33 Comments

1. thinkingoutloud:

That’s funny, the ny times magazine *did* publish a cover article on that subject in 2004 by Matthew Klam. So maybe the problem wasn’t bias but just that they didn’t like your writing in this instance. it happens.

Jul 21, 2008 - 1:08 pm 2. srlucado:

Sorry to hear you were rejected…pearls before swine, dontcha know. (I hope it’s some comfort to know that your premise was correct.)

As to objectivity, I don’t expect it from anyone. What rankles me is when outlets such as the Times deny their biases. Who are they kidding–us or themselves?

My guess is that they’re kidding themselves. Their real job is to sell newspapers–and in view of the fact that ever fewer are being sold…well, buyers are catching on, while they remain as biased and hysterically self-righteous as ever.

Scott

Jul 21, 2008 - 1:23 pm 3. Alex Reed:

Here’s the thing though. At the rate Pinch is running The Times into the ground, he has to go all out to try to get Obama elected. That way, once The Obam is in the White House, he can make The Times the official rag of his new collectivist-for-some paradise, and shovel all those great state subsidies over to Pinch, who. in this light, maybe isn’t as entirely clueless as he looks after all….. No wait, I must be dreaming…..

Jul 21, 2008 - 1:23 pm 4. NRA Life Member:

Unlike this pile of crap disguised as a newspaper, I am a 100% believer in property rights, therefore, I have no problem with the NY Times exercising control over their property. They had better be prepared to deal with the consequences of their decision, as Alex and Srlucado have pointed out. The fact that this action adds unneeded proof to the obvious conclusion that the NY Times is nothing more than a pile of worthless and unreadable propaganda should come as no surprise to anyone with a pulse.

At what point does this so-called newspaper of record become known for what it really is: Pravda for leftists who are fluent in English. I saw a link the other day that they actually had to issue a correction for their Sports section, because they implied that the Yankees played in both leagues.

Stockholders revolt! You have nothing to lose but the red ink express to which you have chained yourselves.

Jul 21, 2008 - 1:49 pm 5. thinkingoutloud:

interesting that my earlier comment expressing skepticism about the post is ‘awaiting moderation’ while all these other ones post immediately…

Jul 21, 2008 - 2:03 pm 6. misanthropicus:

New York Times is an awful furuncle spewing opportunistic & cynical poison. I’ll quote here only one of their latest jobs - the releasing of the name of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s CIA interrogator, a CIA cover officer, obviously jeopardizing the agency’s work, demoralizing agents, and placing that person and his family in danger.
This is the same NYT which before printed 27 indignant stories about Valerie Plame and the sinister consequences of the disclosure of her job and name, all stories aiming to knock down Dick Cheney - and this when it was known that Valerie Plame HAD NEVER BEEN A CIA CLANDESTINE OFFICER (she was just a common employee). As far as the disclosure, that was done by a State dept. guy, Armitrage, who had a problem with the administration.
Cesspool for New York Times - and I cherish the agony.

Jul 21, 2008 - 2:24 pm 7. Jay:

“So it came as no surprise to me that the paper nixed John McCain’s view on Iraq, wanting him to explain what “victory” meant. (How risible is that after all this time!)”

Roger, in all fairness, I seem to remember a blog post you wrote about the difficulty of defining “victory” in Iraq in which you referenced Louis Armstrong to explain your fog. Also, your insistence that GWB and his partners will be “judged by history” is another indication that you keep having trouble with the question.

As long as our troops are fighting and dying in Iraq, shouldn’t the goals be clear, or are you content to let people be maimed and killed for abstractions?

Jul 21, 2008 - 2:26 pm 8. Captain Hate:

Maybe this was another educational moment for “Maverick” and his true friends at the NYT. This will probably help McCain since the MSM shilling for Kerry was only slightly more understated and Bush captured over 50% of the popular vote, something political “genius” Clenis couldn’t even manage against Bob Dole. The funny thing is that Pinch and his toadies are gushing red ink while compromising the few shreds of integrity they haven’t jettisoned. He must be counting on Alex Reed’s recovery scenario because everything else will be crash and burn. What a shame.

