| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: The Embarrassment That is the NYT Posted by: Jag - [5112883] Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 19:43 Just would I think that the NYT can't show any more Liberal bias, I see this. Let's drag up some old dirt that was irrelevant 8 years ago When Paula Jones told of her affair with Clinton, the NYT barely donated a paragraph, when they had information that Clinton raped Juanita Broddrick, they withheld the story for 7 years, until Broddrick opened up to the media. I believe this is to deflect attention away from their favorite son's wife, who was quoted twice as saying "...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country..." Here is how I think it went at the NYT... Left-wing Looney: Hey, those damn Republicans are giving Hussein's wife a hard time! Liberal Lunatic: Let's do something about it! Gay Guy: O'Bamy has some sweet cheeks. Pot Smoking Hippie: Go back to your fashion page Maurice. We are trying to help Barrack! Left-Wing Looney: I have idea let's pull up some old dirt on McCain and say we have a new source. Liberal Lunatic: Great idea what do you have? Pot Smoking Hippie: Nothing much, but an old story about a female Lobbyist he was friends with, a tired story about the Keating 5 and he road on some private jet airplanes and didn't pay for the ride until later. Left-wing Looney: Sounds good, just giving the impression of a scandal should be good enough. Liberal Lunatic: Great! Pot Smoking Hippie: Hey, don't bogart the blunt! | |||||||
| 1 | Myboyjack ID: 8216923 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 19:54 |
ah, I see...what McCain did while a Congressman is not nearly as relevant as which grade school Obama went to. McCain, like most powerful men, is easily exsposed as a hypocrit.That was obvious back during the height of the McCain/Feingold battle. Big deal. | ||||||
| 2 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 454491514 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 19:55 | We've already begun to discuss this elsewhere. | ||||||
| 3 | Jag ID: 5112883 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 20:18 | MBJ, it is not even a story. There was no evidence of an affair and to devote so long an article to nothing, shows bias. | ||||||
| 4 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 454491514 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 20:23 |
When Paula Jones told of her affair with Clinton, the NYT barely donated a paragraph According to Wikipedia, the Paula Jones story broke on May 4th, 1994. The Times ran two items in the next day's paper, a 700 word column by Bill Safire and a 219 word article on the story. Over the 5 day period following 5/4/94, they ran 13 seperate items on that story totalling close to 10,000 words. That's some paragraph. | ||||||
| 5 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 454491514 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 20:27 |
There was no evidence of an affair Actually, there is. But I get in trouble here for semantic points. So I'll just point out that the Times article doesn't claim there was an affair. | ||||||
| 6 | Jag ID: 5112883 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 20:35 | How about we dig up some old Clinton dirt? You can do a new story every day till the election with their scandals. | ||||||
| 7 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 454491514 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 20:41 |
By all means open a new thread - or better yet pick one of these. You and Baldwin can party it up for days on end while the rest of us discuss current and relevent events. Everybody wins. | ||||||
| 8 | Jag ID: 5112883 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 20:48 | Why don't you apply those same standards to the NYT? | ||||||
| 9 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 454491514 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 20:50 | I don't follow you, jag, what standards would that be? | ||||||
| 10 | Perm Dude ID: 017218 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 21:04 |
Oh no, a media outlet published some dirt on a member of the Republican party!! Tizzy tine! Luckily McCain isn't conservative, otherwise Jag's head would explode. | ||||||
| 11 | Jag ID: 5112883 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 21:10 |
You and Baldwin can party it up for days on end while the rest of us discuss current and relevent events. Everybody wins. You mentioned about Balwin and I not talking about current topics, but don't have a problem with the NYT bringing up an 8 year old non-story. If this doesn't prove bias, than nothing will. | ||||||
| 12 | Pancho Villa ID: 47161721 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 21:42 |
I believe this is to deflect attention away from their favorite son's wife, who was quoted twice as saying "...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country..." That quote is incorrect. | ||||||
