Patterico's Pontifications

10/17/2006

You Read the Most Interesting Things Sometimes in the Business Section

Filed under: General,Media Bias — Patterico @ 12:01 am



I missed this the other day. It’s a claim that the New York Times editorial page is liberal:

Gail Collins, the first woman to run the editorial page of The New York Times, is stepping down Jan. 1 and will be succeeded by Andrew Rosenthal, the deputy editor of the page. . . .

The Times editorial page has long been regarded as one of the most liberal within the mainstream media, and the change at the top is expected to continue that outlook.

Okay, nothing too earth-shattering there.

What is interesting, however, is the source of that claim: the New York Times itself — in an article in the Business section.

40 Responses to “You Read the Most Interesting Things Sometimes in the Business Section”

  1. Round ‘Em Up…

    A. You whine enough and you get what you want. Lanches galore, from Cam, Sean, and the Okie! Hey, works for me, works for the Democrats. B. Boycott Indonesia. C. I’ve heard of “Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee”, but……

    JunkYardBlog (621918)

  2. Great catch; is this an extreme example of your “power of the jump” theory?

    Dana (3e4784)

  3. This is an article people will certainly want to keep for reference, but it’s hidden behind the paid subscription wall.

    Dana (3e4784)

  4. What is interesting, however, is the source of that claim: the New York Times itself — in an article in the Business section.

    The business press explains. Its why the wall street journal’s reporting is soo good: because the business classes need facts.

    actus (10527e)

  5. Right – the NYT is so liberal it helped Bush sell this disastrous war in Iraq with a pack of lies pedaled by Judith Miller.

    Psyberian (9b3c88)

  6. Haven’t you gotten the latest meme, Psy? Sounds like you’re about 2 years behind the curve.

    sharon (dfeb10)

  7. psyberian

    Yes, because we all know it was all laughing families and kite-flying in Iraq with Uncle Saddam in charge.

    Thanks, Psy, just more evidence of the unseriousness of the current MoveOn Dems.

    Darleen (03346c)

  8. The NYTimes editorial board is liberal. Why is that something to point out?

    jpe (f8c26c)

  9. I assume that you’d consider it equally noteworthy if an editor from the Washington Times stated his intention to maintain the editorial page’s conservative outlook.

    xii (f85ebd)

  10. Dana, you may have to register to see the article but you don’t have to pay.

    Patterico, I doubt the NYT editorial page has ever denied it is liberal. This is not the same thing as a liberal slant in the news as shown by the WSJ with its very conservative editorial page and very liberal news operation.

    James B. Shearer (fc887e)

  11. OK, I registered, and now I can see it. I do have a bit of a natural aversion to registering for newspaper after newspaper to get stories.

    Dana (3e4784)

  12. I guess “liberal” here means what it’s meant for the last few years: practically nothing. The word used to be connected to certain policy positions but now means “non-Bush-loyal.” And even with that slippery overfreighted meaning it’s still up for grabs whether any editorial page in Washington–not to mention the rest of the country–is “liberal.” More accurate would be “not entirely slavish to those in power.” So, yes, I guess it’s sorta kinda quasi-democratic. You know, “not entirely boot-licking.” Yes, quite a revelation. So there is hope.

    Rob (ec2603)

  13. Yes, because we all know it was all laughing families and kite-flying in Iraq with Uncle Saddam in charge.

    perhaps not darleen, but that isn’t why we invaded. at least, not until we got there and

    discovered

    that there were no nuclear wmd’s. i used quotation marks around discovered, because we already knew they weren’t there.

    cpinva (784844)

  14. How about we all admit that press people are, by and large, a bunch of windsocks, pointing in whatever direction public opinion blows (and believe me, it does).

    That way we can avoid childish discussions wherein each side accuses the other of total control of the media in utterly meaningless terms that they can’t support.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  15. cpinva: i’m not sure that it’s clear that we “already knew they weren’t there”. In State of Denial, a book which is extraordinarily harsh regarding certain aspects of the Bush administration, the author spends a lot of time discussing things that he almost certainly got from the point man on WMD hunting — and he was convinced that the nukes were there, and very very startled when they didn’t turn up.

