First, polls have limited value, there are grist for the lazy journalists mill.

next, any poll whether good news for W or Bad has to be carefully examined to be given validity.

Finally the LA Times showed its hand in the California Recall debacle. It is simply not to be taken seriously.

I’m happy that this is being discussed though. It’s time that this kind of yellow journalism got the spotlight.

Posted by: skip at June 15, 2004 02:08 PM

LA times, nuff said. Theyre just the NYTs crack head little brother.

Posted by: Mark buehner at June 15, 2004 02:44 PM

The New York Times is the finest newspaper in the world. Maybe conservatives don’t like it because it’s written on an 11th grade reading level unlike most papers, which are around a 3rd grade reading level…

Posted by: Max at June 15, 2004 03:47 PM

Maybe conservatives dont like it because it demonstrably displays a political agenda and gleefully spikes stories that dont fit that agenda (on the rare occasion one of its cookie cutter liberal reports strays from the party line). See any of the fine work Andrew Sullivan and others has done on the NYT, pre and post Raines.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at June 15, 2004 03:58 PM

The New York Times is the finest newspaper in the world.

ROFLMFAO!

YEAH...just ask Jayson Blair!

Don’t worry, wanna-beMax…when you have Journalism II, they will teach you about “ethics” and other big words.

Posted by: American_Defender at June 15, 2004 03:58 PM

The LA Times had Gray Davis catching up with Arnold in a poll before the recall election.

Posted by: popd at June 15, 2004 04:53 PM

special note to the alleged Max:

Did you see the recent Pew Poll? According to this report (and please invoke all the caveats you chose) the NYT has a rating of 21% believability.

That means that the vast majority of people simply don’t believe the newspaper. If that’s the best the world has to offer it seems like most of us would chose to get our news via jungle drums and smoke signals than read the gray lady.

Posted by: skip at June 15, 2004 04:58 PM

“The LA Times had Gray Davis catching up with Arnold in a poll before the recall election.”

And they had Bustamante beating Arnold. I’ll say it again: it’s amazing that the LA times has the temerity even to run its own polls.

Posted by: samuelv at June 15, 2004 05:23 PM

But gentlemen…it MUST be true, after all the “smarter” wanne-bemax said so…!

(rolls eyes)

Posted by: American_Defender at June 15, 2004 05:52 PM

This is not the first time the LA Times has cooked a poll.

Posted by: Gabriel Chapman at June 15, 2004 07:09 PM

Let’s see…LA Times Editor chastises Fox for being biased, and unworthy of being called “journalists”.

The LA Times publishes another poll that even a Statisitics 101 student could understand as slanted and prejudicial.

Yeah…I agree with Max. The NY Times and the LA Times should be mentioned in the same breath. Go Jayson Blair.

Where is DS-BS??

Posted by: anymouse at June 15, 2004 07:22 PM

The liberal agenda hasn’t changed a wit since WW2 and perhaps earlier than WW2. New York Times was written with the same language and same perspective and of course liberal agenda during WW2 as it is now with the War on Terrorism.

Las Angelas Times is nothing more than New York Times except its in a different city.

I for one am ‘thrilled’ that the Detroit Pistons are kicking the Bejesus out of the Las Angelas Lakers specfically because it is really making a lot of ‘L.A. Times Journalists’ pissed off.

<—- Metro Detroiter

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at June 15, 2004 08:21 PM

For another take on the LA Times poll “flap” check out this post: http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000521.php

Posted by: Maniakes at June 15, 2004 09:50 PM

The fact that you guys present op-ed pieces and one writer as evidence proves to me that your arguments are not only weak but that obviously you’ve never even read the paper. If you have you’ll realize that, with the exception of the op-ed page, there is no liberal agenda in the newspaper. In fact, few papers, with the exception of extreme rags, have a liberal agenda; the Bush administration has so many problems on its hands that it just seems as though everyone is against them.

Posted by: Max at June 15, 2004 09:54 PM

Max,
From the responses you’ve gotten you conclude the other readers have “obviously … never even read the paper.” With such grand leaps of logic and sweeping generalizations, why you must write for the NYT’s.

I find your arguements truly compelling, you are obviously an expert at proving negatives.

Go get ‘em tiger!

Posted by: jet at June 15, 2004 10:29 PM

Max,

Explain the general media coverage of the failing economy and the non-stop graphs and articles about the lack of job growth over the last 6 months. Then explain when that all comes to an end, the complete lack of coverage over the turn around of this event. I certainly haven’t seen the NYT’s shouting from the roof tops the incredible increase in job growth. Although I did read some articles about inflation, because that is obviously a huge problem and totally blocks out the other good economic news.

Posted by: jet at June 15, 2004 10:35 PM

You want real news? - the latest issue of World News Daily has the headline DICK CHENEY IS A ROBOT. I would like to suggest that if he is indeed a robot, he is not responsible for his actions.

