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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (63993)	2/12/2008 3:45:30 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

<< "the NY Times is one of the best papers in the country" >> What a sad state of affairs it is when "one of the best" is a biased left wing rag that constantly gets major facts wrong & regularly engages in agenda journalism.

To: tejek who wrote (63993)	2/12/2008 3:48:35 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

<< "It might explain why you all believe in creationism..." >> Since when have any of us ever expressed a belief in creationism? Uh huh. Just another example of how LWE's like you simply make shit up & it instantly becomes rock, solid fact for you.

To: tejek who wrote (63993)	2/21/2008 4:27:12 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

tejek said, "the NY Times is one of the best papers in the country" Speaking of wanton media malpractice, NY Slimes may as well change their infamous tag lines from, "The Paper of Record" & "All the News that's Fit to Print" to: 'All the Smears, Slander, Sedition & LWE Agenda Journalism We deem Fit to Print.... And that's just our Front page!'

To: tejek who wrote (63993)	2/28/2008 2:42:06 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

If You Love the Democratic Party, You'll Like the New York Times Power Line Scott Rasmussen polled the New York Times, and the results are grim: <<< Just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. Forty-four percent (44%) have an unfavorable opinion and 31% are not sure. >>> Worse yet: <<< The paper's ratings are much like a candidate's and divide sharply along partisan and ideological lines. By a 50% to 18% margin, liberal voters have a favorable opinion of the paper. By a 69% to 9%, conservative voters offer an unfavorable view. The newspaper earns favorable reviews from 44% of Democrats, 9% of Republicans, and 17% of those not affiliated with either major political party. >>> There is a lesson here: if a newspaper devotes its resources and its inherited goodwill with the public over a period of decades to advance the interests of one of our political parties, sooner or later people will notice. Pinch Sulzburger has frittered away his inheritance, as is evident from these numbers on the Times' recent attack on John McCain: <<< Of those who followed the story, 66% believe it was an attempt by the paper to hurt the McCain campaign. Just 22% believe the Times was simply reporting the news. >>> New York Times, RIP. powerlineblog.com

To: tejek who wrote (63993)	2/28/2008 5:28:46 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 90947

Shocking: More Weak Reporting From the New York Times Posted by: Jonathan Garthwaite at 10:21 AM townhall.com/blog Did you know that there is major debate taking place whether John McCain is constitutionally permitted to be president? Well, according to the NYT: <<< "McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office." >>> and <<< "whether he qualifies as natural-born has been a topic of Internet buzz for months, with some declaring him ineligible while others assert that he meets all the basic constitutional qualifications — a natural-born citizen at least 35 years of age with 14 years of residence." >>> But the 1,200 words or so in the story never actually quote a single scholar, analyst, political operative, editorial page or even a blogger who is making the case. Perhaps there are bloggers discussing the issue, Democratic operative planting stories to take McCain off message, or disgruntled conservative activists just trying to cause McCain a little of the same frustration he has caused them, but the NYT doesn't bother to actually track one of them down and put them on the record. Once again the New York Times shows its willingness to publish just about anything without even the smallest degree of journalistic thoroughness. The New York Times -- Spitball Journalism At Its Finest. townhall.com