    That jibes with my memory of the period: just about everyone, including the center-left and the European intelligence agencies, believed there were WMDs, based on the evidence discovered during the first gulf war. We were wrong, sure, but it seems implausible to me to suggest that the people making the decisions knew we were wrong. At the worst, they had people reporting to them who thought the consensus was wrong, but those people had no proof with which to take down the conventional wisdom.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  16. Rob,

    No, when one says the NYT editorial board is liberal, it has nothing to do with George W. Bush, although their complete opposition to virtually every policy of this administration is suspect. The NYT has been proudly liberal (in the moonbat sense of the word) for decades. Just see what their ombudsman says:

    http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2004/0726.asp

    then let’s see you spin that to mean something other than, “Of course the NYT is liberal.”

    sharon (dfeb10)

  17. Patterico-The NYT is liberal.

    Leviticus-Mercedes/Benz makes crappy cars.

    If I’m not mistaken, you yourself stated that the New York Times is a business (if you didn’t make this statement, consider it made). They are selling a product to a niche-market that laps it up. If you don’t like their product, don’t buy it.

    It isn’t like conservatives take the NYT (or the LAT) seriously anyway. By posting here, you’re doing nothing but preaching to the choir.

    I’e got a deal for you, though: I won’t complain about crappy cars if you won’t complain about biased newspapers.

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  18. What’s the big deal? It’s an editorial page. By definition, it publishes opinion, not news. The only reason to care about this — besides the usual blogger fetishism with the NYT, is if you’re harboring the belief that newspapers manipulate the news they publish in order to support their editorial page.

    billg (74fafd)

  19. Ok one more time just in case someone is not up to speed. The NYT’s and LA times are SOCIALLY liberal but politically and financialy conservative which makes them different from the rest of the media in the US is that they are SOCIALLY liberal. If you want to debate this please use proof instead of quoting books that have already been discredited. When Chomsky and Zinn’s voices are heard on US media I will call it balanced until then we are living in a pro-capitalist liberal econmics society hmm looky there is that the emporer wearing no clothes and noone saying a word? Dumb shits

    Pandora (0dcd79)

  20. First off, as one liberal to another, at least *try* to appear literate when you post here. I bitch about krazy kagu sounding like a damn hick and I’ll do the same thing with you.

    What “discredited” books are you referring to?
    And why the hell should I, as a liberal, automatically want to hear what Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn have to say as opposed to anyone else?

    Their are plenty of partisan sources for both sides. Thus, the impression of a media biased one way or the other is, to me, a ludicrous one.

    As a side note: I post on a conservative blog because I am a liberal. If I wanted my ear tickled I’d go to kos or something. Here I can at least hone my opinions and arguments (and, in some cases, modify or reverse them if the opposition is eloquent enough).

    Some days (like today) I’ll have a lot to say. Others I don’t. But I’ll always look for convincing arguments and common ground (I had a knockdown-dragout with Stashiu while he was here that ended in us agreeing wholeheartedly on a couple of Big Picture points).

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  21. “Some days (like today) I’ll have a lot to say”

    -Leviticus

    No morning classes, no way back across the river, stuck at a computer. Felt I should explain for reasons of sheer volume.

    Leviticus (3c2c59)

  22. Leviticus: as another liberal, let me observe: it’s astonishing how many of the liberals who frequent this site are unable to appear either literate or coherent. And it’s somewhat sad to see it, since it simply reinforces the negative stereotypes of liberals held by many conservatives.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  23. To be specific I am thinking about one book in particular where a reporter crys about the horrors of the liberal media elite, just in time for Fox news to lap up extra viewers that would then compare Fox against CBS, ABC and NBC. Wonder why the center is moving to the right? Wonder why Clinton was more conservative than Nixon on a lot of policies? Wonder why only 16% of the country believe the story about 9/11 yet the media treat all who question like crazies? They are speaking for there masters, if they dont they pull the add revenue and game over. As for Chomsky and Zinn they are the extreem left but I would like to note that those considered the extreem right 10 years ago are currently either running our country or are on news shows giving there much more accepted opinion now. When balanced means debating bombing before we invade or just invading that is not really the middle of the arguement now is it. If you choose to believe that our votes count more than the money that K street gives to either side or if you believe that the media(and I mean the tv media here because the internet at least does allow other voices) are telling us the truth and the whole truth and not hiding facts or lying then I have some Kool Aid for ya here. Also Chomsky and Zinn are not partisan they think the entire system is and has always been tainted by keeping those on top on top and those on bottom on bottom Dem or Repug they have all had there time in front of the wheel steering the empire. All that I was attempting to point out is that Socially liberal and politicaly liberal are different things but from your reaction I would guess that offends you on the basic premise that it dispels commonly held misconceptions that NPR is biased. Excuse me but NPR is not Liberal, if it were I would spend less time being pissed off about what news they dont bring up, but they do atleast ATTEMPT to report which gets them yelled at. Allowing people to use the same excuses such as “the media is balanced because we have the NYT’s and Fox news” is enabling the country to turn further right as those that do not think for themselves only hear the arguement on the right while the left continues to be nice and debates whether or not to bring up something or sadly believes it themselves because they have heard no other side.

