Comments on: NYT Public Editor: MoveOn.org ad violated paper’s standards http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/ Where TV Finds the Future Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:50:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Aaron http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-503982 Aaron Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:32:30 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-503982 Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, Boriss, I had forgotten I had a question open so I didn't re-read the thread. Reading the paper recently, I've seen headlines like "Bush emerges as budget warrior" (passed off as a news piece), today there's straight reporting like "Bush Announces Tighter Sanctions on Myanmar," etc. If you think polls are a decent reflection of what people think, then making the Bush administration look good might be a difficult task, but I think it's ignorant to say, "The NY Times consistently selects stories that make the Bush administration look bad." Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, Boriss, I had forgotten I had a question open so I didn’t re-read the thread. Reading the paper recently, I’ve seen headlines like “Bush emerges as budget warrior” (passed off as a news piece), today there’s straight reporting like “Bush Announces Tighter Sanctions on Myanmar,” etc. If you think polls are a decent reflection of what people think, then making the Bush administration look good might be a difficult task, but I think it’s ignorant to say, “The NY Times consistently selects stories that make the Bush administration look bad.”

]]> By: Mike G http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501902 Mike G Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:04:59 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501902 Trying to tiptoeing around the minefield here... My only question is did this change their classification of the Giuliani response? Trying to tiptoeing around the minefield here… My only question is did this change their classification of the Giuliani response?

]]> By: Screamerina http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501818 Screamerina Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:17:39 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501818 Are the Sulzbergers perhaps looking to sell to Mr Murdoch? Are the Sulzbergers perhaps looking to sell to Mr Murdoch?

]]> By: Steve Boriss http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501817 Steve Boriss Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:16:00 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501817 Aaron, The NY Times consistently selects stories that make the Bush administration look bad, which is their right. Aaron, The NY Times consistently selects stories that make the Bush administration look bad, which is their right.

]]> By: Aaron http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501810 Aaron Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:11:04 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501810 Boriss, name me one major issue NYT has taken a consistent position on, from its articles to its editorials. Boriss, name me one major issue NYT has taken a consistent position on, from its articles to its editorials.

]]> By: Steve Boriss http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501657 Steve Boriss Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:59:24 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501657 The problem is neither that the NYT discounted the ad to MoveOn.org, nor that the ad was a personal attack. The NYT is a private business protected by the first amendment and can charge and print whatever it wants. The problem is that the Times (and everyone else) misrepresents itself as an "objective" newspaper, when there is no such thing nor should there be. After a century of fooling ourselves about this, we are about to move back into a time of partisan news outlets. And, it's about time. (Steve Boriss, TheFutureOfNews.com) The problem is neither that the NYT discounted the ad to MoveOn.org, nor that the ad was a personal attack. The NYT is a private business protected by the first amendment and can charge and print whatever it wants. The problem is that the Times (and everyone else) misrepresents itself as an “objective” newspaper, when there is no such thing nor should there be. After a century of fooling ourselves about this, we are about to move back into a time of partisan news outlets. And, it’s about time. (Steve Boriss, TheFutureOfNews.com)

]]> By: Jeremiah http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501111 Jeremiah Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:55:43 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501111 Can I get my money back for all the editions that printed Judith Miller's "work?" I guess it's OVERT propaganda the NYT has a problem with.... Can I get my money back for all the editions that printed Judith Miller’s “work?”

I guess it’s OVERT propaganda the NYT has a problem with….

]]> By: Alvin, Kapolei, HI http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501065 Alvin, Kapolei, HI Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:08:53 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-501065 What is being missed is the GOP/Bush hiding behind the military all of the time. This is not the General's war as Bush as repeatedly stated. This is the GOP/Bush's war and they are doing anything they can to deflect the issue about Iraq and them not meeting the major changes they were supposed to implement. Why doesn't the news media report how 'brave the GOP/Bush are by trying to deflect the war to the military. I can remember when the liars stated the Iraqis were going to have ten brigades ready to fight the insurgency and how the insurgency was in the last days of its fighting capabilities. Then the GOP/Bush wonder why no one believes them when the say the war is going according to plan. The GOP and Bush, dumb and dumber is what the ticket should be for them next year. What is being missed is the GOP/Bush hiding behind the military all of the time. This is not the General’s war as Bush as repeatedly stated. This is the GOP/Bush’s war and they are doing anything they can to deflect the issue about Iraq and them not meeting the major changes they were supposed to implement. Why doesn’t the news media report how ‘brave the GOP/Bush are by trying to deflect the war to the military. I can remember when the liars stated the Iraqis were going to have ten brigades ready to fight the insurgency and how the insurgency was in the last days of its fighting capabilities. Then the GOP/Bush wonder why no one believes them when the say the war is going according to plan. The GOP and Bush, dumb and dumber is what the ticket should be for them next year.

]]> By: ! http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-500835 ! Mon, 24 Sep 2007 01:21:49 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-500835 perhaps they would have prefered moveon call him General Asteamingpile. i think that's what bush called the ISG's findings perhaps they would have prefered moveon call him General Asteamingpile.

i think that’s what bush called the ISG’s findings

]]> By: Aaron http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-500777 Aaron Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:34:28 +0000 http://www.lostremote.com/2007/09/23/nyt-public-editor-moveonorg-ad-violated-papers-standards/#comment-500777 First, that a newspaper ad three weeks ago is the big controversy, not the war, suggests a political media usurped by cable news bombast, rally-the-base presidential rhetoric and grandstanding senators. Second, generals are not soldiers. They are commissioned officers. Soldiers are NCO's. Third, commissioned officers are not above criticism. Harsh criticism. His own soldiers called him Betraeus dating back to when he was a Colonel, according to military forum posts dated years ago. His own boss called him an "*ss-kissing little chickens**t" for being a sycophant obsequious to Bush. Would I have called him "General Betray-us?" No, because it's a weak pun -- I would have stuck to the substance of the ad, which was just news quotes. But not because saying "General Betray-us" is troop-hating or worth three full weeks of the news cycle. First, that a newspaper ad three weeks ago is the big controversy, not the war, suggests a political media usurped by cable news bombast, rally-the-base presidential rhetoric and grandstanding senators.

Second, generals are not soldiers. They are commissioned officers. Soldiers are NCO’s.

Third, commissioned officers are not above criticism. Harsh criticism. His own soldiers called him Betraeus dating back to when he was a Colonel, according to military forum posts dated years ago. His own boss called him an “*ss-kissing little chickens**t” for being a sycophant obsequious to Bush. Would I have called him “General Betray-us?” No, because it’s a weak pun — I would have stuck to the substance of the ad, which was just news quotes. But not because saying “General Betray-us” is troop-hating or worth three full weeks of the news cycle.

]]>