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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (132194)	8/13/2005 12:34:22 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793817

But I am surprised by your NYTimes bit. You will find, if you stick around, that I usually post the example of what I am unhappy with plus an explanation. I will occasionally just post a comment. Every example I come up with is an echo of similar complaints by several blogs. We all pick up on the same things. It is almost always political. The first Public Editor of the NYT pointed out that it is a liberal paper. It takes sides on certain subjects, such as gay and abortion issues. We expect that. The most common things that the NYT does on political issues that raises our ire are: 1) Late coverage of a story that is obviously worth covering. It's called "the spike." They just did this with the Air America story, and the late coverage of the Swift Vets was a good example. 2) Placement and editing of stories they don't like. When they FINALLY ran a story on Air America this week, they put it on page A-14, and put the heart of the story, AA's involvement, in the 6th paragraph rather than the lede. They use this later paragraph approach on many stories. It's called "after the jump" when they two-page it. The info on the story that the editors don't like is not on the lead page, but "jumped" to inside the paper. This is against all good newspaper writing practices, which say that who, what, where and why should be in the lede. 3) "Frame and slant." They frame the story to reflect their view, and slant the writing to match it. You weren't around for the most egregious example of pushing their POV, the way they handled the "Swift Vet" story. They spiked it until Kerry spoke out, and then ran a prepared attack that NEVER analyzed the charges made by the Swift Vets. It just attacked the fact that conservatives were the source of funds. This, of course, was both legal and logical. After that, all comments about the vets in the NYT were in passing as, "refuted charges," which of course, they NEVER refuted. We and the blogs were in awe of this one-sided treatment. None of this would matter much if they didn't "lead the pack" for the MSM. The Networks and the rest of the media take their lead from them. Fortunately, with the rise of the net and the emergence of FNC they can't get away with it as easily as they used to. None of the above would have come up twenty years ago.