Quote:
Originally Posted by sjh
I agree that after 9-11 much of the nation supported Bush.
I'm not sure 'true-believers' on the right would consider me one of them. I tend to be more individualistic.
The graph from the Quarterly Journal of Economics gives a quantified reason for view the NY Times as a progressive paper.
The ombudsman at the NY Times has stated that the paper's editorial staff promotes a progressive agenda.
Their opinion writers: Maureen Down, Paul Krugman, etc make no pretense of being anything but progressives.
So.
Perhaps on this issue we can't find a common ground.
. |
I tried to find links to support my recollection about the Times and the Post being Bush's lap dogs, but mostly what I found were left-wing websites saying the same thing without providing any good links. The one website that I thought would help -
www.dailyhowler.com - won't let me search its archives. When I try a search, it gives a message saying that I need to jump through some hoops on my computer to make the search work. Life is too short for that, so I will just say that I distinctly recall my disgust at the Post's editorial page (the one on the left side of the paper, not the page with all the various columnists) and its support for the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't just their conclusion that offended, it was the way they stretched to reach it. The Times, of course, printed the embarrassing Judith Miller coverage of the case for the war. Here's an article about that:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/
I only read the Times every now and then, so I can't really say whether it's reputation as a left-leaning paper is deserved. Its coverage of Iraq, however, shows that whatever left-leaning tendencies it has, those tendencies get pushed to the side when they see an opportunity to get an edge on the competition.
Beyond that, I don't have much else to offer.
I have no idea what Botnst is talking about with the stuff about whether one of us is stupid or a dupe.