|
 |
June 07, 2003 NEW YORK TIMES ROUNDUP....Jim Henley has this to say about the New York Times:
Of course it does, Jim. I've come to realize that the Times isn't really a newspaper at all, it's the perfect political Rorschach test: just ask someone to read a copy, note down what they mumble irritably about, and then take the mirror image. That's their political leaning. Of course, there's little doubt that Times reporters really do trend pretty liberal socially, but I wonder if conservatives realize how lucky they are that this is so? (Aside from giving them a good punching bag, of course.) I figure that the mostly Southern, mostly rural, mostly Christian mega-conservatives — the rightmost 15% or so of the country — that are covered so poorly by the Times are actually a pretty scary bunch to most Americans. So while it's true that Times reporting of this group might indeed be rare and condescending, that's actually better than being frequent and enthusiastic. If they got the coverage they deserved, Republicans probably wouldn't win another election for the next 50 years. Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds, offering the Times some otherwise interesting advice, says, laughably:
Are its critics really so blinded that they are under the impression that the Times is just some provincial broadsheet desperately trying to get some recognition in the world? How about a little perspective here? As for me, I hope the Times doesn't cave in to its right wing critics. Over at RealClear Politics, for example, John McIntyre says that the problem is that the Times has "drifted from the center-left to the hard-left," using a definition of "hard-left" that seemingly includes anyone who thought we should give UN inspectors more time in Iraq. There are damn few combative liberal voices left in the mainstream American press, and I hope the Times holds onto what's left of the ones it has. If they cave in, who's left? Posted by Kevin Drum at June 7, 2003 04:14 PM | TrackBackComments
Mr. McIntyre has lost all ability to think critically, it would appear. If you read a little further down the page he accuses the Dems of using military kids as political props in the tax credit fiasco, and also accuses Gore of using military absentee votes in Florida of the same thing. If memory serves, it was the Republicans using those absentee votes as a huge issue in the recounts, not the Dems. Is that the new requirement for membership in the Republican hard-right? "Come right in; check your brains at the door. You won't be needing them here." Posted by: Linkmeister at June 7, 2003 04:25 PM | PERMALINKOther than Krugman, it seems hard to find any consistant criticism of Bush in the Times (from what I've seen, but I don't read it every day - I prefer my city's paper, the Boston Globe...oddly enough, owned by the Times Co), and there's Safire to balance that out, right? The only consistant bias I can find in the mainstream media these days is towards ratings... Posted by: JoeF at June 7, 2003 04:30 PM | PERMALINKThere seem to be an awful lot of Americans who don't understand how far left "hard left" is. Has American politics really shifted that far right? The NYT will be hard-left the minute it starts advocating the common ownership of the means of production, and a socialist world revolution to accomplish it. Posted by: Keith at June 7, 2003 04:34 PM | PERMALINK"just ask someone to read a copy, note down what they mumble irritably about, and then take the mirror image. That's their political leaning." This has been confirmed experimentally. Vallone, Ross and Lepper (1985) - "The hostile media phenomenon": In the experiment they selected six news segments covering the Beirut massacre in 1982, and showed them to 144 Stanford students with varying initial views about the Middle East, some of them recruited from the pro-Israeli and pro-Arab associations. After viewing the videotape the students were asked to report their perceptions of the fairness and objectivity of the news program they had viewed. Hastorf and Cantril (1954) "They Saw a Game" is in a similar vein. (Got both studies from "The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making" by Scott Plous.) Posted by: taktile at June 7, 2003 04:48 PM | PERMALINKToo many liberals fail to give credit to the NYT for trying to report stories right. Yes, there are huge problems, but you will not find another paper writing visionary multi-part front page stories on AIDS in Africa just because it's important with the full knowledge that the stories will be expensive to write and won't draw in additional readers. Posted by: MattS at June 7, 2003 05:23 PM | PERMALINKThe pathetic thing about so much of the right-wing times-bashing is how selective it is. Any truly detailed analysis of the times on a sustained basis - i've engaged conservative friends in this very exercise - demonstrates Kevin's (and apparently the research's) point. Which is to say that the times is a pretty flawed enterprise. but it's a better enterprise, in aggregate, than any of the others out there, because news reporting is a very problematic profession at best. The demonization of the times as the left-listing enterprise driven by howell raines has never been rooted in fact. it is merely a