    Pandora (0dcd79)

  24. Ouch sorry everyone I did not intend to tirade for that long.

    Pandora (0dcd79)

  25. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

    Which came first, the conservative media or the conservative populace?

    You argue that the media has taken a turn to the right because their “masters” have decreed that it be so. You argue further that this turn right has made the general populace more conservative.

    Fair enough. I held this belief myself at one point.

    Allow me to present a cynical alternative:

    I have previously stated that the media are a bunch of blowhards who do nothing more than appeal to the current tastes of the masses. If this is so, then it is THE PEOPLE who made THE MEDIA more conservative, not the other way around.

    I may not agree with many conservative policies, but that doesn’t mean that the majority of Americans don’t either. Whatever. They can dig their own graves, and the “MSM” (as so many conservatives dismiss it) can give them the shovel. But I’m not going to blame the media, as a business, for selling people exactly what they want to hear.

    After all…Capitalism Works.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  26. I would argue that the populace has been more liberal during times of access to liberal voices(1930’s-1960’s) but a new medium came into the country at that time that changed the way new generations got there news. Of course TV is who I am pointing at but if you look back you will find when you have to have money to inform the people on the same platform as the other side then liberals lose but when inventions level the playing field (like with independant papers in the 30’s through 60’s or this new one in its infancy, the internet) the politics trend left. The only other chronology I can go for is the social conservative bent which is true. As the left in this country became socialy left they lost racists and the more conservative religous types. As a business I want as an american to back them but as a member of the voting public I want the truth. If a democracy does not have truth than it is not a democracy, of course this is not even a valid way of structuring this arguement due to the fact that this is not a democracy but a republic and further the arguement could be made that the moment Corp’s became people and could use there money to throw elections this ended being a republic and became a purely capitalist state or to quote Orwell “canabal capitalisim” as he felt the US even in his day was. One more point “Capitalisim works???” where have you been living? Liberal capitalisim is embraced by almost all of the media in our country yet we wonder why certain problems persist. Why our prision system is the largest in the world. Why we only have rights if we can afford to pay a lawyer to fight for them. Capitalisim does work, for the rich, but it leaves everyone else in the lurch look around where did all the good jobs go? Why do we all have to make 8.50 an hour and have no health insurance? Reason-capitalisim only works if agency’s watch over it to control its excess’s for the good of the people. No one has been watching and lo and behold things are getting steadily worse even though we have so many people behind bars and 140,000 troops over sea’s how would our economy look if those people hit the streets today looking for jobs? Sorry Leviticus for some reason I cant make these comments small but I am trying to cut them down.

    Pandora (0dcd79)

  27. Leviticus: I would argue that the notion that a more conservative populace has been causing the media to become more conservative is significantly less cynical than the notion that the media are becoming more conservative because of a decree from some shadowy controlling force, and the people are becoming more conservative because they are easily led.

    The second strikes me as being the epitomy of cynicism.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  28. aphrael—I hope your right because it really sucks to be this cynical but im a history/economics buff not a good hobby if one likes to not be cynical.

    Pandora (0dcd79)

  29. Pandora…

    Sarcasm Works, too, or so I thought.

    aphrael: Point taken.

    However, cynicism “generally describes the opinions of individuals who maintain that self-interest is the primary motive of human behavior, and who are disinclined to rely on sincerity, human virtue, or altruism.”

    Economics played a huge part in turning large portions of the country conservative. They believed that supporting conservative candidates would be better for them economically, and the environment, the poor, and world peace be damned.

    Thus I would maintain that while your point is certainly valid, my original statement still holds water.

