Another unbiased “news” report from the Times.
September 25th, 2006 | by Craig R. Harmon |The always fair and balanced New York times has put out another editorial…um wait, no no…make that news report on the Senate panel’s debate on the Bill regarding the treatment of detainees. As usual, the Times went out of their way to present a fair representation of opinions on both sides of the issue.
Quoted for the bill we find Senator John Cornyn:
Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who was the only other member of the committee present for the unusual Monday morning hearing, defended the bill, which he said provided “an alternative source of judicial review rather than the writ of habeas corpus,’’ in the form of annual status reviews and the possibility of appeal after trials before military tribunals.
“It is important to remember — and sometimes I think some forget — these are enemies of the United States captured on the battlefield,’’ Mr. Cornyn said.
By my count, that’s one bill defender given 84 words.
By contrast, the articles cites objections to the bill by five critics: Arlen Specter, Patrick Lehey, Thomas Sullivan, the lawyer for 10 Guantanamo detainees, Rear Adm. John D. Hutson, and Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift who sued the government on behalf of Mr. Hamdan. Apparently no other detractors were deemed necessary to rebut the two points made by the one supporter of the bill that was quoted.
By the way, not only was one detractor given the opportunity to directly rebut both points made by Sen. Cornyn, without allowing Cornyn any oportunity to answer, but the detractors were given a grand total of 550 words to make the Times’ point.
When I complain of editorials and opinion pieces being run in the guise of straight news reports, this is what I’m talking about.
But, of course, there’s no bias here…perish the thouht.
17 Responses to “Another unbiased “news” report from the Times.”
By Jersey McJones on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Thank God the NYT still remembers their calling as the Fourth Estate, Craig. After all, there is no such legal term, anywhere, nationally or internationally, as an “Enemy Combatant.” Anyone who thinks the Executive should have the right to bypass the Judiciary, the Congress, the People and the Press is an idiot, who may as well move to Cuba, because he has mnore in common with Castro, when it comes to Exectutive Power, than with a true American.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
If you think this is fair and balanced reporting, Jersey, I don’t ever want to hear any complaint about Fox News Channel.
By Jersey McJones on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
The Times thoroughly covers these issues, besides, it’s the contrarian position that is “news” not the sheepy allegiance.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 26, 2006 | Reply
Yes, Jersey. This is “thorough” news reportage.
Jersey, no one should know what the editorial slant of either the reporter or the New York Times is from their straight reporting. This is a bullshit hit piece, pure and simple. I stand by what I wrote above. I don’t ever want to hear another complaint about Faux News Channel. It is obvious that your complaint is not that they slant their news at Fox because you thoroughly approve of the slanted reporting at the Times. Your only complaint with Fox is that they don’t slant in your direction.
There’s nothing new about the majority opinion expressed in this report. Unfortunately, there’s nothing new about this editorial masquerading as news style of reporting, either. It’s every day stuff at the Times and elsewhere.
By Dusty on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
The NYT was the media that held back the story of the wiretapping of America, until AFTER the Presidential election. I have no allegience to them or any other Mainstream Media reporting agency. That they get somethings right on occasion is pure luck,or perhaps a slow news day, in my opinion.
Screw the MSM..all of them…every single, stinking one of them. Although I do not buy into Craigs vision that they are biased, based on the fact that I just noted above. They have no alligience to the truth or the people that read their bullshit.
.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
You don’t buy either the explanations: 1. the government convinced them that there were genuine national security issues that it took them another year of investigation to convince them that the risk to security was overweighed by the public interest; 2. they were convinced that there were genuine national security issues and they held back until one of their journalists was about to spill the story in a book so there was no point holding it back longer; 3. bringing up national security issues close to the elections would have played into the percieved strengths of the Republicans and they wanted Kerry to win?
My preference is # 3.
