Murdoch put Blair into power through his media empire and then got him to do the bidding of the zio-globalists for him: destroy Yugoslavia; open the UK's borders to Islam; protect with the force of the law all kinds of depravities; turn th UK into an open prison; destroy Israel's enemies in the middle east. He and his empire is perfectly in line with the Soros, Zionist, Murdoch, ADL/ACLU "philosophy" of destroying America and the rest of the world as Europe and the UK were destroyed.
WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA has lost all its creditability. There are more lawsuits against them than any other newspaper.. you have to wonder what they are doing over there. The fact that there is a cartoon over their questionable behavior says it all. I would never read them for their "local" coverage as their editors and reporters are tainted by advertiser, BOUGHT NEWS ARTICLES! The government should shut them down.
To my many detractors: Ease up, awreddy--I'm a Glenn Beck, Tea Party fan who also enjoys the NY Times. I came here from the link on Drudge, not Mother Jones, okay? As you all must know, Beck, Rush, Levin, et al. each read the NYT too since they comment on it daily. The NYT has earned and is maintaining its place as "the paper of record." By the way, the name is "PUNCH" not Pinch, as in the video. The WSJ has alienated many "longtime" readers, but yes, gained many new, young, online subscribers.
I've been reading the NYT since 1978 and while it has dipped in quality, it is still the best and far out in front of the WSJ. What this video fails to mention is that Murdoch is also the guiding hand on the NY Metro's acknowledged tabloid rag, The NY Post. Murdoch's colorful, wannabe USA Today-styled WSJ has alienated many of its longtime readers. Alas, the video is correct in noting most people today get their news from the tube or the 'net, but a faithful remnant of discerning readers remain.
@GaryPeterson67 And what you "fail to mention" is that the current NYT is leftist tripe that no moderate person could abide. I was a faithful subscriber to the paper in the 90s, but currently the only thing that is palatable are the Sunday A&L section and The Book Review. Do you really enjoy reading the hyperbolic vitriol and hate that emanates from partisans like Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Gail Collins, and Bob Herbert? I suppose a progressive bigot would.
"..it is still the best and far out in front of the WSJ."
I think the problem is not just that the editorial page is very leftist (with one 'token' moderate) but that they don't really admit it and try to hold on to the old school presupposition of journolistic objectivity. Kind of like listening to a Christian music station that tried to claim they had no agenda in their songs. Meanwhile you hear them sing about Jesus and following him all day long. Its maddening lol...
@GaryPeterson67 "WSJ has alienated many of its longtime readers"? That's news. Their circulation has been going up, not down. Conversely, the Times continues their downward spiral. The best thing that can happen to the Times is that Carlos Slim throws out the Sulzbergers and turns it into a multi-media brand name. Say what you want abt. Murdoch, but he knows how to make money, and Pinch Sulzberger knows how to lose it.
Ditto.,,The NYT IS being called out for what it is.,A Liberal Globalist Anti American Propaganda Machine of the Left.,,They will be replaced or shrunk to their proportional size of their reader base..,,this is what is happening now.. it is a mirror, america can see what it needs to change and is in the process of doing just that.,
The Wall Street Journal's strength comes from its understanding of and adherence to printing two sides of an issue as per Ben Franklin's "Enlightenment position" rather than The NY Times' employment of any journalists. They believe in printing only what they believe in . . . rather than the truth. Shame on them. That is why they have lost their readers and their spark.
The Wall Street Journal's strength comes from its understanding of and adherence to printing two sides of an issue as per Ben Franklin's "Enlightenment position" rather than The NY Times' employment of any journalists. They believe in printing only what they believe in . . . rather than the truth. Shame on them. That is why they have lost their readers and their spark.
im hoping NYT will send me a complimentary subscription in time for winter so I have plenty of paper on hand to start my fireplace fires this winter. what I have left I'll donate to a neighbor for the parakeet cage. Other than that, it really isn't that useful.
Rupert Murdoch is a news media robber baron, selling populist crap to soft, receptive rightwing brains. Drudge is a boring, paranoid gossip herder. Their spin is so blatant, people routinely watch Fox News as comedy. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking and knowledge about the world can tell you as much.
@SketchyBack ...but yet you keep on watching Fox and reading the LINKS..let me say that again in case it went over that gourd on your shoulders...LINKS on Drudge....Closeted maybe?...I guess we all should be getting our news from the leading leftist media like NBC,CBS, ABC,CNN and MSNBC huh?...but wait, if I'm not mistaken, Drudge links to them as well....Yet another silly liberal on meds...gotta love it.
@SketchyBack Given the almost universal domination of media distribution by the liberal world view these minds have still not succumbed. Personally I don't think a "soft" brain rejects the unavoidable progressive world view, but a *resistant* one does.
So don't get mad at your personal bogeyman Rupert; it turns out these "soft brained" folks never bought what your heroes were selling.
NYT is a biased, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-American leftist pile of trash. WSJ is more conservative and therefore taps into what more Americans want. I won 't be sorry if the NYT tanks.
"reputation for journalistic excellence". Huh? Really? Maybe among liberals who are blind to the obvious left-wing slant at the NYT. The rest of us can see it plain as day and that makes it a pretty unreliable source for news.
LOL. That's perhaps the most unintelligible response I've ever received. Hats off to you! You're number one in my book. At least, you know, when it comes to unintelligible responses. :)
The New York Times could learn quite a bit from NMAWorldEdition. Of course, it's not a matter of learning but of ideology, since the New York Times is run by committed Leftists. Though they're likely a lost cause, American Leftists might sing a different tune if they were ever forced to flee from Communism like the Taiwanese.
The WSJ Metropolis page is a joke. Since the Murdoch takeover, the WSJ has moved away from financial information and more toward politics. The quality fo the writing has declined due to the use of cut and paste AP columns, and the use of Indian hack reporters. I'll drop my subscription after it expires if things don't improve.
@robko626 If you check out the quality of the writing in the NYT forums and compare it to the illiterate, adolescent screeds posted in the forums of any News Corp publication, the answer will be obvious to you.
Actually I've found there to much more irrational hatred and presumption of others motives and classification of people (sexist, racist, homophobe, etc.) in obvious substitution for discussion of uncomfortable ideas on left leaning forums. Think of the Journolist scandal. These were well known and influential Leftists calling for not only the death of their ideological opponents, but torture as well. It was horrible and frightening to read.
You're right, the quality of the writing of NYT subscribers is higher than that of most other groups, but that doesn't necessarily mean their opinions are correct. Ever read Catholic theology? Church theologians spent a thousand years writing these beautifully lucid, elaborations on the beliefs of Catholicism. The quality of the thinking and writing they deployed however could not change the fact that the basic dogmas of the Church are COMPLETE & UTTER CRAP!
@supportingfire Ha! You right! Thomas Aquianas just a slippery Christian making bad argument look good with linguistic embroidery! Ha! Ha! No work for Pinch Sulzbergers when Dirt Digger Murdoch catch him Jew-napping! Ha!
"Catholic dogmas represents pure, unadulterated truth. I agree with you on the Times, though."
