pageok
pageok
pageok
The New York Times Loves John Roberts:
Yes, seriously. If you haven't seen it yet, check out this detailed biography of John Roberts from the Thursday New York Times.
Anonymous Law Student:
This alone should make him be presumptively unacceptable to conservatives.
7.22.2005 2:33am
CrazyTrain (mail):
ALS, you are right, because the NY Times is librul, like the rest of the evil MSM. The NY Times is so librul that its main foreign news reporter was instrumental in drumming up the "case" for war with Iraq based on WMD, and that same reporter has now gone to jail to protect the Bush administration. . . . Now the evil librul NY Times has a love-fest of an article on a very conservative nominee to the Supreme Court. . . . Face it people, there is no such thing as a liberal media -- as Bill Kristol admitted in the '90's, it is a bunch of Orwellian BS intended to get core conservatives to reject anything that puts conservatives in a bad light. . . . Now, the lefties are playing the same game talking about how hte "corporate media" are just lackies for the Bush Administration and how we should not trust their reporting. . . .
7.22.2005 4:14am
Daniel Chapman (mail):
When's the last time the NYT endorsed a republican candidate for president? What percentage of newspaper journalists voted for Kerry? What were the percentage of favorable/disfavorable stories about Bush v. Kerry in the run-up to the 2004 election? I think you'll find the numbers surprising.

Or maybe you won't... doesn't matter. Got a link to that Bill Kristol quote? I find it a little hard to believe since I've never heard it before... but I'd love to see the context if it's true.
7.22.2005 11:34am
David M. Nieporent (www):
CrazyTrain,

You don't have to repeat Eric Alterman mis-talking points. What Kristol actually said (as per Alterman) was
"I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."


Note that nothing in that statement is equivalent to "The media aren't liberal."
7.22.2005 12:57pm
zzyz:
Well, the majority of daily newspapers that endorsed a candidate endorsed Bush...
7.22.2005 2:52pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
http://toys.jacobian.org/endorsements/

Editor &Publisher

Don't buy my sources? I sure can't speak for them... I just googled it in 2 minutes, but E&P seems to be the respected source... Here's a less reliable one:

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/2004_Media_Endorsements

Where'd you get your information from, zzyz?
7.22.2005 3:02pm
JGUNS (mail):
zzyz,
Where did you get that absolutely INANE idea from? The Majority of the daily papers DID NOT endorse Bush...my god.. lol..According to Editor &Publisher Magazine, 211 newspapers endorsed Kerry nationwide, representing a circulation of over twenty-million subscribers. President Bush was supported by 197 newspapers, including papers from mostly smaller circulation "heartland" areas. The readers of the "Bush-endorsing" newspapers totaled 14.6 million.

A Center for Media and Public Affairs content analysis of the major television networks released on Monday showed that almost sixty percent of news stories about Kerry in the month leading up to the election were positive.

Kerry got the best press since the study began, overcoming the previous all-time positive-media winner, Walter Mondale in 1984.

During the same period, 64 percent of news stories about President Bush were negative.
7.22.2005 3:13pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
"the previous all-time positive-media winner, Walter Mondale in 1984"

Thus we see how positive coverage elects presidents. (Although, what was Reagan's percentage?)
7.22.2005 7:48pm