Posted by Karol at 01:57 PM
Unfortunately, he only addressed their liberal bias on social issues, especially gay marriage. Since I’m a liberal on social issues, especially gay marriage, I don’t care that much. It’s wonderful that he was intellectually honest enough to admit it and I’m glad he did, but like most people I’m much less annoyed by media bias when it reflects my own.
I’m much more interested in their intellectual dishonesty and bias in their coverage of virtually every aspect of the war and its aftermath and this would have been the perfect time for him to address that. Instead, he said he had to wait until after the conventions. Like there’s not enough material now or something!? Please.
I just got back on Monday, Joe, that’s why I was catching up on old BOTW columns. I most certainly read your blog.
it might have been more accurate to refer to the nyt as a leftist newspaper, not a liberal one.
sorry, that should be ‘lefty,’ not ‘leftist.’ an important distinction when you look at rags like salon and znet. the nyt has nothing on those weirdos.
Does the NYT have a liberal bias? Of course it does, and it’s good that they admitted it. But are they a “far-left” newspaper, as O’Reilly and others are fond of saying? Of course not.
I reserve that distinction for the Village Voice, the Nation, and pubs like that. When the Times starts editorializing every day that Kerry and/or Dean is too far to the right (as the Voice is done) then I’ll admit they’re a left-wing newspaper.