Jul 21, 2008 - 2:34 pm 9. Ripper:

Hey Roger if you want to get published by the Times in an op-ed piece just bash Israel like Woody Allen did back in January 1988.

Jul 21, 2008 - 2:41 pm 10. bob strawberry:

Just think of all the trees we will save when this biased rag goes out of business. Of course, I’ll have to use something else for the bottom of my bird cage. And the CIA will lose a valuable means of communication.

Jul 21, 2008 - 2:45 pm 11. Lem:

So it came as no surprise to me that the paper nixed John McCain’s view on Iraq, wanting him to explain what “victory” meant.

They nixed it because (unlike Obama) they know what McCain is going to say and they don’t like it. To the point where they couldn’t help themselves, they took a McCain speech and picked a comment out of context and try to make him sound like a fool.

http://tinyurl.com/56exnq

The NYT is already carrying water for Obama, The sooner we realize that the better.

Jul 21, 2008 - 3:54 pm 12. Roger L Simon:

Thinkingoutloud, if you scroll down you will see I am on vacation and not often near a computer. I approved your comments just as soon as I saw them. Thanks for sharing. And I agree: when insulting people, anonymity is always the way to go.

Jul 21, 2008 - 4:00 pm 13. Terrye:

Maybe they could define defeat and humiliation.

The NYT is supposed to give equal time to both candidates and let them say what they want. That is what ethical journalism is about.

Jul 21, 2008 - 4:43 pm 14. A. N. Pierson:

Roger, your old NYT piece under Soviet link was pretty amusing - a lot better than anything I’ve read in that paper lately.

Jul 21, 2008 - 4:56 pm 15. Bravo, Drudge! Free Speech for McCain! | The Anchoress:

[...] Pundit notes a pro-Hamas editorial that made the NY Times’ very selective cut. Ed Driscoll Roger L. Simon by TheAnchoress @ 5:35 pm. Filed under Alternative Media, America, Barack Obama, Dumb Democrat [...]

Jul 21, 2008 - 5:30 pm 16. thinkingoutloud:

Roger, I’m not really insulting you, I’m just pointing that since they *did* run a big piece the main point of which overlapped with your submission, the rejection might be because of relative quality of your work (or the perception thereof) rather than ideological bias. If they didn’t run your piece because you were speaking truths they were uncomfortable with, why did they run the Klam piece which also touched upon the same truths? Maybe because they actually thought it was a piece worth running, and didn’t feel that way about yours.

Anyone who writes for magazines and deals with editors gets rejected all the time. Not something to take personally.

Jul 21, 2008 - 6:54 pm 17. Victor Erimita:

Bias may be as American as apple pie. But the current flaking for Obama by the MSM is as craven and blatant as it has been in over half a century.

Jul 21, 2008 - 8:44 pm 18. schnargley:

The NYT Times editors rejected McCain’s piece for it’s so-called “lack of substance.” I think we all know what “substance” they want, for they wallow in it, breathe it, reak with its pungeant aromas, and devour it with horrific, unfathomable relish.

Jul 21, 2008 - 11:04 pm 19. Gary Rosen:

“Anyone who writes for magazines and deals with editors gets rejected all the time.”

Apparently not Obama.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:34 am 20. Alex Reed:

NRA Life Member,
I think you’ve defined the absolute crux of the quagmire (can a quagmire have a crux? probably not, but I sooo wanted to use it…..) in which The Times finds itself: it is no longer a newspaper in the traditional American sense of the word; it has become an outlet for marxist propaganda. Here I would add that there is a huge difference between “opinion” and “propaganda”. The rough and tumble history of American journalism is rife with strong opinions, a fine sign of a healthy democracy. Pinch has steered The Times into the ditch because, not only is there no longer any line of demarcation between news and opinion, there is no longer even a hint of impartiality in reporting the news: the actual “facts” of the news are either misrepresented, omitted, reported selectively, changed, or invented entirely, all to mislead and to fit the marxist agenda that the paper propagates. This is propaganda. This is not persuasion, it is deception. This is dishonest reporting. Lies passed off as truth in order to advance the agenda. Indoctrination in one guise or another on virtually every page of the paper. Agitprop lives. Welcome to the New World according to Pinch.

