The NY Times claims to be America's newspaper, etc. Fair and balanced and all that.

Let's go back a few years and feast on this charming obit of one of the world's great men (choke).

please...no gagging

Give a clearly defined question for debate.

Is the NY Times a fair and balnced news source?

Does the editorial stance rule the story?

Is there a not-so-hidden libera, maybe even leftist, agenda?

"Fair and balanced?" Isn't that Fox News'catchphrase?

Okaaaaay, you posted a link to a obit for Stalin in the NY Times and this indicates what exactly? I don't see how the "liberal" or "leftist" agenda is being advanced here.

How about comparing an obit for John Kennedy with Richard Nixon to draw a better contrast? Apparently you are trying to make a point here about The Times, but you're being waaaaay too subtle and oblique.

What's your point?

So the NYTimes published an obit. for one of the most influential people of the century... So what? It's not like they're saying that Uncle Joe was a good guy, or excusing his crimes; they're merely REPORTING (you know... what a newspaper does) on the life of someone.

And where is the connection between liberalism and Uncle Joe? I don't get that at all.

Liberal....left......communist......slippery slope.

Glorifying one of the biggest mass murderers in the history of the world, gushing over him at points, doesn't make you wonder about the agenda of the editors?

I voted for Adlai Stephenson once week and he was a gateway politician to the SDS and the SDS made me into a freedom hating godless commie who swears allegiance to a poster of Joseph Stalin every night? Is that the slippery slope to communism?

I tend to think the NY Times has a fairly conservative slant to it.

Normally your comments are insulting and dismissive, but this one confuses me. Liberalism is a slippery slope to communism? Can you provide a single example where a liberal system evolved into a communist one?

Of course your argument hinges on the 'editorial' bias of the newspaper... which is funny since the date on that obituary is 1953. I sincerely doubt the editorial staff has the same composition at this point.

Musing:


Come on, Musing. Can't you make a case or have a debate without this kind of statement? I'd like you to show some evidence of this. What are your sources? Do you have verifiable proof that this is the case? Of course not. It's just a cheap debate-stopper.

After all, it's the same as me saying conservative....right....fascist. Where does that get me? I don't use statements like that because I happen to respect the Truth over ideology.

There are six billion songs in this world, and ALL of them are worth singing.

Not if they come out of Christina Skankiliera's mouth they don't.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Adressing the topic at hand; here in Canada the media displays a distinctly neo-liberal (read right-wing) bias that can be clearly demonstrated by strictly enforced editorial policy, ownership, and political reporting. I've seen nothing in the States that would lead me to believe that the situation is dramatically different there.

Then again, the News Media has a distinct incentive for keeping Bush in office; that man is a headline machine.

This is a blanketed statement for which you provide absolutely no backing, no source of information, or even so much as a reason for your opinion. It doesn't even appear to be on the topic which you, yourself began, which I thought was about the slant of the NY Times.


This sort of comment does not belong here at all. Refrain from adding redundancies such as this to your posts, and then you won't have to say you're sorry.

This thread is closed because it couldn't stay on topic and is a big mess, pending committee review.

Stefan Fargus