confuzzled

[topless_mike]

im a bit confused.
i saw a commercial last nite for the NY Times- it was an endorsement for Hillary.

umm, doesnt that kind of skew their whole "balanced reporting agenda" ?

im also quite concerned that i am constantly being blasted with hillary and obama commercials, but none for mccain / romney / huckabee.

:help:

[IMSlacker]

Newspapers endorsing candidates is nothing new. I don't think I've ever seen one do a TV ad though.

[Thebazile78]

im a bit confused.
i saw a commercial last nite for the NY Times- it was an endorsement for Hillary.

umm, doesnt that kind of skew their whole "balanced reporting agenda" ?

im also quite concerned that i am constantly being blasted with hillary and obama commercials, but none for mccain / romney / huckabee.

:help:

(1) The Times endorsed Hillary and McCain two weeks ago. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/the-times-editorial-board-endorsements/?scp=3-b&sq=ny+times+endorse&st=nyt) While the press touts itself as "unbiased" we all know differently. And the NY Times's slogan isn't "fair and balanced reporting" ... it's "all the news that's fit to print." That's news and it's fit to print. All of the NY papers have endorsed one or the other candidate; the Times has been pro-Hillary during the whole lead-in. They never hid that. (It makes me sick because there's something about her that just rubs me the wrong way...maybe it's her empty house in Chappaqua...)

(2) NY and NJ are hotly contested areas for the Hillary/Obama race, but McCain is showing light years ahead of Romney in both states. Their campaigns are likely to spend money in other states where their race is closer. Although, with Romney looking more and more like he's ready to take a flight on the Spruce Goose with his paranoia, nasty accusations and twisted angry faces, it might not be a big deal.

(3) Mike Huckabee might as well drop out now, he's so far behind. If he decides to continue his pursuit of the presidency, he may not be as big of a black hole vote-splitter as someone like Ralph Nader would be, but he could potentially have an effect on the outcome.

Does that help?

[foodcourtdruide]

im a bit confused.
i saw a commercial last nite for the NY Times- it was an endorsement for Hillary.

umm, doesnt that kind of skew their whole "balanced reporting agenda" ?

im also quite concerned that i am constantly being blasted with hillary and obama commercials, but none for mccain / romney / huckabee.

:help:

Almost every major newspaper (no matter what they are unfairly labeled by conservative radio talk show hosts) endorses someone. This is nothing new.

You are being bombarded with Dem adds because NY is a hotly contested Dem battleground, as the poster above stated.

[topless_mike]

i never understood how media outlets could endorse somebody.
right wing propoganda fox news does nothing but slam the left, and the Clinton News Network does nothing but slam the right.

how on earth does one make a choice? where do you go for accurate info on stances/points/etc?

[foodcourtdruide]

i never understood how media outlets could endorse somebody.
right wing propoganda fox news does nothing but slam the left, and the Clinton News Network does nothing but slam the right.

how on earth does one make a choice? where do you go for accurate info on stances/points/etc?

I don't see where CNN slams the right constantly and I don't think FOX slams the left, but it promotes the right and pushes their agenda.

However, I do agree with you that the news should be more about information than info-tainment. Cable news has hurt the integrity of journalism, but we have no one to blame but ourselves. If we didn't watch it, it wouldn't be there.

And there are plenty of places you can get accurate info, if you want to know what a candidate stands for simply go to their webpage and read. Almost all of them have books out about themselves and you can probably find any of their debates on the internet. I only use mainstream news to find out about events of the day and occassionally read an op-ed piece. If I want indepth analysis I NEVER go to the mainstream media's websites.

[Thebazile78]

i never understood how media outlets could endorse somebody. . .

how on earth does one make a choice? where do you go for accurate info on stances/points/etc?

The endorsements are as old as the hills. Seriously.

You don't have to understand it; it doesn't make any sense if you truly believe that media outlets are unbiased. They aren't now and they never were. It's worse in Europe.

BTW, I just found something that may help you a bit more with your original questions:

Signposts for Super Tuesday: It will be a nutty night; here's what to look for (http://www.slate.com/id/2183602/)

[Recyclerz]

im a bit confused.
i saw a commercial last nite for the NY Times- it was an endorsement for Hillary.

umm, doesnt that kind of skew their whole "balanced reporting agenda" ?

im also quite concerned that i am constantly being blasted with hillary and obama commercials, but none for mccain / romney / huckabee.

:help:

I'm pretty sure that was a Hilary ad that was trumpeting the NY Times endorsement.

As everyone has said, newspapers have been endorsing candidiates since the beginning. The objectivity is supposed to be maintained in the separation of the news and editorial functions. And, despite the protestations of the Limbaugh chorus, most major newspapers do a pretty good job at keeping the news reporting objective, including the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Plus you're seeing a lot more Democratic ads this time around because, for the first time in my lifetime, the Democrats have a lot more $ to throw around than the Republicans.

[Yerdaddy]

As everyone has said, newspapers have been endorsing candidiates since the beginning. The objectivity is supposed to be maintained in the separation of the news and editorial functions. And, despite the protestations of the Limbaugh chorus, most major newspapers do a pretty good job at keeping the news reporting objective, including the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Exactly. The newspaper itself didn't endorse the candidates - the editorial board did. They make that perfectly clear. And legitimate newspapers like the NYT do keep their editorial divisions separate from their news divisions. This was the primary concearn about Rupert Murdoch buying the WSJ: he has a long history of interfering in the independence of the news divisions he owns and using their appearance of legitimate news to push his business and political interests. The NYT has no such history.

The primary difference between the NYT and Fox "News" is that, while the editorial pages of the NYT is two pages out of the whole paper, the majority of information broadcast over Fox's airwaves is political opinion, and as it's overwhelmingly conservative political opinion it means Fox "News", by definition, is not news, but a conservative advocacy organization. And as such, comparisons to legitimate news institutions are meaningless.

And CNN, like most television news stations, are just corporate whores with journalism degrees. Anyone who relies on them as a primary source of information is just too fucking lazy to read a newspaper - either in hard copy or in the innernets.

As a shameless plug, I'll throw out there that the exception to television sucky news is PBS, especially FRONTLINE, which is a full series of probably the best documentaries in the world, delivered right into your home absolutely free thanks to the gub'mint and viewers just like you. Not you! Yeah... you!

[high fly]

im a bit confused.
i saw a commercial last nite for the NY Times- it was an endorsement for Hillary.

umm, doesnt that kind of skew their whole "balanced reporting agenda" ?



No.
Newspapers like the New York Times have a wall of separation between the editorial writers and the reporters.

Second, if the reporting of the New York Times was really that biased, why would Rush Limpbaugh and Shawn Manatee use their stories every day as reliable source material?


I have always wondered why listeners to their shows never pick up on this....