As for the tide of red ink on The Times balance sheet….. Pinch is fighting a losing rearguard action. He realizes that, with his shareholders, in the end, money talks. If he wants to keep his job and continue his good works at The Times, he has to keep those dividends flowing, and at the levels the family (especially) expects. There are no doubt other true believers amongst the Sulzberger family (who have the vast majority of the voting shares in the company) who agree with Pinch’s agenda for the paper. However, in the end, it is the healthy dividend checks that will keep him in his chair. Given the precipitous, no calamitous, drop in readership numbers, and advertising income for The Times, I can’t see how he continues to pay such high dividends. Now, I freely admit, I’m a mathematical idiot who doesn’t easily comprehend such things, but it seems to me that there might well be quite a bit of interesting material to be unearthed if an enterprising investigative reporter with a head for finance, perhaps from the Wall Street Journal?, were to take a careful look at the quarterly loaves and fishes dividend magic over at The Times. Just a thought…..

Jul 22, 2008 - 1:23 am 21. Lem:

Here is what the NY Times said about McCain when they endorsed him over their own fellow New Yorker, Mayor Giuliani.

With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

Granted, it was scarcely a resounding shout from the rooftops, but when has Obama done anything remotely resembling bipartisanship?

I don’t think the NYT cares to apply their own classifications and standards to Obama, because they know all too well he would fail to meet them.

So that only leaves them with one thing to do – deny McCain, by any means necessary.

Jul 22, 2008 - 7:33 am 22. Dr. Scott:

Why would anybody expect the Obama campaign to publish something written by McCain? That just doesn’t make any sense…

Jul 22, 2008 - 7:48 am 23. Lem:

Why would anybody expect the Obama campaign to publish something written by McCain?

Exactly.

Actually, it’s even better than a campaign – the Obama Times is not subject to any campaign finance disclosure laws.

The $1.25 people pay to buy the Obama Times, amounts to an undeclared campaign contribution.

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:31 am 24. jedrury:

Thinking out Loud:

Your conclusion is wrong on the Klam piece v. Roger’s submission.

The Klam piece, as I recall it, slammed the conservative blogs in that snarky Sunday Times way. Roger’s probably did not.

That the Times would demand McCain to define “victory”
is absurd. McCain is not some non entity but the GOP candidate for president. His views matter; the Times should not mold them in the political marketplace of ideas - regardless of content - to suit their readership or their political bent.

Jul 22, 2008 - 11:11 am 25. Anita Hope:

Giving the NYT any important time is ridiculous. They started out a freedom of speech information paper. However, times have changed and printing free speech and opinions in the NYT is a thing of the past and thus will be what terminates them in the business.
When a newspaper chooses to be selective in what they print and close the windows of who does the writing
for them they make the move towards failure caused by reducing the public reader from having an open mind to discuss or debate both sides. They now have the opportunity here by blogs and freedom of expression and as a former debator, seeing the newsprint fade is sad, however, just being able to type this and reach so many and read others opinions is great. We are all so lucky to expand our minds.

Jul 22, 2008 - 11:58 am 26. Lem:

It’s disingenuous for the NY Times to say it needs McCain to define “victory”, when any body with a minimum modicum of English could tell them an antonym to “victory” they are very much familiar with.

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:17 pm 27. tess mcneil:

That the Times would demand McCain to define “victory” is absurd.

Yes, heaven forbid a candidate for President lay out his view on the most pressing foreign policy issue of the moment.

Talk about elitist!

Jul 22, 2008 - 12:38 pm 28. Rubicon:

Bias or partisanship are not a problem. The “problem” comes when media outlets or “journalists” claim fairness while they overtly & covertly work to push an agenda.
In addition, the issue becomes despicable when media mix their views or agenda in with the news as though their agenda “is” the news.
This is why the New York Times & other media organizations are losing out. Add to this their failure to embrace or even acknowledge the existence or potential of an alternative method & you have a recipe for failure.
The NYT has become so “in the tank” for leftist ideology, that when they publish almost anything, their liberal position is an integral element of the subject.
The NYT wants the world to believe not only that they are not biased, but that all surely must agree with them, or they surely must be uneducated, stupid, & heartless, conservative, religionists, whose false deity has clouded their ability to think!
The internet has proven beyond doubt that the NYT is not only expendable, for many, they feel it will be a good thing when the NYT is expended.
That they lose money, yet pay the family dividends, proves to many the NYT are not only biased, they are bad managers!
One guy I spoke to the other day said, “bleeding to death what was once an icon of America, would be a sin, if they were not so pretentious about themselves. Not only are they wrong, they are totally wrong.”

