Posted on 04/25/2012 3:46:46 AM PDT by tobyhill
In an unprecedented move, New York Times public editor Arthur Brisbane took to the pages of his newspaper on Sunday to pledge to the reading public that they would do a better job vetting the president. Yes, you read that right: the New York Times is now channeling Andrew Breitbart. Here’s what he wrote:
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?
Brisbane admits that critics “view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion.” He admits that The Times “basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008.” (That phrase, in and of itself, constitutes significant pro-Obama bias, of course – he uses it twice in the course of the article.) But, he says, the bias wasn’t purposeful: “I think [our reporters] see themselves as aggressive journalists who don’t play favorites.”
Finally, he says, “The warm afterglow of Mr. Obama’s election, the collateral effects of liberal-minded feature writers – these can be overcome by hard-nosed, unbiased political reporting now.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
The nyt is a complete waste of trees. I pledge to never buy a copy or read any of it on the internet.
Yeah, right.
Next thing you know, the United Nations will be cracking down on genocide.
Thanks tobyhill.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2876258/posts
my Democrat uncle told me years ago the New York Times was a Democratic rag sheet
Ben Shapiro is an anti-birther.
What they are licking IS NOT HIS SHOES.
LLS
I once had acquaintance with a guy from some country in Africa who had emigrated with his wife and kids..........none of them had birth certificates
“OJ Promises Wife-Killing Days Are Over”
They will be drinking slurpee’s in hell when this comes true.
Bwaa haa haa. That's a good one. You should've saved that for the official Friday silliness thread. Seriously, how could they even say such a thing with a straight face? Oh yeah, years of practice at bald-faced lying.
The NYT wouldn't know unbiased reporting if it came up and bit them in their liberal/socialist/fascist agenda-pushing backsides.
“Pinch and Obama sittin’ in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.”
I’m not sure it’s lying. It may be delusion.
Exactly. Once our actual "choice" has been eliminated, they are free to do whatever they want.
translation: so you can invest your full-faith and trust in our forthcoming 22 weeks of attacks on Romney...
This was reported in the New York Times. And I won't bother to watch the Times, until there's evidence of change. Just do it.
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.