Aggregator • Hyscience • ID=78137
Pigs must be flying ... could the NYT actually have just admitted their blatant pro-Obama bias?
It 'appears' so ... and he even goes so far as to say the The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president's record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question of "Who is the real Barack Obama?" (which would, of coarse, call for entire squadrons of flying pigs if The Times actually did so):
... Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama's election in 2008. The company published a book about the country's first African-American president, "Obama: The Historic Journey." The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there's nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.
ref="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00338.x/abstract">a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times's coverage of the president's first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
Writing for the periodical Politics & Policy, the authors were so struck by the findings that they wondered, "Did The Times, perhaps in response to the aggressive efforts by Murdoch's Wall Street Journal to seize market share, decide to tilt more to the left than it had in the past?"
I strongly doubt that. Based on conversations with Times reporters and editors who cover the campaign and Washington, I think they see themselves as aggressive journalists who don't play favorites. Still, a strong current of skepticism holds that the paper skews left. Unfortunately, this is exacerbated by collateral factors -- for example, political views that creep into nonpolitical coverage.
To illustrate, Faye Farrington, a reader from Hollis, N.H., wrote me earlier this year in exasperation over a Sunday magazine article about "Downton Abbey," the public television series, in which the writer slipped in a veiled complaint about Mitt Romney's exploitation of the American tax code.
"The constant insertion of liberal politics into even the most politically irrelevant articles has already caused us to cancel our daily subscription," Ms. Farrington wrote, "leaving only the Sunday delivery as I confess to an addiction to the Sunday crossword." Anyone that seriously expects the Times' writers to provide anything other than Obama-friendly coverage during the general election season (or any other time), or to "aggressive look at the president's record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?" ... or even to stop injecting partisan political jibes into non-partisan material, is probably deluding themselves. Chances are, more likely than not, the liberal bias and blatant pro-Obama coverage is likely to continue. On the other hand, it's a positive sign that the Times now admits what most of the American public has long known - it's a far-left, pro-Democrat, anti-conservative and anti-Republican rag.
As Ace aptly notes, now that this has been noted in the Times, they can consider that box checked, and go back to ignoring their bias completely.
For what it's worth, the NYT is not alone in its left-leaning bias. In his book, "How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind," UCLA political scientist Dr. Tim Groseclose says most mainstream outlets are biased and he also exposes the profound 'negative' influence liberal bias has had on the American public.