Jul 22, 2008 - 2:27 pm 29. Captain Hate:

I just did a search on the Uni-bama’s original op-ed for the word “victory”: Nada.

Jul 22, 2008 - 3:40 pm 30. jedrury:

Tess:

Your Times snarkiness shows through.

For the Times to demand McCain to define “victory” is absurd because victory is simple; defeat the insurgents, crush Al Qaeda, leave behind a viable functioning political system and a military capable of handling any insurgency uprising.

For you to believe that the Times really wanted that definition as a precondition is fiction; it denied McCain the privilege it granted Obama for specious reasons because for the leftist Times it so damn hard to give any conservative, moderate or Bushian, any space on its op ed page; Kristol and that milk toast David Brooks are token enough.

Jul 22, 2008 - 5:07 pm 31. bob m:

Lem, re your Jul 22, 2008 - 9:31 am comment:

the NYT is being consistent. They endorsed McCain over Giuliani because they believe that of the Repubs, he would put in place more of the policies they prefer, by working bipartisonly across the aisle. They endorsed Obama over McCain because he would put in place even more.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:00 pm 32. Alex Reed:

The Times just reported today that their second quarter earnings were down 82% since last year! Times CEO, Janet L. Robinson, didn’t see any hope on the horizon for the rest of 2008, and maybe not until the end of 2009. Earth to Ms. Robinson, sadly, at this rate, The Times will be kaput long before then. And I am entirely sincere when I say “sadly”, because The Times was once a great newspaper. Check out this smart article by Joe Bercovici at Portfolio, and there’s more in The Financial Times.

The newsstand price of the paper is being hiked (for the second time within a year) another $.25 to $1.50 for the daily timesian experience come mid-August. When an analyst on the second-quarter earnings call this morning asked whether the price hike would mean $10 million more in earnings, The Times’ CFO, Roland Caputo (any relation to Neil?), gave the most wonderfully timesian answer: “It’s a bit more nuanced than that…..”. He went on to say (when the laughter died down?) that, “contractual obligations with wholesalers” would curtail the amount of the increase that would actually end up in The Times’ till. Huh? There may be good financial reasoning in this move, but being a dull-witted non-reader of The Times, all I see is desperation to extract whatever pennies are possible from any direction to offset the tide of red ink.

Remember, they hoped to navigate out of their little problem by axing, sorry, downsizing the newsroom by 100 souls with buyouts and then layoffs. They had projected that the buyouts would cost $30 or $35 million. Now it looks to cost more like $40 to $50 million. All these moves are desperately defensive, the actions of a company going down the tubes.

Pinch is giving upbeat interviews here and there. One puff piece in Ad Age quoted an nameless (of course) Times reporter who opined, “The fecklessness of the Bancrofts reflected that Arthur had sharp values. …. He may not be a business visionary, but he is stalwart in a way that they were not.” Well, the last time I looked, the Bancrofts et al are still counting their $5 Billion plus, the whole Dow Jones organization, and most visibly The Wall Street Journal, have been getting into good fighting trim, getting more lively and limber, expanding, and generally working up a fine appetite to eat Pinch’s lunch. I would be surprised if the Times shareholders are quite such a happy bunch in the face of their ever-shrinking prospects.

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:32 pm 33. Alex Reed:

The middle of The End?

“Credit Watch with negative implications.” That’s Standard & Poor’s speak for, “The End is nigh,” and that’s the rating they gave The New York Times late Wednesday. It means they’re just a step away from tagging The Times credit rating as non-investment or “junk” status. Read it here in Silicon Alley Insider, and weep for the slide of a once-great newspaper into the Styx.

Jul 25, 2008 - 2:28 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: