In response to:

Doing the Research the New York Times Won't Do

rwilco Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 7:33 AM
Why does anyone who has the ability to think quote the NYT? There is no truth in the rag. I would never waste a second reading it even if I found it on a table in Starbucks. It is nothing but cat litter. The writers for NYT are anencephalic; those are who the rag hires. They are a borg--a nonthinking continually lying borg. NYT does not report news; it reports what it thinks the liberal proles who read it should think as they are part of the borg and incapable of cogent thought. If normal people would ignore the rag, it would disappear.
everyonesfacts4usall Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 7:47 AM
Umm, then why are you reading anyone on TH. You can assume that anyone in news or opinion reads it. I find people that comment like you do, read as you do . . . in other words, you have never read it. A challenge to you and your ilk would be to read it for a week and see how much of what you read gels with what you wrote above. Methinks, not so much.
Rock Strongo Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 8:32 AM
What, are you selling subscriptions or something?

The NYT is a leftist rag that long ago gave up even the pretense of objectivity (and yes, I read it all of the time, just to see how slanted the "news" stories are, and what fresh idiocy is being conjured up by Krugman, Friedman, Dowd, et al.)
absinthe48 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 8:40 AM
I read the NYT everyday, and I like it. But the internet has broken the monopoly that the New York media once had on the manufacture of public opinion, as Walter Lippmann used to describe the job of the journalist. There are now manifold sources of information. Each source must be read for the bias it contains, but everyone, always, has had an agenda. That includes the Times, whose bias is for a world government governed by a mid-Atlantic coterie based primarily in New York and London. Russian and French media are well worth attending to.
Marie150 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 8:44 AM
everyonesfacts4usall Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 2:14 PM
Absinthe that might be the bias of the editorial board, but not the news division.

In Sunday's New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, "More Guns = More Killing." She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.

There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John...