| 13 | Perm Dude ID: 017218 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 21:46 |
That's not his point. It is that we aren't fixated on the lies that the Right is feeding--we're fixated on these "lies" from the Left. And that, according to Jag, is just plain wrong. | ||||||
| 14 | Seattle Zen ID: 529121611 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 21:49 |
 Choke on that, you F'ing TROLL! The story is about the improper influence she got out of the old windbag, not sex. But you are too dense to get that so instead you post some stupid drivel because you are nothing more than a low moron! | ||||||
| 15 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 22:22 |
Mith: what standards would that be? Jag: You mentioned about Balwin and I not talking about current topics, but don't have a problem with the NYT bringing up an 8 year old non-story. I was actually referring to (and associating you with) Baldwin's obsession with Bill Clinton. For the record, the Times' allegations are relevent. If this doesn't prove bias, than nothing will. 1. I have stated many times at this forum that I believe the NY Times tends toward a leftist bias. 2. I don't believe you read the Times regularly enough to understand that bias. In fact, I'm quite sure the only time you pay the slightest bit of attention to the Times news content is when you are directed there by a rightist charge of leftist bias. You're exactly the same as someone who complains about FOX News Channel all the time because the only FNC programming he sees are clips played on Keith Olberman. Why should anyone here take you any more seriously than you'd take that guy? 3. In my opinion the jury is still out on whether this particular story is an example of such bias. If you'd bothered to check if anyone had already started this discussion in any of the various apropriate threads before creating a new one then you might have seen one of my previous posts on the topic and might have a partial idea about why I feel this way. You could have then commented on that and this discussion would be that much deeper from your very first post. Instead we get statistics about the Times' coverege of Paula Jones in 1994 pulled straight from your ass. 4. Putting aside John mcCain and the New York Times for a moment, please tell me, why don't you hold yourself to better standards than what you manage to pull out of your ass? | ||||||
| 16 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Thu, Feb 21, 2008, 22:23 |
Mith: For the record, the Times' allegations are relevent. I should amend that. They might be relevent. We'll see what (if anything) else unfolds. | ||||||
| 17 | Jag ID: 5112883 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 11:36 | Looks like the article is helping McCain, the conservatives are rallying to his defense and contributions are already going up. | ||||||
| 18 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 14:04 | So much for Rep consistency eh Jag? Last week Rush was blasting McCain and threatening to vote for Hillary. This week, he's defending McCain and blasting the Times, for blasting the same guy he was blasting last week. Gotta just love that kind of integrity. | ||||||
| 19 | Jag ID: 5112883 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 16:31 | That is integrity, although Rush is not a McCain fan, he is speaking up against the NYT for trying to invent a scandal in order to promote their Liberal agenda. To defend the NYT, when they are showing such blantant bias, is disingenuousness. | ||||||
| 20 | sarge33rd ID: 99331714 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 16:41 | You using the term "disingenuous" or complaining of a "bias", is in fact....disingenuous. | ||||||
| 21 | Jag ID: 5112883 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 17:14 | ? | ||||||
| 22 | holt ID: 4118152 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 17:40 |
"Choke on that, you F'ing TROLL!" a truly zenful moment. buddha nature. :D | ||||||
| 23 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 19:37 |
he is speaking up against the NYT for trying to invent a scandal Actually numerous media outlets including CNN and the right-leaning Drudge Report have all been tracking the story since December. Drudge was actually the outlet that broke it at that time. Crazy how multiple media outlets all simultaneously invent the same story, huh? | ||||||
| 24 | Jag ID: 5112883 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 19:49 | It is an 8 year old story! | ||||||
| 25 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 20:02 | I guess the Times forgot about the statute of limitations. What's the statute of limitations on a fake "Barak Obama attended a Madrassa" story? Please point me to your outrage over that one. Pretty sure I missed it. | ||||||