device by the right to lessen the influence of the times, a game that the right plays exceptionally skillfully. Posted by: howard at June 7, 2003 05:31 PM | PERMALINKI have always thought that the liberal bias in the news is really objectivity. Don't get me wrong I am not claiming all news reporting achieves anything like objectivity. But the intent and stated purpose of news is to be objective. A true conservative (small "c") can't really be objective because, by definition, everything worth knowing is already known. Broadmindedness and tolerance of things that are different is impossible if you aren't open to anything new. But that is what "news" is. It is trying to see both sides of the truth in a set of circumstances without prejudice, even if it is completely againt your personal beliefs. If a reader confuses that lack of bias with the reporters personal beliefs and interprets it as approval it would look very much like "liberal bias." Posted by: pamur at June 7, 2003 06:43 PM | PERMALINKI think that the "liberal bias" claim is the most brilliant pieces of propaganda in the latter half of the 20th century. Liberals favor the weak, the oppressed, especially those systematically, unfairly so, and even cognitively favor those people and their ideas. Conservatives spun themselves off as being systematically, unfairly oppressed, causing, in an unthinking knee-jerk reaction, liberalism to self-destruct. Of course, when Rush Limbaugh calls you biased, that's a joke, but it fit in so nicely that people took it seriously. And it was infinitely appealing to conservatives -- now you've got a self-flattering way to cognitively dispose of anything you don't like. The confirmation bias is so obvious. But it put people on the defensive, and they didn't push back. Posted by: taktile at June 7, 2003 07:09 PM | PERMALINKYeah, I've always thought the conservative attack on the Times was being done at some semi-subtle lizard brain level, where the people doing that realize that if they get the most prominent left wing newspaper in the country to even be a little less left, then the center of the country will shift a little further to the right. I say bullshit to that. It's what I like to call Mara Liason Disease. If you've got Mara and Ghengis Kahn having a debate, well by-gum the moderate, Jim Leher sponsored position will be somewhere in the middle. "Ok, it's obvious both of you want to have a better world. So Ghengis, you can agree that sacking and destruction will be limited to 5 days a week, and Mara, in the interests of fairness, you agree that all prisoners will be impaled on spikes. Reasonable." That's an actual, factual quote from Leher. That debate really wasn't pretty. Stop! Leher! Now! Exclamation! Mark! In all seriousness, that's the game that's being played. When Instasullykaus swarm like bugs on Brit Hume, well, that'll be the day, won't it? Posted by: SamAm at June 7, 2003 07:15 PM | PERMALINKWilliam Safire, Trostkyite. Bill Keller, Marxist/Leninist. Judith Miller, Weather Underground. Nicholas Christof, committed atheist. Paul Krugman, communist. Maureen Dowd, Fidelista. Bob Herbert, Black Panther. Frank Rich, radical lesbian separtist. Posted by: tristero at June 7, 2003 08:08 PM | PERMALINKJeff Gerth se dice "Viva la Raza!" Jayson Blair might have even been in Massachusetts at one point. You know, if he came out against affirmative action, he'd have a job with Human Events or World Net Daily in seconds. Posted by: jesse at June 7, 2003 08:56 PM | PERMALINKThe bizarre thing is that, generally, standards for journalistic accuracy are quite low. The NYT had its share of problems, but what is really jarring is that other newspapers are more liable to suffer from innacurate reporting than the NYT and that we accept this as "the cost of doing business." Back about 10 years ago, all of the NY-metro area papers reported a story involving a member of my family. What was astounding was that all of the papers except the NYT got a number of facts wrong in the stories. The only thing I can assume about the Times is that (a) they had a good day that day, or (b) standards at the Times have gone down far enough to match most other newspapers. Posted by: Dean at June 7, 2003 10:25 PM | PERMALINKI think that the biggest failure here is the misunderstanding between bias and belief; the NYT has always had a belief in socially progressive causes and this is in a large part what has driven it to become the paper it is. Belief is different however from bias and the New York times has come under increasing pressure to acknowledge this. This isn’t a new thing; in the past the NYT recognised the importance of news and opinion separation. The dilemma has however only been brought to the fore now because of competitive market forces; the NYT is far better placed to provide accurate news than any right wing blogs. The blogs however are in a competitive market that ensures far better opinion. Posted by: Giles at June 7, 2003 10:26 PM | PERMALINK"I figure that the mostly Southern, mostly rural, mostly Christian mega-conservatives — the rightmost 15% or so of the country — that are covered so poorly by the Times are actually a pretty scary bunch to most Americans." Who do you think are more scary to "most Americans" - the