Originally posted by A-MOLJust a quick question before I go off on a mad rant on another board (I might treat you too if you are 'lucky'), how credible a paper is the NY Sun and it's columnist, Mark Steyn?
Coming from a slightly older person and one west of the Hudson, I don't give a lot of credibility at all to anything out of liberal New York. The spin is too heavy for my views.
That being said, I guess if I were going to give creedence to a NYC papaer, the Sun would be at least 4th on my list. The Times is old and well-respected. When they did have a seeming problem with a writer, they censured him and did a little housecleaning. They may spin a little liberal, but I figure the news is there, you just gotta look for it. I'm thinking the London Times is the same way.
Now, on the other hand, the Post, the Sun, and to a lesser extent, the Daily News, practice tabloid journalism. Sensationalism to sell newsprint. Would they stretch the news, lie on the news or make up stories to sel papers? I think so. I put the Post and the Sun just this side of the National Enquirer and The Star.
Probably a little harsh. But, when stuff happens, and I happen to be in that general direction, I want to see the Post and Sun to see what sensational headline they choose. So I am guilty of the same things they are
So when Steyn comes out with statements saying that anti-Bush protest in London this week are down to
the explosive European streak that remains implacably pro-Saddam, pro-Yasser, pro-jihad, pro-Taliban misogynist homophobes, pro-anyone as long as they're anti-American... As to the derangement of the crowd, they're impervious to reason.
is he deliberately looking to stir people the wrong way or is he just an ignorant tool?
...full of energy. Multi-orgasmic, if you will, in a cosmic sort of way."
When I was living in NY, I found that the Sun actually had pretty good local reporting, covering stories that weren't available elsewhere. Their editorials, however, were designed for those who thought that the Wall Street Journal weren't pro-Bush enough.
-MHM, winner of the 2000 Throwdown in Christmastown.
Mark Steyn writes for the National Post up here in Canada. This paper was started by Conrad Black with the express intent of bringing out a conservative paper to combat the nasty liberal bias in our media. If I'm not mistaken, Conrad started the New York Sun too a few years ago.
He's not a bad writer, and comes across as very intelligent, but he is rabidly conservative -- he toes the ideological party line to a T and likes to troll people with the kind of hyperbole A-Mol quoted. I would say he does have an established reputation as a editorialist though.
Originally posted by GavintzuMark Steyn writes for the National Post up here in Canada. This paper was started by Conrad Black with the express intent of bringing out a conservative paper to combat the nasty liberal bias in our media. If I'm not mistaken, Conrad started the New York Sun too a few years ago
First of all, you have to separate the editorial page from the news page when it comes to this stuff. For instance, the Wall Street Journal has a very right-wing editorial page (yes, yes, all you GOPers out there can correct me on how it's really moderate), but its news reporting is pretty middle-of-the-road. And when it comes to news reporting, I'm a firm believer that the biases (political and otherwise) in Newspapers lie in what stories they will or will not cover, not in whatever slight sping they might give the stories they do cover.
When it comes to editorials, you should really look at whether that particular writer is credible or not, not the page as a whole (especially since the writers are often syndicated). Just because Mona Charen, for example, has less credibility than Vince McMahon on the witness stand, doesn't mean that the Baltimore Sun doesn't (I think she's in there, I might be wrong). And anyway, editorials, almost by definition, aren't going to really be credible journalism in the classic sense of the word.
Anyway, my take on the NY papers, editorial pages aside:
Times - still very much the paper of record, and has the best international and national news out of the local papers by far. In terms of local news and (especially) feature sections, almost nausiatingly biased toward the Zabar's crowd (although an occasional gems sometimes sneaks through). Really, none of you red-meat conservatives out there can hate Upper West Siders more than I do, and reading the Times only makes it worse.
Newsday - second place for National and International reporting. Local news is usually Long Island based, so I don't read it much, but I have found good local stories (usually education related) there that aren't found in the other papers.
Daily News - my favorite rag. Good, basic, (mostly A.P.) stories on National and International stuff (with the exception of the occasional expose). Good local stories (and each borough gets its own in addition), and a decent amount of celebrity gossip. Format is focused on many stories - few words per story, which makes it a good pre-coffee, on the morning train paper.
Post - Read for sports only. It's almost all celebrity gossip at this point. What news stories it still has are pretty basic stuff, it's right-wing bias comes from the headlines (often which have little bearing on the story) and its editorial page. Even its "outraged voice of the normal new yorker" shtick that used to provide some entertainment is mostly gone. I have no idea why Murdoch keeps it when it just keeps losing money - his "more gossip, more right-wing editorials" strategy is pretty dumb in left-wing, celebrity-jaded New York.
Sun - I dig the Sun. It's very similar to the Washington Times in its "we exist to provide right-wing balance" justification for its extremely biased reporting, and it's got to stop putting stuff like "as the Times never covered" in its NEWS articles, but it does cover a lot of stuff - mostly locally - that mainstream press doesn't. It's very similar to the Village Voice in that regard, and in fact, surprisingly enough, a lot of Times you'll find a good story in only two papers - the Voice and the Sun.
The Journal - I hardly ever read the Journal, as I'm not much of a business guy, which is most of its original stuff. Crane's Business is a better read for the more interesting business stories (basically anything that would interest someone who doesn't work on Wall Street) anyway.
What makes America great is best expressed by your average 83-year-old Brooklynite. Everything else is just people wanting your vote.
Moe put it perfectly, don't confuse oped and the editorial board with news reporting. However, remember that all reporting is subjective and biased. My wife is a reporter and constantly strives for objectivity, but it can never exist for one simple reason. A reporter does the following: 1. Digs up or is assigned the story. Either way need editorial approval. 2. Determines credible sources and documentation. 3. Gathers information 4.. Determines what is relevant and factual. 5. Writes the story. 6. Passes it by the editor(s)
I am not attemptng to talk down to anyone but to point out one simple fact. Each of these steps requires subjective judgement. Throw in things like does this piss of any major advertisers or the publishers friends sorts of things. It is amazing that overall most reporting is pretty good. Very few reporters in the trenches make jack for pay. Most love what they are doing and/or are the crusading type out to help the world. The later explains why more "liberal" minds are attracted to it.
I only asked because the I thought that the microscope would really be tuned in on Lieberman on this issue. I suppose I would think the same thing if a Buddhist was in power and we were looking at Sri Lanka...