My brother who's a "Traditional Catholic" would agree with you, which I why I never say things like this where he'd have to hear it. His feelings are more important to me than my opinions. I'll give you this though and for real:
The West was STRONGER when we were still naive enough to be sincerely Xtian. Cultures seem to need a binding faith to be healthy....
supportingfire, The West certainly was stronger back then, but the reasons are many and run deep And it ought to make you question your suppositions. As for your characterization, it is naivete, of a sort, that fuels secularism. Note that the most intelligent people in history have been men of faith (Chesterton comes to mind). And, as he said, the atheist view of life makes sense as far as it goes. The problem is that it's a shallow view. And it is. And when I realized this, I became a believer.
Very cute. Love the nod to What Not to Wear and West Side Story. However, if everyone is getting their news from the internet, how does the WSJ continue to increase its dead-tree circulation every year? And, it does have a nice subscription internet site.
I love how Rupert Murdoch is portrayed as a shark with a fin sticking out of his back, then they break into a West Side Story battle with the NYT staff. Awesome.
@CommonRaven, the NYT is also the same newspaper that wrote a series of glowing articles about Stalin, denouncing the "western lie" that he was killing millions of his own people. And if and when China ever uses some of those 1,500 missiles they have pointed at Taiwan, I'm sure the NYT will try to justify that also.
Our university subscribes to the NYT and pays for hundreds of papers daily- then forces the students to read the rag. NYT relies on this network of leftist, brainwashers and public money to stay afloat.
@srkeegan, you truly are a blithering idiot. The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006, had a supermajority AND the Presidency since 2008, and you're still trying to blame Bush for tax raises happening in 2011? Lol, can I sell you a bridge also?
Fact is that "bill" is simply the Bush tax cuts expiring. Obama and his Democratic supermajority has had YEARS to extend those tax cuts if they wanted to. Instead, they've chosen to play politics.
@srkeegan, no YOU miss the point. They didn't misrepresent what he said. Taxes are scheduled to go up, and Obama said exactly that. You also ignore the fact that they're not scheduled to go up because of Bush, but because (a) the Democrats insisted the Bush tax cuts had to expire in 2011, and in the years since Bush originally signed the bill, they've fought all efforts to extend them.
Fox didn't lie. In fact they went overboard to not mislead the viewer -- something other networks didn't.
No they did not. Obama was the one who was trying to deceive, since he was implying that the Bush tax cuts expiring soon were not only beyond his control, but that they were intended to expire during his (or another Dems) administration for the purpose of making a Dem look bad. That is complete rubbish, and it was good of this Hannity to point out the truth of this.
@itreeye wow. So there really are people as deluded as you. America really is doomed when people are oblivious to the facts. Why did Hannity edit the clip at all? He was obviously distorting the statement in a large degree. And for what purpose? Hannity, Beck, Palin all benefit from YOUR FEAR. That's why they sneeringly refer to him as "The Chosen One". No liberal I've ever met has ever referred to him as that. If you are scared, you turn to them, and then they charge you $60 for a 9-11 rally.
You are still totally missing the point. The point was that Obama was implying that upcoming tax increases are the fault of Bush, and not him. If you watch the entire context this still remains true because of what I've already written. The tax cuts were forced to have an expiration by Dem influence, and 2nd - it is up to Obama if they expire or not. Hannity was completely honest here, and also good for sharing our Pres.' obfuscation.
"That's why they sneeringly refer to him as "The Chosen One"."
Wrong again. The sarcasm involved with using this phrase in referring to POTUS has to do with fawning, over the top and subjectively biased campaigning for him by ostensibly objective news organizations across the board. All the networks, near all the papers, and all the cable news outlets except fox around the entire globe during the campaign. Try to think of Mcain having a terrorist friend or racist pastor, etc etc.
@srkeegan hey STEVE KEEGAN PHOTAGRAPHY, you think it might hurt your business a bit wearing your politics on your sleeve like you do STEVE KEEGAN PHOTOGRAPHY?....oh and only a douche would quote the Daily Show as a source of news.
Well Steve Keegan, it seems taking photographs doesn't teach anyone politics or even common sense. Face facts. If Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire, it will be Obama's fault, not Bush's. Hannity didn't change Obama's meaning one bit. The truth is, had he also included Obama's pathetic attempt to blame a 2011 tax hike on a president who left office years earlier, it would have made Obama look even worse.
As perfect example of media bias, look to last week. 30+ young black men running around a fair attacking people and yelling its "beat whitey night"? Not a whisper in the press, though two victims wound up critical care. But one drunk college student takes a swipe at a cabbie with a knife, and its headline news - even though this "vicious attack" didn't even hurt him bad enough to prevent him from driving himself to find a policeman. And they even tried to blame it on the Ground Zero debate.
I'm 48, born and raised in NYC. I can say from first hand observation that the NYT lost credibility decades ago. It's a far left liberal rag that only accidentally reports the truth.
@ttowntom You can try and discredit the Pulitzer Prize by calling it "far left" but the reality is that it is a widely respected and sought-after honor. And the WSJ has won 33 Pulitzers. I consider myself moderate and read everything from Malkin to Drudge, and have found NYT to be a consistently reliable source of fair-minded reporting. The may have the occasional slant like everything but always present all sides of an issue and quote a spectrum of political opinion.
title of this news program shoudl be "Think this!" goes way beyond who what when where why..
loved the monitor shown as the viewer is informed papers are good for bird shate at the best and that the internet is where people go now for news...:
@OriginalRocketJock I'm drinking reality, you are welcome to share. The NYT has won 104 Pulitzer Prizes, the gold standard for journalistic excellence, far more than any other newspaper.
@specadmin, the Pulitzer Prize is administered by a far-left organization at Columbia University, who picks a panel of like-minded journalists to vote on prize winners. Claiming a Pulitzer count shows journalistic excellence is like asking the foxes to guard the chickens.
@srkeegan, do you really not see the hole in your pseudo-logic? Even the most biased referee can't call every single play for his own team. And BTW, if you think Steve Breen is conservative, I suggest you check out some of his comics of the Mosque protesters, or anything of his from when Bush was president. Putting Obama in a superman outfit doesn't exactly lose you your liberal voting card.
@srkeegan, are you trying to embarrass yourself intentionally? A building where Muslims pray is a Mosque, plain and simple. And for your information, countless newpapers (including the NYTimes as well) have referred to it as the "Ground Zero Mosque".
@srkeegan, you're digging yourself in deeper. Are you actually trying such a pedantic, legalistic defense as "its actually a Masijid, not a Mosque"? I bet you loved it when Clinton debated the meaning of the word "if" before being convicted of perjury.
Face facts. In the English language, a place dedicated for Christians to pray in is a church...even if some sect chooses to call it a "prayer hall" or something else. And in English, a place dedicated for Muslims to pray in is a Mosque.
@srkeegan, you just keep embarrassing yourself. Firstly, you blame Fox for calling it a Mosque, when a quick google search proves CNN, the NYTimes, The Washington Post, CBS, and even the ultra-liberal MSNBC all call it a Mosque as well. So much for that point.
Also, I happen to support the right of Park51 to be built anywhere they legally own land, ground zero or not, so your assumption about me are as faulty as your logic. Now stop embarrassing yourself and use your brain for a change.
But counting retractions isn't really a meaningful analysis tool. it only measures the number of factual errors that they own up to, not the number of errors they have actually paid.
Comparing the number of retractions, omissions, and outright errors in coverage over the past year, the NYT fares worse than the WSJ, Fox, and and many other publications.
@FlyingFish99 The Old York Times has zero journalistic integrity. It is a propaganda rag. The only difference between The NYT and Pravda is that The Slimes hasn't gotten their government bailout money yet.
Murdoch should never have been allowed to buy the WSJ in the first place. Media concentration is bad for all of us.
That would have been the case for any buyer, but in Murdoch's case I was not surprised to see the quality of the WSJ immediately taking a dive, with the low information content/thuggish emotional manipulation of Fox News immediately beginning to seep into their coverage. Its sad that Americans are generally too foolish to know when they are being lied to--hence with the buyer
unable to detect and reject bad product, the market completely fails to produce high quality news.
Just because a lot of German's found Hitler's message appealing, doesn't mean it was correct for their long-term welfare; it proved not to be. People generally like heroin, too.
NYT is not known in the modern era for journalistic exellence, the WSJ certainly is. WSJ has paid online content with the highest subscription rate in the world. NYT has a strong liberal bias, the WSJ is more balanced with a more libertarian conservative editorial position.
I don't get the NYT, because I don't have a bird and already got a good deal on catbox liners. But the NYT isn't the only newspaper on the skids thanks to the advent of the internet. If I want DNC talking points they have their own website.
@mercerdrew You obviously have not read either paper. Both papers, for the most part, have excellent journalistic standards and report facts that are checked.
The NY Times is an excellent newspaper when it comes to lining cat boxes and birdcages..... and it's ok for wrapping fish as well, and it's not bad for starting fires. That's all about all it is good for. Reading it is a pointless waste of time...... In the case of the NY Times, the value of the paper and ink far exceeds the value of the "written content"
Oh God, New York Times, "journalistic excellence?" I seriously lol'd, especially since it's the only "decent" newspaper on campus, and I have to absorb their left-wing crap all day.
@nERVEcenter117, thankfully, you realize it's left-wing garbage. Many people don't, unfortunately. By the way, if you're buying it, I would urge you to reconsider doing so. Why support them? You can find all the news you want online. Be well.
@EternalAnachronism Have to get your leftist opinion somewhere, right? It's good for some perspective and for some laughs. And they honestly aren't making money anywhere else just because of that.
It's like watching MSNBC to get some leftist perspective; their viewership still sucks regardless, and I'm not watching TV 99% of the time anyways.
@0906peter, actually, yes, it does. Putting that aside, however, there's another factor. The NYT slants even its hard news to the left, which is a violation of journalistic practice. News and commentary are different animals, and news is supposed to be reported in as unbiased a way as is humanly possible. The NYT is a piece of trash that peddles lies and propaganda at every turn.
@0906peter, the only reason you ask this question is because you're awash in relativism. Not everything is a matter of perspective. There is such a thing as truth, as right and wrong. Thus, anytime a paper embraces a destructive, erroneous ideology, it's a bad paper. And leftist ideology is destructive and erroneous.
Ok so because you disagree with leftists, they are wrong and a left-wing paper is a bad thing and a right wing paper is not. A leftist could say the exact same thing about you, that right-wing ideology is wrong, destructive etc. Isn't the best position to take that left and rightwingers have the exact same rights and should both have media outlets. Like MSNBC on the left and Fox on the right. Saying they can't do it/have it because I disagree with them is anti freedom and un-American.
And what's "wrong" with being anti-freedom and un-American? Is it really "wrong" or is it just that you don't happen to like it? Do you get it yet? Of course leftists will say I'm wrong, just as Nazis and communists believe they're right. But this doesn't mean they are right. To determine that, you have to explore something known as truth. As for rights, they have a right to disseminate their garbage, just as a Nazi has a right to express his opinions, But this doesn't mean they ARE right.
Touché on the first thing. But again, the fact that you have an opinion and can express it doesn't make it right either. So yeah, relativism. You think leftist ideology is garbage, they think your opinion is garbage. So it's BS to say a leftist paper is a bad thing and a right-wing paper isn't just because in your opinion the leftists are wrong. Your opinion is not fact. Leftist opinion is not fact either. That's the whole thing, you have facts and opinions.
@0906peter, you still are avoiding the issue. If there's no truth-nothing we can use to determine what is moral and what isn't-if everything is just opinion, then there is no right and wrong. And then there's no point even talking about these things, because then you're saying you want to discuss what life's answers might be while also saying there are no answers to be found. This is the fatal flaw of relativism and is why any world view underpinned by it collapses upon itself.
I'm not saying there is no truth and everything is up for discussion. Of course there are facts u can't deny and ones opinion doesn't excuse you from acknowledging facts. However, it is a little easy to just say the facts are on your side and the other side is wrong. You were saying a leftist paper is bad because what they are saying is not true. If they were denying facts you would be right but if they just have a different opinion on those facts u are wrong.
No, you still misunderstand. I'm talking about facts, as in the dog chased the cat or Cindy ate an apple. I'm talking about truth, as in something transcending man that determines right and wrong. Once again, if this (known as moral truth) doesn't exist, then there is no point discussing these matters because you can't be any more right or wrong than I can be. If all we could have was "opinion" about facts, they would be of little use. For example, let's say we learn that many Muslims coming to
@0906peter, to the use engage in female genital mutilation. With this knowledge, we might decide to enact a law against it (this is just one example; I'm not trying to start a debate about this issue). But criminalizing something is predicated on the idea that it's "wrong." If not, why prohibit it? But for something to be "wrong," there must be truth, not just opinion. There must be some standard ABOVE human opinion that can be used to determine what is good and what is bad.
Remember, the Muslims who engage in genital mutilation certainly don't believe it's wrong, and the Nazis didn't believe that genocide was wrong. You put yourself in a very bad position when embracing the relativist lie, because then you cannot credibly make ANY judgments. Know that no moral principle can be proven scientifically. They are all matters of faith, and this is why a wise man understands that you must start with the axiom that truth exists. Relativism is the biggest lie of our time.
Yes, there are certain moral laws but they come from humanity and our enlightenment and humanism and our sense of community. If not then the only other option is some sort of god or gods or higher entity that provides them and that it very unlikely. All the evidence and logic points in the direction of there not being such a thing, so where do these truths come from then.
Ah, now you're starting to understand, but you don't have it quite yet. If they come from man, it's silly to call them "moral laws," because they are then just collective opinion. And then why confuse the issue with unnecessary terminology like "moral laws"? I'll tell you why: it's so people can avoid facing the reality of what they really believe, which is that a corollary of atheism is that there is NO right or wrong, only opinion. This is why everything does come back to God.
What's better, not killing and stealing because people have grown and are enlightened and think it is wrong to kill and steal, or not killing and stealing because you fear gods repercussions? The latter is not being a good person, it's just being afraid. It's like saying "hey, if there were no God to judge me I would just go out and kill and steal". That's not morality.
Just curious btw, do you subscribe to any particular religion or just the notion of a God in general?
The point is not that fear should motivate morality -- it shouldn't. The point is that there is a moral nature to the universe, just as there is a physical nature, and that the source of this nature is the character of God. To a materialist perspective, there can be no such moral nature.
"not killing and stealing because people have grown and are enlightened and think it is wrong to kill and steal"
That doesn't make sense. If there is no transcendent will of intent beyond humans there can ultimately be no real right and wrong. Nor can there really be meaning of any sort. Just feeling like something is wrong doesn't make it truly wrong. Nor does threatening punishment if one does steal or murder to control behaviour create objective right & wrong.
