This morning The New York Times featured an article reporting its own 'reticence' regarding the John Edwards story:
The New York Times essentially admits (with an alacrity that one could mistake for an overreaction to former reticence) that it wasn't interested in doing their job, or at least what the degenerate state of American media now considers its job: investigating, assembling and reporting a very real story of infidelity (and dishonesty) by a perennial Presidential contender.
Yet the same paper (for which I have great respect most of the time) went out of its way some months ago to 'investigate,' 'assemble,' and 'insinuate' (as they had enough class - or more likely sense - not to go so far as to 'report' it, then or since) an apparently unreal story of infidelity by a perennial Presidential contender.
Such glaring (egregious) inconsistencies are why The New York Times is suspect by so many Americans. It's no excuse that Fox News or the Washington Times editorial writers are blatantly biased in the other direction. The New York Times is (or was) the paper of record in this country; it is (or was) in a class way, way above these others, essentially 'right wing' mouthpieces.
In addition to the Times, I read the Financial Times and the Washington Post everyday, as well as other papers. In the three years I've been reading it rather religiously, I've come across nothing in the Post even approximating the degree of bias shown by the Times (mis)treatment of Edwards and McCain. The FT, with the exception of a few typos, has rarely fallen short of perfection. These successes show that bias is not inherent in journalism - even if it is inherent in journalists.
The Times needs to take this opportunity to purge itself.
A number of news organizations with resources far greater than The Enquirer’s, like The New York Times, say they looked into the Edwards matter and found nothing solid enough to report, while others did not look at all.
What utter crap!
Some of their comments point to a lack of interest in a story about the private conduct of an also-ran presidential candidate, and a distaste for following the lead of a publication they hold in low esteem.Ah, a bit more plausible!
The New York Times essentially admits (with an alacrity that one could mistake for an overreaction to former reticence) that it wasn't interested in doing their job, or at least what the degenerate state of American media now considers its job: investigating, assembling and reporting a very real story of infidelity (and dishonesty) by a perennial Presidential contender.
Yet the same paper (for which I have great respect most of the time) went out of its way some months ago to 'investigate,' 'assemble,' and 'insinuate' (as they had enough class - or more likely sense - not to go so far as to 'report' it, then or since) an apparently unreal story of infidelity by a perennial Presidential contender.
Such glaring (egregious) inconsistencies are why The New York Times is suspect by so many Americans. It's no excuse that Fox News or the Washington Times editorial writers are blatantly biased in the other direction. The New York Times is (or was) the paper of record in this country; it is (or was) in a class way, way above these others, essentially 'right wing' mouthpieces.
In addition to the Times, I read the Financial Times and the Washington Post everyday, as well as other papers. In the three years I've been reading it rather religiously, I've come across nothing in the Post even approximating the degree of bias shown by the Times (mis)treatment of Edwards and McCain. The FT, with the exception of a few typos, has rarely fallen short of perfection. These successes show that bias is not inherent in journalism - even if it is inherent in journalists.
The Times needs to take this opportunity to purge itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment