, setting in motion a substantial withdrawal of American troops in an acknowledgment of the shifting threat in the region and the fast-changing political and economic landscape in a war-weary America” (Landler, Cooper, 2011).
I won’t even bother going into the slanted coverage of the Tea Party protests vs. the Occupy protesters and the NY Times coverage or the lack thereof! The Treyvon Martin shooting is another example of NY Times liberal bias! Really a “white Hispanic” in order to continue reporting the narrative of “white on black racism” when the facts had not even been fully investigated or reported. This did not prevent the NY Times from whipping up racial anger in the country, placing a shooting suspect’s life in danger because he was pronounced by the NY Times and others as being a white Hispanic, really?
No sir, I don’t see any liberal bias in the NY Times reporting and the NY Times does not see it either, so what is really the problem? Must be those stupid pine stump savages in fly over country who are just too stupid and uneducated to understand the sophistication of the Uber-liberal progressive’s.
Setting aside the NY Times non-liberal bias or prejudice, I am wondering just how long George W. Bush would have remained in office if his administration was involved in “fast and furious,” resulting in the murder of a federal agent, Solyndra where 500,000,000.00 million of the tax payers’ dollars was simply given to a company who then filed for bankruptcy, effectively giving the American tax payers the middle finger, GSA scandal, and finally, but, not limited to the secret service prostitution scandal? You and I both know the answer to that question. Instead what we get from the NY Times is the fantasy “Republican war on women” and the Obama Administration creation of “Republicans who want to prevent women from getting their contraception!”
The NY Times is the [old media] for a reason, the American people are not simply “fly over country” as so many liberal reporters believe, they are not stupid, they too understand the liberal bias of the NY Times just to mention one (1) of so many in the old media. The readership of the NY Times is proof positive of the liberal bias!
Nice try Mr. Brisbane, but, you cannot fix or correct a problem unless you first admit you have a problem. The NY Times will be long gone to the pages of history before that ever happens!
COMMENT POSTED REPLYING TO JOSH HILL(I wonder if it will be removed)
dougfromupland
upland, ca
Just amazing. Some people are still worshipping at the altar of The One. He is the greatest danger this republic has ever faced. He threatens the Supreme Court, keeps piling on massive debt for our kids and grandkids, is consolidating unimagined power in the executive branch, has disdain for our Constitution, hates entrepreneurs who make the country work, apologizes to other countries, bows down to the Saudis, will not let us get our own energy to become independent of the Middle East, is the worst enemy Israel has ever had in the White House, and is totally clueless in dealing with our enemies. The man is a community organizer, a socialist who has always hated this country, is in way over his head, surrounds himself with socialists and communists, refuses to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation, will not follow the law and enforce the borders, and through anger or pure incompetence is determined to destroy this great nation.
But not so unbiased as to publish my comment. (Just let everyone know they should Google Obama's name together with either "Arpaio" or "Zebest" and look around at what Google finds.)ML//NJFor 50 years I trustingly read the Times from cover to cover. Now I never look at it except to ridicule it. Meanwhile the stockholders weep and the WH laughs.
I was so sad the day he got elected. What should have been a day of celebration-the election of America’s first black President-I knew that for the next 4 years he and his handlers would use the race card over and over. He would do what he could to ruin America-or what he considers white-ruled America.
it was sad to think about what Obama was going to do to “race relations” (not to mention the whole darn country!) As the first black American President, he had such a once in a lifetime opportunity in his hands; he could have shown that if you worked hard and lived right, as a black man, you could do anything, you could have it all.
But, unfortunately, the first black man elected was-Obama, not Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas.
A man with such a hideous past, it must be covered up at any cost.
A man with such a hateful, anti-American agenda,that even his ideas must be constructed in the dark,and are so bad that they can only be made law by an edict or by breaking other laws-once again-put in place at any cost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.