Posted by: hound at June 15, 2004 11:07 PM

The New York Times is the finest newspaper in the world. Maybe conservatives don’t like it because it’s written on an 11th grade reading level unlike most papers, which are around a 3rd grade reading level…

Posted by: Max at June 15, 2004 03:47 PM
*****************************************
The New York Times? That the Rag whose Star Reporter Walter Duranty received the Pulitzer for a series of articles which covered up the Holodomor

Genocide during which somewhere around 8 million Ukrainians starved to death?

That New York Times which used its prestige to suppress any counter reports coming out of the Region?

The New York Times which TO THIS DAY still displays said Pulitzer?

Isn’t it just wonderful that they print their lies in such scholarly grammar?

But still with my opinion of the profession of journalism, you may be correct. It could BE the
“finest Paper in the world” but what KIND of paper?

During the Soviet Era on of the attractions of Pravda was that it made good toilet paper. ;-)

Walter Duranty when asked how he could justify his coverup of the Holodomar if not as a human being then as a journalist, is reported to have said

“The deaths of a few tens of millions of peasants are of little consequence when weighed against the future victory of the Revolution.”

PS go here

http://thecr.blogspot.com/

To read NYT articles about how we may have won the War but we were losing the Peace in EUROPE in 1946.

You are going to find the words very similiar to their articles today about Iraq.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at June 15, 2004 11:43 PM

So you’re comparing 1946 with what they write now, even though the world is totally different? I see…

Posted by: Max at June 16, 2004 12:12 AM

Max…I do, in fact, read the online versions of both the LAT and the NYT. I actually believe Thomas Friedman is one of the most talented, and insightful commentators on World Affairs (and more specifically the Middle East) in the US today.

However, that does not balance the overall liberal tenor of the NYT. The LAT is even worse. I read from both sides of the fence.

Posted by: anymouse at June 16, 2004 01:36 AM

Hey anymouse,

You and I and Dan and jet are being polite. We assume that Max reads. Maybe so, but “understands” ……. that is highly doubtful.

Posted by: leaddog2 at June 16, 2004 07:35 AM

Look, this is silly. Max, nearly 50% of the country voted for Bush in 2000. What would you estimate the percentage of writers and editors for the NY and LA times to be who voted for Bush?

Posted by: Mark Buehner at June 16, 2004 09:20 AM

Max, if you have read the NYT, then you would know that the entire rag is an editorial. That is why I stopped reading it. BTW, there are more people that believe Pro Wrestling is a real sport than believe what they read in the NYT.

edi’towreeul

[n] an article giving opinions or perspectives
[adj] of or relating to an article stating opinions or giving perspectives; “editorial column”
[adj] relating to or characteristic of an editor; “editorial duties

As you see, any article that dirverges from a strict recital of facts is an Editorial. Making up or inventing the facts does not keep an article from being an editorial. Even 3rd graders know that. Let me help you out.

perspective
[n] the appearance of things relative to one another as determined by their distance from the viewer
[n] a way of regarding situations or topics etc.; “consider what follows from the positivist view”

Opinion
[n] the reason for a court’s judgment (as opposed to the decision itself)
[n] a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; “his impression of her was favorable”; “what are your feelings about the crisis?”; “it strengthened my belief in his sincerity”; “I had a feeling that she was lying”
[n] a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty; “my opinion differs from yours”; “what are your thoughts on Haiti?”
[n] a belief or sentiment shared by most people; the voice of the people; “he asked for a poll of public opinion”
[n] the legal document stating the reasons for a judicial decision; “opinions are usually written by a single judge”
[n] a message expressing a belief about something; “his opinions appeared frequently on the editorial page.

Now you should have enough information to go over an article in the NYT and figure out what the 4th graders are talking about.

To make it simple.
“It’s a nice day”, is an editorial.
“84 degrees, zero humidity, sunny with no cloud cover and a slight breeze” is a report. Facts and just facts, with you getting to decide for yourself if it’s nice or not.

Posted by: ableiter at June 16, 2004 09:51 AM

Max said;

you have you’ll realize that, with the exception of the op-ed page, there is no liberal agenda in the newspaper. In fact, few papers, with the exception of extreme rags, have a liberal agenda

ROFLMMFAO!!!!… YOU WOULDNT KNOW A LIBERAL IF YOU WERE ONE!

Posted by: Tsu-nami at June 16, 2004 10:10 AM

Mark said,

…nearly 50% of the country voted for Bush in 2000.

No.
Voter turn-out was 51.21%. Of that, Bush received 47.87% of the vote (compared to Gore’s 48.38%). 24.5% of the country’s eligible voter’s cast a ballot for Bush.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at June 16, 2004 10:39 AM

Ep, dont make me go Denbeste on you! I think my point was pretty clear. You are, of course, technically correct, but the point stands, darn near half the country is Republican, half Democrat. The vast majority of major media outlets in America dont come close to that ratio, as every poll has shown.

