AngmarsKing701
Member
The liberal media is so unbiased. Believe me. - Trump
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton for President
- Thread starter RPGCrazied
- Start date
- Status
Are people going to boycott Marvel movies since Isaac Perlmutter supports Trump?
Apologies, then. My internet sarcasm meter is broken.
The success of the Marvel movies have actually pretty well immasculated Perlmutter as it has led to the MCU and Feige moving under direct Disney control, removing the real power property in the Marvel brand from Perlmutter's control.
Godzilla's Left Toe
Member
But who has the National Enquirer endorsement hmm.
Trigonometrize.
Member
I'm pretty convinced the people that insist Hillary and Trump are both equally bad candidates are more committed to their love of being cynical about politics than actually giving a shit about the next four years of the country. To think that Hillary's qualifications, platform, and general skill as a leader can be so easily offset by her shortcomings to the point where it brings her down to the level of the bigoted, idiotic Trump campaign is mind-boggling. Get a grip.
I think we should avoid calling people whores regardless of their profession let alone their political affiliation.
Wtf? Rent is too damn high party endorses Trump? His black ass wouldn't be able to get a place in a Trump owned property even if the rent were free.
In Australia the press typically only endorse the day before an election. I think that's a good time. Six weeks out is far too early from a newspaper as important as the NYT. That's when accusations of bias start to stick. (Even though they're spot on.)
King Tubby
Member
He doesn't like Trump's anti-black policy, but he DOES like Trump's misogyny policy.
Godzilla's Left Toe
Member
Hulk Hogan is voting for Trump why am I not shocked.
Adam_Vania
Banned
Times supported the Iraq War as well, no wonder it supports her
McMoneyman
Member
Reading his Twitter feed makes you even more disappointed in him :/
She really the only choice this election. No surprise most media will be backing her.
That's funny.
DAVIDHUXLEY
Member
NYT does not endorse Trump.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/o...ol-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/o...ol-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region
Shake Appeal
Member
Nice to see the NYT actually getting off the bench.
Polioliolio
Member
What's the difference between officially endorsing, like this, and lying about being "Fair and Balanced"?
Shake Appeal
Member
Please be respectful of Mike Tyson, a man who probably has brain damage.
crazy monkey
Banned
Killer Queen
Banned
Too bad that never happens.
Aaronrules380
Member
It'd be literally impossible to be completely unbiased, nor is it actually advisable if you want people to actually pay attention or understand the deeper meanings and implications behind the facts
Shake Appeal
Member
It is impossible to be unbiased. It is an insane request.
EmptyCanO'wupass
Member
They specifically separate out their opinion statements from regular reporting. The editorials are where some staff (usually separate from beat reporters) speak personally and candidly about their views.
Journalists handle their work kind of like judges. They all have opinions and personal biases on everything, because they're human, but they are trained to be aware of their own opinions and biases and to actively put them aside when they are working on hard news.
Objective reporting is a skill that requires acknowledging and confronting your own preconceptions to get people the facts, and good reporters - like those at the Times - work very hard to separate their emotions from the story.
Some publications, like Fox or Breitbart, don't make any effort to confront their biases, and pass opinions off as hard news. The difference is honesty and transparency. The times and other papers with editorial boards are saying "here, we're going to put our opinions over here in a specially designated area to get them out of the way so you know the difference between that and when we're speaking from an objective perspective."
fallengorn
Bitches love smiley faces
They should've just posted this gif:
You Are Viewtiful
Member
You can tell who here has ever picked up a newspaper and who hasn't.
Princess Carl
Member
what is this paper you speak of?
CaviarMeths
Member
"Newspapers should be unbiased."
"Newspapers should be reporting facts and not endorsing political candidates."
These two statements are kind of hard to reconcile when facts tend to have a liberal bias. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that liberalism tends to have a factual bias. Either way, if a newspaper was only reporting on the facts, then it would more or less be an illicit endorsement of the liberal candidate anyway. Mr. Pants On Fire would be ineligible for consideration by anyone who considers facts a priority in their voting habits.
"Newspapers should be reporting facts and not endorsing political candidates."
These two statements are kind of hard to reconcile when facts tend to have a liberal bias. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that liberalism tends to have a factual bias. Either way, if a newspaper was only reporting on the facts, then it would more or less be an illicit endorsement of the liberal candidate anyway. Mr. Pants On Fire would be ineligible for consideration by anyone who considers facts a priority in their voting habits.
I'd argue that a fact doesn't have a liberal bias, a fact has no intent or deeper meaning at all. A fact is simply true. You could argue that someone favouring facts over opinions has a bias, but by it's very nature I'd argue a fact to be bias-less, it doesn't show inclination towards to truth or towards learning, it simply is, existing as truth without human interference or conception. It's our usage of facts that constitutes a bias.
Now, of course people argue for a bias when they say that a newspaper should report facts and not opinions - I have stated the bias here - but the implicit point is that newspapers should be unbiased towards particular opinions, people, organisations etc. So while factually right that the two statements are at odds with each other, I think it misses the point of what is meant by the first statement. I, from a non American perspective (so nothing to do with what election cycle it is numerically to me), feel that newspapers shouldn't endorse. People can, even in editorials, but the newspaper as a whole should try to stay neutral. I'm aware that newspapers have a bias anyway, but establishing your bias outwardly increases it's effect in the newspaper's work, and actually stifles it's reporting as anything contrary to that endorsement would be viewed suspiciously and seemingly discouraged, while it devalues the nature of facts in the newspaper by seemingly encouraging open bias.
Your comment doesn't make much sense in light of what is actually said in the article. Did you read it?
NYT said:
- Status