This is why I said that ALL moral positions are matters of faith. They cannot be proven scientifically, and they can only be valid is they originate with something transcending man, something infallible, something that created reality-namely, God. Thus, if God doesn't exist, all your ideas about right and wrong are just illusion. You are then just fooling yourself by attaching some special importance to emotion.
Also, know that logic points to just the opposite: God's existence. This is why all of history's greatest thinkers - Aristotle, Chesterton, Aquinas, etc. - have believed in God. I myself used to be an agnostic until I started pondering matters more deeply and grasped the pitfalls of atheism, one of which is that relativism correlates to it. Really, what I'm explaining is easy to understand. The problem is that people are raised today in an environment of stunted philosophical understanding.
@0906peter, if you truly wanted to adhere to relativism, you couldn't credibly say anything was wrong, not racism, not murder, not rape-nothing. Before you can make any judgments, you must accept what in philosophy are called axioms, which are self-evident truths. Know that relativism is philosophical immaturity. It is tempting because people can use it to justify their behavior. As for me, no, I don't have opinions, but truth. And relativism puts you in a box. Because . . . .
because I can say you're wrong and be true to my absolutist beliefs. If you, on the other hand, are to be consistent, all you can really say is that I have feelings just like you do, and there's no objective way for you to say mine are any less valid than yours. If you are to be true to relativism, all you can say with credibility with respect to ANY issue is, "Hey, man, whatever works for you." Just know, however, that I don't just have opinions. I can, without contradiction, say I have truth.
@0906peter You are mixing up editorial with content. The articles in the WSJ are actually often MORE liberal than the NYT. However the editorial content of the WSJ tends to be very conservative, while the NYT is more liberal.
The NYT has a long history of journalistic excellence yes (It used to be known as the nations paper of record). But just like the American car manufacturers they squandered the advantage of excellence, and let the barbarians at the gates in. Even if they try and turn the ship around now, it's unlikely they will do it unless the democrats swoop in to save them.
I read the WSJ every day, and it's the only paper I subscribe to because it's excellent, and I rarely find any factual errors in it.
I love that shark fin!! hahaha
vicious321 1 year ago
Murdoch put Blair into power through his media empire and then got him to do the bidding of the zio-globalists for him: destroy Yugoslavia; open the UK's borders to Islam; protect with the force of the law all kinds of depravities; turn th UK into an open prison; destroy Israel's enemies in the middle east. He and his empire is perfectly in line with the Soros, Zionist, Murdoch, ADL/ACLU "philosophy" of destroying America and the rest of the world as Europe and the UK were destroyed.
thegreatfearblog 1 year ago
WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA has lost all its creditability. There are more lawsuits against them than any other newspaper.. you have to wonder what they are doing over there. The fact that there is a cartoon over their questionable behavior says it all. I would never read them for their "local" coverage as their editors and reporters are tainted by advertiser, BOUGHT NEWS ARTICLES! The government should shut them down.
Bambi289 1 year ago
We don't need NYTimes or WSJ; we just need Apple Daily.
Meowwang 1 year ago 2
Sulzberger is sometimes referred to as "Pinch," a play on his father's nickname ... which was "Punch"....get it?
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
Gary Peterson 76, btw....... Sulzberger IS sometimes referred to as "Pinch," a play on his father's nickname ...
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
To my many detractors: Ease up, awreddy--I'm a Glenn Beck, Tea Party fan who also enjoys the NY Times. I came here from the link on Drudge, not Mother Jones, okay? As you all must know, Beck, Rush, Levin, et al. each read the NYT too since they comment on it daily. The NYT has earned and is maintaining its place as "the paper of record." By the way, the name is "PUNCH" not Pinch, as in the video. The WSJ has alienated many "longtime" readers, but yes, gained many new, young, online subscribers.
GaryPeterson67 1 year ago
I've been reading the NYT since 1978 and while it has dipped in quality, it is still the best and far out in front of the WSJ. What this video fails to mention is that Murdoch is also the guiding hand on the NY Metro's acknowledged tabloid rag, The NY Post. Murdoch's colorful, wannabe USA Today-styled WSJ has alienated many of its longtime readers. Alas, the video is correct in noting most people today get their news from the tube or the 'net, but a faithful remnant of discerning readers remain.
GaryPeterson67 1 year ago
@GaryPeterson67 And what you "fail to mention" is that the current NYT is leftist tripe that no moderate person could abide. I was a faithful subscriber to the paper in the 90s, but currently the only thing that is palatable are the Sunday A&L section and The Book Review. Do you really enjoy reading the hyperbolic vitriol and hate that emanates from partisans like Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Gail Collins, and Bob Herbert? I suppose a progressive bigot would.
landline00 1 year ago
@GaryPeterson67
"..it is still the best and far out in front of the WSJ."
I think the problem is not just that the editorial page is very leftist (with one 'token' moderate) but that they don't really admit it and try to hold on to the old school presupposition of journolistic objectivity. Kind of like listening to a Christian music station that tried to claim they had no agenda in their songs. Meanwhile you hear them sing about Jesus and following him all day long. Its maddening lol...
MrWeaselkiller 1 year ago
@GaryPeterson67 "WSJ has alienated many of its longtime readers"? That's news. Their circulation has been going up, not down. Conversely, the Times continues their downward spiral. The best thing that can happen to the Times is that Carlos Slim throws out the Sulzbergers and turns it into a multi-media brand name. Say what you want abt. Murdoch, but he knows how to make money, and Pinch Sulzberger knows how to lose it.
spitfire71068 1 year ago 4
Ditto.,,The NYT IS being called out for what it is.,A Liberal Globalist Anti American Propaganda Machine of the Left.,,They will be replaced or shrunk to their proportional size of their reader base..,,this is what is happening now.. it is a mirror, america can see what it needs to change and is in the process of doing just that.,
mcginnie420 1 year ago
The Wall Street Journal's strength comes from its understanding of and adherence to printing two sides of an issue as per Ben Franklin's "Enlightenment position" rather than The NY Times' employment of any journalists. They believe in printing only what they believe in . . . rather than the truth. Shame on them. That is why they have lost their readers and their spark.
beverlylloydlee
SATCHMOJAZZ1 1 year ago 4
The Wall Street Journal's strength comes from its understanding of and adherence to printing two sides of an issue as per Ben Franklin's "Enlightenment position" rather than The NY Times' employment of any journalists. They believe in printing only what they believe in . . . rather than the truth. Shame on them. That is why they have lost their readers and their spark.
SATCHMOJAZZ1 1 year ago
im hoping NYT will send me a complimentary subscription in time for winter so I have plenty of paper on hand to start my fireplace fires this winter. what I have left I'll donate to a neighbor for the parakeet cage. Other than that, it really isn't that useful.
JimBJimB 1 year ago
WSJ reporting is generally sound, but editorials are right-wing clap-trap. Pure garbage.
marm253 1 year ago
恭喜你们出名了 ：）
chris3443 1 year ago
Rupert Murdoch is a news media robber baron, selling populist crap to soft, receptive rightwing brains. Drudge is a boring, paranoid gossip herder. Their spin is so blatant, people routinely watch Fox News as comedy. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking and knowledge about the world can tell you as much.
SketchyBack 1 year ago
@SketchyBack ...but yet you keep on watching Fox and reading the LINKS..let me say that again in case it went over that gourd on your shoulders...LINKS on Drudge....Closeted maybe?...I guess we all should be getting our news from the leading leftist media like NBC,CBS, ABC,CNN and MSNBC huh?...but wait, if I'm not mistaken, Drudge links to them as well....Yet another silly liberal on meds...gotta love it.
WiseGuy5674 1 year ago 2
@SketchyBack Given the almost universal domination of media distribution by the liberal world view these minds have still not succumbed. Personally I don't think a "soft" brain rejects the unavoidable progressive world view, but a *resistant* one does.
So don't get mad at your personal bogeyman Rupert; it turns out these "soft brained" folks never bought what your heroes were selling.
njtech2005 1 year ago
Drudge brought me here too
muktuklou 1 year ago 3
NYT is a biased, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-American leftist pile of trash. WSJ is more conservative and therefore taps into what more Americans want. I won 't be sorry if the NYT tanks.
alicepolarbear 1 year ago 7
Um seriously, what the fuck is with the japanese? Do they think stupid dumbass 3d videos make them technologically superior?
stalexann 1 year ago
lol wtf over
refugeeca 1 year ago
This stuff is great.
redbeakman 1 year ago
"reputation for journalistic excellence". Huh? Really? Maybe among liberals who are blind to the obvious left-wing slant at the NYT. The rest of us can see it plain as day and that makes it a pretty unreliable source for news.
bjiggs01 1 year ago 4
@bjiggs01 HA! Ha!b Liberars is Blinds as posts! Not see Dirty Digger Murdoch comes to eat their lunch like hero Pinch Schultburger
JenkemLlc 1 year ago
@JenkemLlc
LOL. That's perhaps the most unintelligible response I've ever received. Hats off to you! You're number one in my book. At least, you know, when it comes to unintelligible responses. :)
bjiggs01 1 year ago 3
...just curious, does anyone know if the times ever apologized (or at least admit they were wrong) for defending the mass murderer Stalin?
Also, does anyone know if they did the same for Mao? (The greatest mass murderer in human history)
itreeye 1 year ago 3
They're both crap newspapers and their editors and writers are as fatuous and arrogant as they come.
PlanetIran 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Drudge Report linked this. Prepare for the onslaught of the ignorant, racist, and illiterate!
Jujuman2003 1 year ago
"NYT has excellent journalist". ???? Are you kidding me.
They are excellent Liberals with no sense of shame.
WSJ out classes the NYT any day. Little Pinch is a little joke just like all Liberal journalist. That means all 95% of journalist.
Jokealist is more like it. Obama ass kissers. They work at the NYT.
No credible news source any longer.
MrFreedomworks 1 year ago 6
The New York Times could learn quite a bit from NMAWorldEdition. Of course, it's not a matter of learning but of ideology, since the New York Times is run by committed Leftists. Though they're likely a lost cause, American Leftists might sing a different tune if they were ever forced to flee from Communism like the Taiwanese.
bravo0105 1 year ago 4
The WSJ Metropolis page is a joke. Since the Murdoch takeover, the WSJ has moved away from financial information and more toward politics. The quality fo the writing has declined due to the use of cut and paste AP columns, and the use of Indian hack reporters. I'll drop my subscription after it expires if things don't improve.
GeeDuhbyaArbusto1 1 year ago
I'd be interested to know how many of the NYT critics have spent more than a minute or two actually reading it.
robko626 1 year ago
@robko626 If you check out the quality of the writing in the NYT forums and compare it to the illiterate, adolescent screeds posted in the forums of any News Corp publication, the answer will be obvious to you.
GeeDuhbyaArbusto1 1 year ago
@GeeDuhbyaArbusto1
Actually I've found there to much more irrational hatred and presumption of others motives and classification of people (sexist, racist, homophobe, etc.) in obvious substitution for discussion of uncomfortable ideas on left leaning forums. Think of the Journolist scandal. These were well known and influential Leftists calling for not only the death of their ideological opponents, but torture as well. It was horrible and frightening to read.
itreeye 1 year ago 2
@GeeDuhbyaArbusto1,
You're right, the quality of the writing of NYT subscribers is higher than that of most other groups, but that doesn't necessarily mean their opinions are correct. Ever read Catholic theology? Church theologians spent a thousand years writing these beautifully lucid, elaborations on the beliefs of Catholicism. The quality of the thinking and writing they deployed however could not change the fact that the basic dogmas of the Church are COMPLETE & UTTER CRAP!
supportingfire 1 year ago 2
@supportingfire Ha! You right! Thomas Aquianas just a slippery Christian making bad argument look good with linguistic embroidery! Ha! Ha! No work for Pinch Sulzbergers when Dirt Digger Murdoch catch him Jew-napping! Ha!
JenkemLlc 1 year ago
@supportingfire, actually, Catholic dogmas represents pure, unadulterated truth. I agree with you on the Times, though.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
@EternalAnachronism posted:
"Catholic dogmas represents pure, unadulterated truth. I agree with you on the Times, though."
My brother who's a "Traditional Catholic" would agree with you, which I why I never say things like this where he'd have to hear it. His feelings are more important to me than my opinions. I'll give you this though and for real:
The West was STRONGER when we were still naive enough to be sincerely Xtian. Cultures seem to need a binding faith to be healthy....
supportingfire 1 year ago 2
supportingfire, The West certainly was stronger back then, but the reasons are many and run deep And it ought to make you question your suppositions. As for your characterization, it is naivete, of a sort, that fuels secularism. Note that the most intelligent people in history have been men of faith (Chesterton comes to mind). And, as he said, the atheist view of life makes sense as far as it goes. The problem is that it's a shallow view. And it is. And when I realized this, I became a believer.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago 5
Four out of five scientists have concluded that Rupert really is a shark. He was born off the coast of Queensland ,and it really a great white shark.
Antiks72 1 year ago
Very cute. Love the nod to What Not to Wear and West Side Story. However, if everyone is getting their news from the internet, how does the WSJ continue to increase its dead-tree circulation every year? And, it does have a nice subscription internet site.
podbaydoors2008 1 year ago
I love how Rupert Murdoch is portrayed as a shark with a fin sticking out of his back, then they break into a West Side Story battle with the NYT staff. Awesome.
nuisance207 1 year ago
Yes. It's exactly like that in America.
wblstudios 1 year ago
When it comes to imagination, the NYT beats these guys hands-down. This is just a cartoon; the NYT creates imaginary news.
CharlesHouston3 1 year ago 5
@CommonRaven, the NYT is also the same newspaper that wrote a series of glowing articles about Stalin, denouncing the "western lie" that he was killing millions of his own people. And if and when China ever uses some of those 1,500 missiles they have pointed at Taiwan, I'm sure the NYT will try to justify that also.
ttowntom 1 year ago 5
Oh yes, the NYT...Home of the best news- even if they make it up
123ezekiel456 1 year ago
Sad I had to learn about this in Chinese and not from an American media outlet.
mbevks 1 year ago 3
Our university subscribes to the NYT and pays for hundreds of papers daily- then forces the students to read the rag. NYT relies on this network of leftist, brainwashers and public money to stay afloat.
pesosforcongress 1 year ago 6
Romesnko front page left rail brought me here. well done, Taiwan animators
MrDanbloom 1 year ago
Drudge brought me here
angelmarauder 1 year ago 68
@angelmarauder -is he going to pick you up too? :-)
dreamerein 1 year ago
@dreamerein I've been here a long time.... :S Hopefully someday....
angelmarauder 1 year ago
@angelmarauder same
stalexann 1 year ago
Urinalistic excellence is the word.
hepcats 1 year ago 3
這是我看過最好笑的動新聞了XDDD
Murderafishy 1 year ago
NY Times is a leftist, liberal rag.
Writinit 1 year ago 52
@Writinit Indeed! And it shovels out guilt to those who are successful.
jotyod 1 year ago
@Writinit you say that like there are no right wing nutjob rags and tv stations.
OscarMaris 1 year ago
I can't get enough of these animations!!!!
cybersalad 1 year ago 2
I love how the commentary for this video has 100% nothing to do with the video.
beverins 1 year ago
They don't call it the "New York Slimes" for nothing!
igloo54 1 year ago
The New York Times is dead. Maybe their buddy Obama will give them a "bailout".
gesiriech 1 year ago
Srkeegan, "Fox News so bad la they call the Ground Zero Mosque a mosque! lolol"
Tom: "Every news organization in the country calls it a mosque."
Srkeegan: "you embarass yourself lolol!"
I think its clear who has embarrassed themselves here, Keegan. Nice try though.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
@srkeegan, you truly are a blithering idiot. The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006, had a supermajority AND the Presidency since 2008, and you're still trying to blame Bush for tax raises happening in 2011? Lol, can I sell you a bridge also?
Fact is that "bill" is simply the Bush tax cuts expiring. Obama and his Democratic supermajority has had YEARS to extend those tax cuts if they wanted to. Instead, they've chosen to play politics.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
@srkeegan
@srkeegan
" Check out this clip the Daily Show found of Sean Hannity COMPLETELY lying about what Obama said in his speech."
That's not true, I saw it last night (in Oz) and the JS show misled you.
Two things that JS didn't mention.
1. For Bush to pass the tax cuts the Dems insisted they have an expiration date.
2. It is up to Obama whether or not they expire.
Besides, since when has the left ever really been for tax cuts? duh.
itreeye 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
@srkeegan, no YOU miss the point. They didn't misrepresent what he said. Taxes are scheduled to go up, and Obama said exactly that. You also ignore the fact that they're not scheduled to go up because of Bush, but because (a) the Democrats insisted the Bush tax cuts had to expire in 2011, and in the years since Bush originally signed the bill, they've fought all efforts to extend them.
Fox didn't lie. In fact they went overboard to not mislead the viewer -- something other networks didn't.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
@srkeegan
"Fox completely misrepresented what Obama said."
No they did not. Obama was the one who was trying to deceive, since he was implying that the Bush tax cuts expiring soon were not only beyond his control, but that they were intended to expire during his (or another Dems) administration for the purpose of making a Dem look bad. That is complete rubbish, and it was good of this Hannity to point out the truth of this.
itreeye 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
@itreeye wow. So there really are people as deluded as you. America really is doomed when people are oblivious to the facts. Why did Hannity edit the clip at all? He was obviously distorting the statement in a large degree. And for what purpose? Hannity, Beck, Palin all benefit from YOUR FEAR. That's why they sneeringly refer to him as "The Chosen One". No liberal I've ever met has ever referred to him as that. If you are scared, you turn to them, and then they charge you $60 for a 9-11 rally.
gdickinsense 1 year ago
@gdickinsense
"Why did Hannity edit the clip at all?"
You are still totally missing the point. The point was that Obama was implying that upcoming tax increases are the fault of Bush, and not him. If you watch the entire context this still remains true because of what I've already written. The tax cuts were forced to have an expiration by Dem influence, and 2nd - it is up to Obama if they expire or not. Hannity was completely honest here, and also good for sharing our Pres.' obfuscation.
itreeye 1 year ago
@gdickinsense
"That's why they sneeringly refer to him as "The Chosen One"."
Wrong again. The sarcasm involved with using this phrase in referring to POTUS has to do with fawning, over the top and subjectively biased campaigning for him by ostensibly objective news organizations across the board. All the networks, near all the papers, and all the cable news outlets except fox around the entire globe during the campaign. Try to think of Mcain having a terrorist friend or racist pastor, etc etc.
itreeye 1 year ago
@srkeegan hey STEVE KEEGAN PHOTAGRAPHY, you think it might hurt your business a bit wearing your politics on your sleeve like you do STEVE KEEGAN PHOTOGRAPHY?....oh and only a douche would quote the Daily Show as a source of news.
revjimbeam 1 year ago
Well Steve Keegan, it seems taking photographs doesn't teach anyone politics or even common sense. Face facts. If Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire, it will be Obama's fault, not Bush's. Hannity didn't change Obama's meaning one bit. The truth is, had he also included Obama's pathetic attempt to blame a 2011 tax hike on a president who left office years earlier, it would have made Obama look even worse.
Be thankful Hannity took pity on Obama.
ttowntom 1 year ago
As perfect example of media bias, look to last week. 30+ young black men running around a fair attacking people and yelling its "beat whitey night"? Not a whisper in the press, though two victims wound up critical care. But one drunk college student takes a swipe at a cabbie with a knife, and its headline news - even though this "vicious attack" didn't even hurt him bad enough to prevent him from driving himself to find a policeman. And they even tried to blame it on the Ground Zero debate.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
no need to read the newspaper, drudge report tells me what i need to know. i read the Boston Harald maybe once a week.
macdaddye2k 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
Triple trapdoor.
777jones 1 year ago
I'm 48, born and raised in NYC. I can say from first hand observation that the NYT lost credibility decades ago. It's a far left liberal rag that only accidentally reports the truth.
kmg501 1 year ago
@ttowntom You can try and discredit the Pulitzer Prize by calling it "far left" but the reality is that it is a widely respected and sought-after honor. And the WSJ has won 33 Pulitzers. I consider myself moderate and read everything from Malkin to Drudge, and have found NYT to be a consistently reliable source of fair-minded reporting. The may have the occasional slant like everything but always present all sides of an issue and quote a spectrum of political opinion.
specadmin 1 year ago
Dude, just watch this without even looking at the subtitles and try to make up a story on your own...
MikeyLikesIt357 1 year ago
title of this news program shoudl be "Think this!" goes way beyond who what when where why..
loved the monitor shown as the viewer is informed papers are good for bird shate at the best and that the internet is where people go now for news...:
"the daily rehash - Copy this paste that"
bullseyen 1 year ago
@OriginalRocketJock I'm drinking reality, you are welcome to share. The NYT has won 104 Pulitzer Prizes, the gold standard for journalistic excellence, far more than any other newspaper.
specadmin 1 year ago
@specadmin, the Pulitzer Prize is administered by a far-left organization at Columbia University, who picks a panel of like-minded journalists to vote on prize winners. Claiming a Pulitzer count shows journalistic excellence is like asking the foxes to guard the chickens.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
@srkeegan, do you really not see the hole in your pseudo-logic? Even the most biased referee can't call every single play for his own team. And BTW, if you think Steve Breen is conservative, I suggest you check out some of his comics of the Mosque protesters, or anything of his from when Bush was president. Putting Obama in a superman outfit doesn't exactly lose you your liberal voting card.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
...or referring to Islam as the "Religion of Peace," when it is a backwards violent death-cult.
arizonaatheist 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
@srkeegan, are you trying to embarrass yourself intentionally? A building where Muslims pray is a Mosque, plain and simple. And for your information, countless newpapers (including the NYTimes as well) have referred to it as the "Ground Zero Mosque".
ttowntom 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
@srkeegan, you're digging yourself in deeper. Are you actually trying such a pedantic, legalistic defense as "its actually a Masijid, not a Mosque"? I bet you loved it when Clinton debated the meaning of the word "if" before being convicted of perjury.
Face facts. In the English language, a place dedicated for Christians to pray in is a church...even if some sect chooses to call it a "prayer hall" or something else. And in English, a place dedicated for Muslims to pray in is a Mosque.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
@srkeegan, you just keep embarrassing yourself. Firstly, you blame Fox for calling it a Mosque, when a quick google search proves CNN, the NYTimes, The Washington Post, CBS, and even the ultra-liberal MSNBC all call it a Mosque as well. So much for that point.
Also, I happen to support the right of Park51 to be built anywhere they legally own land, ground zero or not, so your assumption about me are as faulty as your logic. Now stop embarrassing yourself and use your brain for a change.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
Fish, if you can name one factual error Fox has made in the past year, I'd be surprised as hell.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
"The NYT's real advantage is their reputation for journalistic excellence."
BWAHAHAHAHAHA
Kteln 1 year ago 2
But counting retractions isn't really a meaningful analysis tool. it only measures the number of factual errors that they own up to, not the number of errors they have actually paid.
FlyingFish99 1 year ago
Comparing the number of retractions, omissions, and outright errors in coverage over the past year, the NYT fares worse than the WSJ, Fox, and and many other publications.
ttowntom 1 year ago
Still if one compares the left-leaning NYT to the right wingnuts of Fox "News", The Times comes out waaay ahead in terms of journalistic integrity
FlyingFish99 1 year ago
@FlyingFish99 The Old York Times has zero journalistic integrity. It is a propaganda rag. The only difference between The NYT and Pravda is that The Slimes hasn't gotten their government bailout money yet.
miturbinesdurti 1 year ago 2
@miturbinesdurti Thanks for this well thought-out, gramatically-creative response
FlyingFish99 1 year ago
LOL
astralislux 1 year ago
Why is this so awesome?
fluff125 1 year ago 4
ching chang chong
go ju ru
qwi gon jin
edawg00 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
NYT has been a joke for decades. There were always slanted, but now it's nothing short of pathetic.
soylentteal 1 year ago 3
Jets vs Sharks lol
SW34R3NG3N 1 year ago
Comment removed
jbluvdub 1 year ago
@jbluvdub
This is Chinese. It has nothing to do with Japan.
wronglycensored 1 year ago
@wronglycensored LOL yea maybe I should check before I open my big mouth then. I love China
jbluvdub 1 year ago
Murdoch should never have been allowed to buy the WSJ in the first place. Media concentration is bad for all of us.
That would have been the case for any buyer, but in Murdoch's case I was not surprised to see the quality of the WSJ immediately taking a dive, with the low information content/thuggish emotional manipulation of Fox News immediately beginning to seep into their coverage. Its sad that Americans are generally too foolish to know when they are being lied to--hence with the buyer
givebirthathome 1 year ago
unable to detect and reject bad product, the market completely fails to produce high quality news.
Just because a lot of German's found Hitler's message appealing, doesn't mean it was correct for their long-term welfare; it proved not to be. People generally like heroin, too.
givebirthathome 1 year ago
murdoch shark FTW
dmancornell 1 year ago
@dmancornell
Fuck Rupert Murdoch.
cagnazzo82 1 year ago
Journalistic excellence? The New York Times?!
Bwahahahaha!!
ballybunion9 1 year ago 29
@ballybunion9 Obviously not locals to be saying that.
nonthere 1 year ago
Why is Murdoch the only one with a shark fin on his back in this?
Minionuup 1 year ago
Hilarious. Only my kids under 5 need pictures along with their story. This is the result of computer engineers who earn $700/mo.
dlima1313 1 year ago
Why can't our news outlets report in cartoon format? It's a lot more fitting.
arpeggio420 1 year ago
NYT is not known in the modern era for journalistic exellence, the WSJ certainly is. WSJ has paid online content with the highest subscription rate in the world. NYT has a strong liberal bias, the WSJ is more balanced with a more libertarian conservative editorial position.
JohnRhysMusician 1 year ago 20
Comment removed
SpiceyGrooves 1 year ago
This is bizarre, but the asian girls are hot.
dankeschone 1 year ago
I don't get the NYT, because I don't have a bird and already got a good deal on catbox liners. But the NYT isn't the only newspaper on the skids thanks to the advent of the internet. If I want DNC talking points they have their own website.
ArturoVandelay 1 year ago 4
The WSJ's advantage is reporting fact, based on sound economic principles.
The NYT's disadvantage is reporting fiction, based on human feelings and emotion.
mercerdrew 1 year ago 4
@mercerdrew You obviously have not read either paper. Both papers, for the most part, have excellent journalistic standards and report facts that are checked.
specadmin 1 year ago
@specadmin The NYT has excellent journalistic standards?
Can I have a case of what you're drinking?
OriginalRocketJock 1 year ago 7
The NY Times is an excellent newspaper when it comes to lining cat boxes and birdcages..... and it's ok for wrapping fish as well, and it's not bad for starting fires. That's all about all it is good for. Reading it is a pointless waste of time...... In the case of the NY Times, the value of the paper and ink far exceeds the value of the "written content"
DVRBS 1 year ago 4
Oh God, New York Times, "journalistic excellence?" I seriously lol'd, especially since it's the only "decent" newspaper on campus, and I have to absorb their left-wing crap all day.
nERVEcenter117 1 year ago 3
@nERVEcenter117, thankfully, you realize it's left-wing garbage. Many people don't, unfortunately. By the way, if you're buying it, I would urge you to reconsider doing so. Why support them? You can find all the news you want online. Be well.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago 2
@EternalAnachronism Have to get your leftist opinion somewhere, right? It's good for some perspective and for some laughs. And they honestly aren't making money anywhere else just because of that.
It's like watching MSNBC to get some leftist perspective; their viewership still sucks regardless, and I'm not watching TV 99% of the time anyways.
nERVEcenter117 1 year ago 3
Yeah the NYT is left leaning. That doesn't mean it's a bad newspaper. What's wrong with having right and left wing newspapers?
0906peter 1 year ago
@0906peter, actually, yes, it does. Putting that aside, however, there's another factor. The NYT slants even its hard news to the left, which is a violation of journalistic practice. News and commentary are different animals, and news is supposed to be reported in as unbiased a way as is humanly possible. The NYT is a piece of trash that peddles lies and propaganda at every turn.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago 3
@EternalAnachronism
"actually, yes, it does"
So right wing news papers are also bad newspapers because they lean to the right? Or is it only the case when it's a left-wing paper?
0906peter 1 year ago
@0906peter, the only reason you ask this question is because you're awash in relativism. Not everything is a matter of perspective. There is such a thing as truth, as right and wrong. Thus, anytime a paper embraces a destructive, erroneous ideology, it's a bad paper. And leftist ideology is destructive and erroneous.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
Ok so because you disagree with leftists, they are wrong and a left-wing paper is a bad thing and a right wing paper is not. A leftist could say the exact same thing about you, that right-wing ideology is wrong, destructive etc. Isn't the best position to take that left and rightwingers have the exact same rights and should both have media outlets. Like MSNBC on the left and Fox on the right. Saying they can't do it/have it because I disagree with them is anti freedom and un-American.