| 26 | Perm Dude ID: 32112228 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 20:05 | So long as McCain points to his own ethics and experience as reasons to vote for him, ethical lapses while in office are fair game. | ||||||
| 27 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader ID: 01629107 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 20:18 | One wonders what Jag's opinion was of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - and the media outlets that reported their claims as truth. Not only were many of their claims proven untrue, but they were well over 30 years old at the time they were made. | ||||||
| 28 | Jag ID: 5112883 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 22:29 |
Did a major newspaper dig up the Swift Boat Veterans? The NYT is a despictable publication and a shameless shill for the Liberals. If this is the best you guys can do against this man, he must be the most honorable politician in American history. | ||||||
| 29 | Astade ID: 5935164 Fri, Feb 22, 2008, 22:32 |
...he must be the most honorable politician in American history that's quite a conclusion. | ||||||
| 30 | Tree ID: 513230 Sat, Feb 23, 2008, 01:31 |
Did a major newspaper dig up the Swift Boat Veterans? i think you missed MITH's post about the Drudge Report... | ||||||
| 31 | walk ID: 381351512 Sat, Feb 23, 2008, 16:23 |
Man what a funny thread! SZ, #14, is really priceless. Jag, c'mon, what's your point? That the NYT is biased? SFW?!? The bigger issue is whether McCain has compromised is so-called impeachable ethics and interests with lobbyists. The story is relevant if in fact there is more to his association with Iseman than he has indicated. However, you are not alone in your outrage, that is for sure. Check this out: NYT on the NYT McCain Article Since publication of the article, The Times has received more than 2,000 comments, many of them criticizing the handling of the article. More than 4,000 questions were sent via e-mail to The Times on Thursday night and Friday. There are some valid issues with the article, the primary reliance on anonymous sources, the affair inneundo, but the responses given by the NYT to the outrage is also valid. This is really a fascinating political-media story. | ||||||
| 32 | Taxman ID: 301502616 Fri, Feb 29, 2008, 17:06 |
From the Washington Post (dow-un 'ere 'n Taxas..weeduh cawlll 'dis uhh "gig-em") McCain and the Times: The Real Questions | ||||||
| 33 | biliruben ID: 5610442715 Fri, Feb 29, 2008, 18:30 | Explanation as to the background of the bizarre linguistic phrase of the semi-indigenous tribe inhabiting northern Mexico, or perhaps slightly north of that. | ||||||
| 34 | Boldwin ID: 3013265 Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 01:33 |
If they wanted a legit story they should have looked into McCain's dealings with tribal campaign funds/corruption and jutapose that with his statements. This affair story so soon after they helped stick the R party with him as their endorsed nominee stinks to high heaven. | ||||||
| 35 | sarge33rd ID: 76442923 Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 08:49 |
from the link in 32:More troubling, however, is the issue of whether McCain's letter may have led some people to worry that other people might conclude that McCain's letter created the appearance of a conflict of interest, as well as the issue of whether the New York Times, in digging up this eight-year-old letter, was creating the possibility that some people might think there was a possibility of an appearance that the Times was suggesting the possibility of an appearance of a potential conflict of interest in McCain's behavior, along with the most distressing possibility of all: that in this very article I may be creating the possibility that some people might worry that other people might think that I have created the appearance of suggesting that the New York Times has created the possibility that some people might worry that other people might think that McCain has created the appearance that some people might worry that other people might think that there could be an appearance that McCain was having an affair with a lobbyist. what a brilliantly constructed run-on sentence which becomes an entire paragraph. | ||||||
| 36 | Pancho Villa ID: 495272016 Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 12:32 |
Since the NY Times gets plenty of legitimate criticism, it's only fair they be applauded when they present an excellent piece of investigative journalism. Your tax dollars at work Seven pages long, but worth the read. | ||||||
| 37 | walk ID: 181472714 Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 13:42 | NYTimes: Afghan Supplier Arms Woes | ||||||
| 38 | Boldwin ID: 332562616 Thu, Mar 27, 2008, 17:06 | I'm thinkin that guy 'massuessed' the right person. | ||||||
| 39 | astade Sustainer ID: 214361313 Sat, Apr 05, 2008, 20:58 | McCain's son | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?) | ||||||||