Yesterday Limbaugh discussed how the New York Times published a piece criticizing Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", quickly connected the dot of how amazing this was since the NYT's is a liberal media outlet, then, stated, he suspected the Clintons were behind having the article published, to diminish Gore's chances at running for President.
This is absurd. Being a reader of the New York Times, I have found their reporting, on the whole, balanced and thoughtful, not some rantonous liberal rag. The article discussing Inconvenient Truth is attached below, it, is, a balanced and fair, but with a critical eye, piece of jounalism.
The new york times chief editors, or those that select stories to print, are not coerced to run stories on behalf of the Clintons.
In fact, an editorial was printed two weeks ago was highly critical of, in their words, "the junior senator from New York". Limbaugh has created myths, that sadly, neoconservatives buy into and are entertained by.
2007-03-16
01:49:44
·
22 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?ex=1331438400&en=2df9d6e7a5aa6ed6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
2007-03-16
01:51:08 ·
update #1
Anger wrapped inside of cliche wrapped inside of little minds, conservatives, unamerican and uninformed.
2007-03-16
02:01:56 ·
update #2
No one critical here is actually commenting on the issue at hand
2007-03-16
02:02:41 ·
update #3
Rush Limbaugh is a baiter and has plenty of people duped true however, we are talking politics and the election cycle is in spinning up quickly. Nothing surprises me when it comes to someone trying to get an elected position!
Remember VooDoo economics? The person that spoke those words became the Vice President of the United States. Further, he was the running mate of the very person who's policies he criticized! Nothing is sacred when it comes to getting elected!
We don't need any more family dynasties controlling the most important office in the world. Weather the last name be Clinton or Bush.
The Clinton's getting an article published in the NY Times to stick it to Gore? It's certainly possible. You must remember, during the Clinton presidency, there were anti-drug messages added to television shows that were paid for by the Clinton administration.
Was that a bad thing? Not really however, it does prove convert methods were used by Clinton to advance policy.
2007-03-16 01:54:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Funny how you chicken littles can run around and say the sky is falling, and when anyone dares tell you that it has not yet been proved, or even logically supported by real, non paid-for-by-lib-grant-money evidence, you scream for censorship in the name of "it's a consensus we don't want to debate it anymore cause our guys say it's so and your guys don't count". I heard about the report on Rush's show and guess what I read it myself so I could independently judge for myself. After forcing myself to actually contribute to the hit-count of that rag, I actually thought it was biased, but not the way you did. I suppose they thought they had to print it to make themselves look sort-of balanced, but I found a piece of work that still downplayed the actual evidence of a primarily natural cause to any warming, and an effort to lessen the importance of much evidence that conflicts with algore and his socialist eurobuddies. This whole argument comes down to "how much can we damage America's economy and how much wealth can we transfer away from Americans and into the hands of socialists and tin-pot dictators.
2007-03-16 09:29:16
·
answer #2
·
answered by boonietech 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sorry my friend, but anyone who can say, with a straight face, that the NYT is '...balanced and thoughtful' in their political reportage is terribly misguided, and, frankly, blinded by their own bias.
The Times has become a blatant mouthpiece for liberalism in general and Mrs Clinton in particular.
Their reporting on the Iraq situation , illegal immigration, and anything to do with the current administration is anything BUT balanced or thoughtful.
BTW I am NOT a 'neoconservative' (actually, I have yet to hear anyone explain exactly what that is!).
I am an Independant - I don't agree with everything this admin does, but the Times is simply monotonous in its antiBush, pro-liberal coverage - there is no sense of fairness or accuracy - just a preconcieved political point of view that is hammered home in every situation, regardless of the facts of the story.
It is sad, but that once-great paper continues to disgrace itself because of their unwavering bias.
2007-03-16 09:10:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by Garrett S 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
I have listen to Limbaugh occasionally and I have found him very entertaining he does state that he is bias and tells you who he supports.
He states that liberals enlarge do not have a sense of humor because he uses satire a lot and most liberals don't get it. I will give you an example he made up a satire about UPS outsourcing their driving fleet to foreign interest outside the US, well a few days later Larry King had the CEO of UPS on his show asking him if there is any thruth to rumor that he his outsourcing driver jobs.
It was quite funny because if Larry King had use a little logic he would realize the absurdity of it. (satire)
2007-03-16 09:12:21
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ynot! 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
The editorial pages of the New York times are nothing but liberal (unless they get an op-ed from someone outside of the staff). Excluding the Wall-street journal the majority of major US papers are that way.
Am I supposed to believe that the people who manage the paper (the editors writing the editorials) do not pick and choose which stories are run based on their idealogy?
Rush is a conservative, but you know that upfront, and to me thats the more honest approach.
As far as Rush lemmings certainly they exist, but sounds like you might be a NY Times lemming.
2007-03-16 09:07:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by tarnefar 2
·
3⤊
1⤋
Why do you care about Rush's opinion of the NY Times?
They're publishing it because liberals eat their own.
I actually am beginning to take a liking to Al Gore, given that he's been slammed by PETA for eating meat.
2007-03-16 09:20:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by MoltarRocks 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
How many times are you going to post the same thing on here today. Got a one-track mind, do ya? Face it, the New York times is a liberal rag and your defense is not going to change that.
2007-03-16 09:11:50
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
If NYT is so great, How do you explain the lies they printed about the Illegal immigrants in Mass.
They printed undocumented reports, just because they bashed the current adminstration...
they are supposed to be a respectable news source..
of course... I can't stand Rush myself... if I hear "Talent on loan for Gawd" one more time, I'll puke.
2007-03-16 08:54:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by J-Rod on the Radio 4
·
4⤊
0⤋
Liberals always think that the liberal media is balanced. You'll find tons of cons that think Fox news is balanced. People seem to notice the bias less when it supports their own views. Unfortunately, contrary to you opinion, the NYT leads the pack in liberal bias.
2007-03-16 09:01:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by VoodooPunk 4
·
3⤊
1⤋
Your question at the top says it all...Limbaugh is NOT a journalist...he's a commentator, posing as a journalist. Under the Freedom of Speech, he has every right to voice his opinion, and as he has been hired to do so, I suppose he has a responsibility to do it. What is important is that people who listen - and those that criticize - REALIZE that he is not providing NEWS, he is giving his opinion. BIG DIFFERENCE! Same goes for much of Fox.
America needs to see the difference between commentary and newscasting...and choose their vehicle for information and entertainment carefully. One is very different from the other...
2007-03-16 08:55:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Super Ruper 6
·
1⤊
2⤋