But honestly, Dusty, this doesn’t strike you as a lopsided, clearly slanted to the Liberal/Democratic talking-points side of the issue
editorialnews report?By Dusty on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
The government didn’t convince them of squat Craig. They waited until after the Presidential election and then released the info. The article the NYT wrote in response to the “outing” of their hold on the story was to say they thought it gave the Dem’s an unfair advantage,since it was so inflammatory of the adminsitrations underhanded, tactics.
No, I don’t think their slanted to the left. Why the hell do you insist on saying all dems are liberal? I expected better than that tired rant from you Craig.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
Yeh, well, of course they’d say that…they still think we don’t know that they really wanted Kerry to win…they think we think they aren’t in the tank for the Democrats. The problem with that theory is that the NSA surveillance still has the support of the majority of the people. Revealing it before the election would have hurt, not helped Kerry.
Why do I say all Dems are liberal? Because they’re pushing out all the Dems who aren’t.
This wasn’t a tired rant, Dusty. Did you read my post? Did you read the article? I asked you a question that you’ve not answered. Did that story read like anything other than a Democrat talking points editorial. Do the numbers add up for you? One supporter with 80 some words against 5 detractors with 550 words, one of whom is given the opportunity to directly rebut the sole supporter’s points?
I honestly don’t know what to say. It’s like me saying that Hannity isn’t biased to the right.
By Dusty on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
“we don’t know that they really wanted Kerry to win…they think we think they aren’t in the tank for the Democrats”- your drinking the koolaid Craig. The hatchet job they did on the Clinton’s marriage..do you think that shows their Democratic leanings too?
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
And they did also say that the administration might have had a point about national security and that it was only with further investigation that they decided that the public interest in knowing outweighed any legitimate concern for security. You may not believe them but they did say that. And the timing of the story, just a few weeks shy of the book’s publication is just too much of a coincidence to buy that the two events aren’t connected.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
Of course the Times’ editors coming out in support of Kerry gives a bit of a clue as to whom they wanted to win in ‘04, too!
Hatchet job on the Clinton marriage?????
I’d say that was Bill’s fault, wouldn’t you?
Bill spills semen on Monika’s dress and you don’t think that’s gonna be reported no matter what party’s in the White House? There was no way to keep that story quiet. The NSA story was secret until, well, until the reporter was a few weeks shy of publishing a book revealing it.
Question. If you think they held it back to keep from embarassing Bush before the election (i. e., so he wouldn’t loose and so the guy they were cheerleading for wouldn’t win, why hold on to it for so long? After the election was over, there was no reason, if that was the reason, to hold on to it for another year.
And Dusty, you still haven’t answered the question. I’ll repeat it:
By Dusty on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
craig, if you didn’t read the NYT article on the clinton marriage then you don’t have a clue as to what was said and the depths they went to dig up current dirt on the couple,do you? The article was written THIS YEAR craig.
I refuse to buy your bs that all dems are liberals.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
Dusty,
Okay. I didn’t read the article. I thought you were referencing the Lewinsky think. I don’t know what article you’re talking about.
You still haven’t answered the question.
By Dusty on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
No..I don’t..what do you want it to say that it isn’t saying Craig? What rightwing slant do you wish to put on it?
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
I don’t want any slant on it at all. I want balanced reporting.
Sorry, Dusty. I’ve got a move in two days. I’d love to stay and chat but I can’t. I’ll catch you later.
By Dusty on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
Well then tell me what is unbalanced about it..don’t just toss it out there, lay out your talking points about what is missing from the article.
after you get back of course. I have to lay down, my back is killing me.
By Craig R. Harmon on Sep 28, 2006 | Reply
What’s unbalanced????
I’ll type slowly so you won’t miss it this time:
one supporter, five detractors.
84 words for, 550 words against.
One detractor rebuts the only defender’s argument while nobody gets to speak to the detractors’ arguments.
This is nothing new. I mentioned it in the post. I repeated it in the comments. Twice. I don’t know what you read when you read my comments but how could you possibly read what I’ve written and ask what’s unbalanced about the report? For that matter, how could you read the report and ask what’s unbalanced about it?