Posted by: mark Buehner at June 16, 2004 10:52 AM

Mark,
Can a person be considered Republican (or Democrat) if they don’t vote? Conservative or Liberal, I might buy.

Anyhoo, speaking of the NYT, Edward Herman has some interesting analysis of the old Gray Lady in his book, “The Myth of a Liberal Media”. It’s older but does go over media coverage up through the first Gulf War. Please note (to save the inevitable conservative ranters the trouble) : He leans to the left.

ok, ep2k

Posted by: elvispresley2k at June 16, 2004 11:42 AM

“But still with my opinion of the profession of journalism, you may be correct. It could BE the
“finest Paper in the world” but what KIND of paper?”

What he meant was the NYT is the finest paper for the bottom of your parakeet cage. It is laced with heavy metals which prevent bacteria from growing on the poopoo.

seriously , though, and you can look it up - The US media companies and major newspapers were almost all started or owned by Council of Foreign Relation members.

Posted by: hound at June 16, 2004 03:02 PM

Maureen Dowd!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Posted by: Elvis at June 16, 2004 08:30 PM

So you’re comparing 1946 with what they write now, even though the world is totally different? I see…

Posted by: Max at June 16, 2004 12:12 AM
******************************************
Didn;t read the articles did we Max? The NYT would not have to change much in their 46 articles to use them now, In that respect not much has changed.

The point is, no you don’t see.

Posted by: Dan Kauffman at June 17, 2004 02:06 AM

I’m impressed by Max’s ability to ignore all the facts that contradict his problematic worldview.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at June 17, 2004 11:32 AM

If the mass media is not Liberal, than why does Fox News look so different??? Why do NO OTHER media outlets look like Fox News.

Just to front-end this weird debate, does anyone with the political viewpoint of, say, Sean Hannity believe O’Reilly is a far-right bombast. O’Reilly is a center right populist; Hannity is a center right conservative – which is a bit more conservative than O’Reilly. If you think they are the equivalent politically of Jesse Helms or, much further to the right, Adolph Hitler, you are politically liberal. When Alan Colmes does not defend your views you are to the left of him, and he a center left liberal. That happens to be where the journalists at the NYT are and have been for some time. That is why they made the claim that there was no connection between Iraq and OBL, forgetting for a moment that the panel was demonstrating a point that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 – not the wider point. These points are different things. For example, (and these are purely hypothetical) the 9/11 panel may honestly state that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 while simultaneously stating that there is a connection between Iraq and the USS Cole bombing, or Hamas kidnapping Americans, or Hezbollah launching rockets into Israel, or for that matter the enjoyment of ice cream on a hot Islamic day. Guess what, the 9/11 committee was concerned with 9/11, but the more radical types on that board wrote in some language that the liberal media would not nuance. That is a demonstration of left leaning bias.

More examples can be forthcoming – especially regarding the big town, small circulation newspaper Left Angeles Times. However, I would get bored quickly looking through today’s paper for them. So maybe not… Most of the media is even figuring this out. They still have to adjust to the marketplace, and that marketplace is looking for outlets like Fox News.

Posted by: BoghRD at June 20, 2004 06:14 PM

They still have to adjust to the marketplace, and that marketplace is looking for outlets like Fox News.

Posted by BoghRD at June 20, 2004 06:14 PM
Post a comment

Well, Bogh, Fox watchers are the most misinformed of any media audience. Remember that study? I do. Like lambs to a slaughter — you guys are SO easy.

Posted by: Indie2004 at June 21, 2004 06:05 PM

Indie. What study are you referencing???

John Carrol, LA Times editor made that point. I would not call it a study and I wouldn’t place too much emphasis on that source.

There was also some other speech by another TV reporter making the same point.

Was it the CNN blurb that FoxNews watchers thought there actually was a connection between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Terrorism? Please note that I have not connected that gentleman to the direct planning or funding of the single act of 9/11.

Regardless, I would not call either of these examples of commentary a ‘study’. Such ‘studies’ have been used to prove that smoking is healthy…

If you are going to reference a study, please provide a reference to that study which has been submitted to expert review.

Posted by: BoghRD at June 22, 2004 07:56 PM

My bad, Bogh. http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf. The study was done by ‘Pipa”, at the University of Maryland. Don’t feel bad… no one received an “A.” Note though, that republicans not watching Fox, or at least getting their news from additional sources, scored higher than those limiting themselves to Fox. They detail dems too. Media outlets were Fox, CBS , NBC, CNN, ABC, Print, and PBS. The best score went to respondents getting their news from PBS-NPR in most instances. Have a look. They could all do better, but Fox should be ashamed of themselves. Their viewers, those who are not sheeps, should let them know that.

Posted by: Indie2004 at June 23, 2004 11:54 AM