0906peter 1 year ago
And what's "wrong" with being anti-freedom and un-American? Is it really "wrong" or is it just that you don't happen to like it? Do you get it yet? Of course leftists will say I'm wrong, just as Nazis and communists believe they're right. But this doesn't mean they are right. To determine that, you have to explore something known as truth. As for rights, they have a right to disseminate their garbage, just as a Nazi has a right to express his opinions, But this doesn't mean they ARE right.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
@EternalAnachronism
Touché on the first thing. But again, the fact that you have an opinion and can express it doesn't make it right either. So yeah, relativism. You think leftist ideology is garbage, they think your opinion is garbage. So it's BS to say a leftist paper is a bad thing and a right-wing paper isn't just because in your opinion the leftists are wrong. Your opinion is not fact. Leftist opinion is not fact either. That's the whole thing, you have facts and opinions.
0906peter 1 year ago
@0906peter, you still are avoiding the issue. If there's no truth-nothing we can use to determine what is moral and what isn't-if everything is just opinion, then there is no right and wrong. And then there's no point even talking about these things, because then you're saying you want to discuss what life's answers might be while also saying there are no answers to be found. This is the fatal flaw of relativism and is why any world view underpinned by it collapses upon itself.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
@EternalAnachronism
I'm not saying there is no truth and everything is up for discussion. Of course there are facts u can't deny and ones opinion doesn't excuse you from acknowledging facts. However, it is a little easy to just say the facts are on your side and the other side is wrong. You were saying a leftist paper is bad because what they are saying is not true. If they were denying facts you would be right but if they just have a different opinion on those facts u are wrong.
0906peter 1 year ago
No, you still misunderstand. I'm talking about facts, as in the dog chased the cat or Cindy ate an apple. I'm talking about truth, as in something transcending man that determines right and wrong. Once again, if this (known as moral truth) doesn't exist, then there is no point discussing these matters because you can't be any more right or wrong than I can be. If all we could have was "opinion" about facts, they would be of little use. For example, let's say we learn that many Muslims coming to
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
@0906peter, to the use engage in female genital mutilation. With this knowledge, we might decide to enact a law against it (this is just one example; I'm not trying to start a debate about this issue). But criminalizing something is predicated on the idea that it's "wrong." If not, why prohibit it? But for something to be "wrong," there must be truth, not just opinion. There must be some standard ABOVE human opinion that can be used to determine what is good and what is bad.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
Remember, the Muslims who engage in genital mutilation certainly don't believe it's wrong, and the Nazis didn't believe that genocide was wrong. You put yourself in a very bad position when embracing the relativist lie, because then you cannot credibly make ANY judgments. Know that no moral principle can be proven scientifically. They are all matters of faith, and this is why a wise man understands that you must start with the axiom that truth exists. Relativism is the biggest lie of our time.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
@EternalAnachronism
Yes, there are certain moral laws but they come from humanity and our enlightenment and humanism and our sense of community. If not then the only other option is some sort of god or gods or higher entity that provides them and that it very unlikely. All the evidence and logic points in the direction of there not being such a thing, so where do these truths come from then.
0906peter 1 year ago
Ah, now you're starting to understand, but you don't have it quite yet. If they come from man, it's silly to call them "moral laws," because they are then just collective opinion. And then why confuse the issue with unnecessary terminology like "moral laws"? I'll tell you why: it's so people can avoid facing the reality of what they really believe, which is that a corollary of atheism is that there is NO right or wrong, only opinion. This is why everything does come back to God.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
@EternalAnachronism
What's better, not killing and stealing because people have grown and are enlightened and think it is wrong to kill and steal, or not killing and stealing because you fear gods repercussions? The latter is not being a good person, it's just being afraid. It's like saying "hey, if there were no God to judge me I would just go out and kill and steal". That's not morality.
Just curious btw, do you subscribe to any particular religion or just the notion of a God in general?
0906peter 1 year ago
@0906peter
The point is not that fear should motivate morality -- it shouldn't. The point is that there is a moral nature to the universe, just as there is a physical nature, and that the source of this nature is the character of God. To a materialist perspective, there can be no such moral nature.
ninjabunnyman 1 year ago
@ninjabunnyman well said.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago
@0906peter
"not killing and stealing because people have grown and are enlightened and think it is wrong to kill and steal"
That doesn't make sense. If there is no transcendent will of intent beyond humans there can ultimately be no real right and wrong. Nor can there really be meaning of any sort. Just feeling like something is wrong doesn't make it truly wrong. Nor does threatening punishment if one does steal or murder to control behaviour create objective right & wrong.
itreeye 1 year ago
@itreeye Dirty Digger Murdocj want you for Editorial writer! Call Monday!
JenkemLlc 1 year ago
This is why I said that ALL moral positions are matters of faith. They cannot be proven scientifically, and they can only be valid is they originate with something transcending man, something infallible, something that created reality-namely, God. Thus, if God doesn't exist, all your ideas about right and wrong are just illusion. You are then just fooling yourself by attaching some special importance to emotion.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
Also, know that logic points to just the opposite: God's existence. This is why all of history's greatest thinkers - Aristotle, Chesterton, Aquinas, etc. - have believed in God. I myself used to be an agnostic until I started pondering matters more deeply and grasped the pitfalls of atheism, one of which is that relativism correlates to it. Really, what I'm explaining is easy to understand. The problem is that people are raised today in an environment of stunted philosophical understanding.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
@0906peter, if you truly wanted to adhere to relativism, you couldn't credibly say anything was wrong, not racism, not murder, not rape-nothing. Before you can make any judgments, you must accept what in philosophy are called axioms, which are self-evident truths. Know that relativism is philosophical immaturity. It is tempting because people can use it to justify their behavior. As for me, no, I don't have opinions, but truth. And relativism puts you in a box. Because . . . .
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
because I can say you're wrong and be true to my absolutist beliefs. If you, on the other hand, are to be consistent, all you can really say is that I have feelings just like you do, and there's no objective way for you to say mine are any less valid than yours. If you are to be true to relativism, all you can say with credibility with respect to ANY issue is, "Hey, man, whatever works for you." Just know, however, that I don't just have opinions. I can, without contradiction, say I have truth.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago
@0906peter, as G.K. Chesterton said, "Having the right to do something is not at all the same as being right in doing it."
Ponder that.
EternalAnachronism 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
srkeegan 1 year ago
@EternalAnachronism The old man's legacy will certainly outlast *and* outshine that of Our Gray Lady of Perpetual Lies.
njtech2005 1 year ago
@0906peter You are mixing up editorial with content. The articles in the WSJ are actually often MORE liberal than the NYT. However the editorial content of the WSJ tends to be very conservative, while the NYT is more liberal.
specadmin 1 year ago
@specadmin
Fair enough
0906peter 1 year ago
The NYT has a long history of journalistic excellence yes (It used to be known as the nations paper of record). But just like the American car manufacturers they squandered the advantage of excellence, and let the barbarians at the gates in. Even if they try and turn the ship around now, it's unlikely they will do it unless the democrats swoop in to save them.
I read the WSJ every day, and it's the only paper I subscribe to because it's excellent, and I rarely find any factual errors in it.