Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (38200)	8/16/2002 9:09:49 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

And, of course, Bush gets more than enough print space and air time. Not in the NY Times, he doesn't. All the other articles I linked to reported Bush's positions, except the NY Times', which only reported his critics' positions. The New York Times has routinely been ignoring pro-Bush positions on Iraq, even when widely reported elsewhere. Major interviews by members of administration, like the one Condi Rice just gave, are ignored. Iraqi defectors say Saddam will have nukes in 2 years? Covered elsewhere, ignored in the NY Times. Ditto the words of the INC, which were used as an excuse to talk only about Armey in the Times, but were extensively covered in the WaPo and on NPR, hardly a right-wing outlet. The NY Times is presenting only one side of the story, possibly exaggerating the support for the one side, certainly suppressing news of support for the other side. I can't tell how much for sure; all I can see is how much the NY Times coverage diverges from the coverage in the WaPo, the LA Times, and CNN -- and it's a lot. The NY Times is supposed to be a high-quality news source, and therefore its coverage of both sides in a debate is supposed to reflect the strength of those sides in reality on the ground, or at the very least, to report both sides' arguments. I don't mind their giving lots of print to the critics. I do mind their trying to cut down every member of the Bush administration except Powell, whom they write adulatory puff pieces about. I genuinely don't get why you can't see it. It's hardly as if I alone had noticed the overt slant of the coverage. Mickey Kaus, whom only you seem to regard as to the right of anyone, has taken to titling his columns "Stop Me Before I Slam the New York Times Again!" Howard Kurtz of the WaPo has noticed it too. As for what The Weekly Standard or Andrew Sullivan have to say, well we've been there -g-