November 23, 2014

April 23, 2012


New York Times Wonders: Have We Perhaps Been A Tad Too Biased In Our Obama Coverage?

Awww! They’re so cute when they start showing signs of self-awareness:

Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008. The company published a book about the country’s first African-American president, “Obama: The Historic Journey.” The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there’s nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.

According to a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.

Writing for the periodical Politics & Policy, the authors were so struck by the findings that they wondered, “Did The Times, perhaps in response to the aggressive efforts by Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal to seize market share, decide to tilt more to the left than it had in the past?”


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

13 comments

Correct me if I’m wrong, but has Los Tiempos de Nueva York published anything on the Fast and Furious debacle to date?  You’d think a snafu like that, with a body count in the hundreds (including, apparently, three American law enforcement officers) it woud attract the attention of The Newspaper of Record.  And how many stories did they do on Augusta National’s policy of no female members?

Don’t kid yourself, Greg.  This reflection is purely perfunctory.  The paper of Walter Duranty will be back on the job of providing PR for Obama within days, if not sooner.

[1] Posted by Jeffersonian on 4-23-2012 at 10:17 AM · [top]

In early April, the American Society of Newspaper Editors convention gave Obama’s highly partisan campaign speech three standing ovations.  Romney got none.

More here.  Even our lefty local paper commented.

So, this was simply priceless:

“Based on conversations with Times reporters and editors who cover the campaign and Washington, I think they see themselves as aggressive journalists who don’t play favorites.”

I’m done.  I got nothing.

blank stare

[2] Posted by tired on 4-23-2012 at 10:36 AM · [top]

This is like asking if Pravda was pro-Communist.  The only difference between the NYT and a Democratic Party newsletter supporting Obama is the paper’s name.

[3] Posted by Br. Michael on 4-23-2012 at 10:38 AM · [top]

Perception is reality for these folks.  They don’t perceive their bias, ergo, they have none.  This is a bit of fluff to make a leftist feint at objectivity.  NOthing will change as their perception is fixed.

[4] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 4-23-2012 at 10:56 AM · [top]

I still get angry every time I think of how the NY Times and their ilk utterly (and intentionally) failed to vet Obama in 2008.

[5] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 4-23-2012 at 11:21 AM · [top]

Are they perhaps a tad biased? Duh!

[6] Posted by Nellie on 4-23-2012 at 03:09 PM · [top]

Let’s see; Thomas Friedman,  Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, and lesser known Gail Collins.  Nope nothing here to see, move along now.

With that line up of “talent”, one would be astounded if their bias was any less hard left than it is. 

Don’t forget that Pravda means “truth” in Russian.  About as accurate as “Newspaper of Record”.

[7] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 4-23-2012 at 03:35 PM · [top]

And they’re blaming the WSJ for “forcing” them to tilt to Obama?  They’re learning at the feet of their master who still blames everything on Bush 43.

I guess a baby step is better than no step at all, but still….

[8] Posted by Bill2 on 4-23-2012 at 04:56 PM · [top]

The scary part is that they don’t even see themselves as biased…

[9] Posted by B. Hunter on 4-23-2012 at 05:36 PM · [top]

This navel-gazing by the Old Grey Bat is about as helpful as Obama’s lawyer claiming that the White House had nothing to do with the hooker scandal in Columbia.

[10] Posted by Nikolaus on 4-23-2012 at 06:33 PM · [top]

10, I have examined my own conduct and find nothing amiss.  That should settle that.

[11] Posted by Br. Michael on 4-23-2012 at 07:47 PM · [top]

Unlike conservatives, most liberals (at least in the Deep South or Texas where they are the minority) have little personal confidence but they do have a large amount of superficial intellectual vanity that needs to be petted and stoked in some way from time to time. (If they go too long without a good ego rub, they get defensive and mean towards the littlest things, etc.) Back when I worked in a bookstore from 2003-2005 (the only conservative grad student who worked there), I found that The Times is their paper of choice…they could feel ‘cultured’ and ‘informed’ just holding the paper curled underneath their armpit. It was like a suit of armor for them.

[12] Posted by All-Is-True on 4-23-2012 at 08:05 PM · [top]

The NYT, aka Hell’s Bible: hardly worth any further commentary.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

[13] Posted by Militaris Artifex on 4-24-2012 at 02:47 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.