    Leviticus (43095b)

  30. Leveiticus–It does hold water, I just happen to disagree but it is only an opnion based decision one can look at history through many different filters but I will note that Corp’s that are a part of the military industrial complex(many of which own news agency’s) have absolutley no interest of informing the people of what they dont have to and if those handfull of Corp’s are talking to one another it is easy to stifle a story. I would suggest looking into some books by Carroll Quigley who documented the same kind of problems happening in Engalnd pre WWI and arguably those people helped to create the war and WWII in the interest of business and empire I am merely saying that we have the same potential now and I feel to not assume that something shady is going on in a big way is a tad naive. It is equaly possible that this perceived slant to the right could be connected to the Bill and Monica scandal when the extreem right and the Drudgereport forced the mainline media to cover the story yet they still successfully ignore the stories the extreem left has been pushing for 5 years just seems a tad odd to me. Also if you do not recognise Carroll Quigly he was a professor of Bill Clinton and his investigations follow the history of economics in Tragedy and Hope and the Rhodes scholarship people and there connections to the Carslyle group…hope I spelled that right I am not much of a conspiracy buff.

    Pandora (0dcd79)

  31. Leveiticus–also sorry I did not catch that the capitalisim works comment was sarcasm I have been blogging so much on right wing blogs that I seem to have lost all sense of humour 🙂

    Pandora (0dcd79)

  32. More from the New York Sewer and its band of lairs who can ever trust anything you have heard in these rotten left-wing news papers its getting so you would,nt even wants them in your birds cage and the bird would,nt want them in his cage anyway

    krazy kagu (520f84)

  33. Spurwing Plover, is that you?

    EFG (65906c)

  34. Spurwing, we miss you over at Ace of Spades.

    EFG (65906c)

  35. Boy, reading the above liberal lovefest makes me want to put on my bell bottoms, read Noam Chomsky and start re-distributing the wealth. Long live the welfare state, capitalist pigs.

    Yes, THAT is sarcasm.

    csufbomb (30e635)

  36. You don’t say….

    How about backing up said sarcasm with something substantive? At least the rest of us have the balls to have OUR arguments challenged. How about you?

    Leviticus (a0cd6b)

  37. Yes, supporting conservative candidates is better for me economically, because I have greater control over my earnings, my retirement and my family’s financial future. However, it’s not at the expense of “the environment, the poor, and world peace be damned.” That’s ridiculously simplistic.

    Under the nanny state environmental model, the government assumes responsibility for keeping the air, land and water clean by imposing punitive regulations on businesses. The conservative ideal is an incentive-based model where responsibility is shifted away from EPA bureaucrats and to the people who manage American companies. Give them incentives to protect the environment, and let them devise the means. Let them be responsible for pollution-control innovation.

    On to “the poor”. For over 60 years, the left has advocated redistribution of wealth and social program spending to fight poverty. However, most of the money intended to meet the needs of the poor goes not to the poor but to the bureaucracy providing social services to the poor. The essential ingredient of economic improvement is the freedom to control one’s own affairs. That’s why conservatives focus on education vouchers to give inner-city parents choice over the education of their children. And that’s why conservatives encourage enterprise zones in impoverished areas to empower small, local entrepreneurs. The liberal welfare state, like the world’s collectivist economies, has failed because it cripples the creativity of the poor it intends to help. The American capitalist experience shows that poor people move up the economic ladder when they are given the opportunity.

    Finally, “world peace”. A noble cause if you’re running for Miss America, but a secondary concern to national security. Nevertheless, conservatives see spreading democracy as the key to world peace – the same vision shared by JFK. I’m not sure what the liberals envision as the key to world peace, but it appears to have something to do with appeasement, summits and kumbaya.

    There you go, a long-winded defense of yucky conservatism and capitalism versus your yummy liberal collectivism.

    Cheers.

    csufbomb (30e635)

  38. “The conservative ideal is an incentive-based model where responsibility is shifted away from EPA bureaucrats and to the people who manage American companies.”

    Think about this for a second. “Incentive-based model” leaves the door open for cost-benefit analysis. By your argument, Big Business would be able to decide whether or not it was in their best interest to destroy the environment (which incidentally is inhabited by everyone). If the profit they can make from doing so outweighs the “incentive” they get from the gov. for doing otherwise, then they’ll do it, right? Right.

    “The American capitalist experience shows that poor people move up the economic ladder when they are given the opportunity.”

    Thus, poor people no longer exist in America, right? Since we give them so much “opportunity” through our generous vouchers and entrepreneurial incentives?

    Bullshit.

    How about socialized medicine? That’s working out pretty well in a lot of European countries, and Americans support it by a 2-1 margin.

    Why don’t we have it?

    Lots of problems here, buddy.

    Leviticus (43095b)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3262 secs.