rightmost 15% or the leftmost 15%? I would put a lot of money on the leftmost 15%... Posted by: Al at June 7, 2003 10:27 PM | PERMALINKI seriously doubt that. You'd have to go to the leftmost 1.5%, maybe, to find Americans who really want to nationalize the means of production and call everyone 'comrade'. The far left in this country goes about as far as being against animal testing and wanting to change US foreign policy. That's nothing like as frightening as the Rightmost 15%, who basically want to bring back the Middle Ages, and are not afraid to plant bombs to prove it. Posted by: craigie at June 8, 2003 12:39 AM | PERMALINKActually, I'd wager that the far left these days are mostly anti-globalization anarchist types. Posted by: JoeF at June 8, 2003 02:53 AM | PERMALINKAnyone who is more afraid of a few peacenicks than they are of "Aryan" militias is probably too far gone to know whether the NYT is biased. Journalism in America is not in a very good state right now, but it's always had a bit of a conservative bias. Most reporters are socially liberal, but if you really went down the list of what issues are covered in the newsmedia and how they are covered, you might begin to notice that liberal positions generally get pretty shortshrift. As I've noted before, even during the big healthcare debate of the '90s, virtually no one was advocating single-payer (unless you count Tom Tomorrow) - universal healthcare was treated as pretty far-left pie-in-the-sky. Yet more than two-thirds of Americans were saying they would have been happy to pay more in taxes to get something like an NHS-style system. It's quite clear that mainstream America was far to the left of the newsmedia (never mind the politicians). The only reason the "partial-birth" scam has any traction is that the media makes very little effort to explain that the claims made about late-term abortion are just plain false. "Even the liberal New York Times" reported that the Computer Decency Act would suppress pornography, and I can't say I saw much in that paper expaining that (a) it would do much more than that and (b) there is no known danger from seeing pornography in the first place. It's a rare day that one sees anything about effective prison rehabilitation programs (except for the assumption that there's no such thing as rehabilitation - a conservative canard that flies in the face of thousands of years of human history). 50 years ago the media was liberal enough that it at least discussed some of these things. And, not unpredictably, Americans tended to support the loosening of restraints on pornography and to oppose the death penalty. The media has clearly moved to the right, and on many issues brought the public with them. However, even today, most people still support universal healthcare; the newspapers still show no signs of taking this seriously. I'd say the NYT is better than most papers, and probably less illiberal, too, but that makes them neither liberal nor unbiased. In the main, they tend to reflect the biases of people who are socially liberal but who know a lot less than they ought to, having received too many of their prejudices from right-wing media. Posted by: Avedon at June 8, 2003 04:53 AM | PERMALINKConservatives are so much better at "working the refs" than liberals. We are terrified of offending someone, of being taken on by the Wurlitzer. Conservatives fear nothing. Posted by: MattB at June 8, 2003 05:52 AM | PERMALINKI was going to object, guys, to some of the nonsense peddled above,
especially Kevin's view that all except the morally superior minority,
those exactly like himself, are "scary". He refers to 15%, but do we
think he really means anything under, say, 90%? Apparently Richard has the power to read Kevin's mind and tell him
what he *really* means. After all, its so easy to say something
substantiative, its so very challenging to properly attack someone ad
hominem and accuse them of having the wrong psychological motivations... I'd like to correct a misimpression. Henley wasn't even talking about the NYT in that quote. He was answering my response to one of his rants on Iraq. Henley's rant in turn was based on stories from MSNBC and the Washington Post. You can find my initial remarks here. Caution: it's a long piece, and the relevant parts are some way down. My riposte to the passage quoted by CalPundit can be found in a subsequent post, here. Posted by: Alan Sullivan at June 8, 2003 06:02 AM | PERMALINKSee, it is this complete disconnect with reality that I don't understand. Kevin on the far left 10%? Posted by: Rob at June 8, 2003 06:05 AM | PERMALINK"He refers to 15%, but do we think he really means anything under, say, 90%?" That's a question only "we" can answer. Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer at June 8, 2003 06:53 AM | PERMALINKYeah, if we only accepted Richard Aubrey's counseling we'd be doing fine, even though it would still go without saying that everything we say is false. To me the scariest people on the right -- except for the neo-Nazis and the anti-abortion terrorists, of course -- are the Armageddon Christians who support Israel so that the end of the world will come quicker. Not that I'm really worried that the seven-headed dragon will rise from the sea, but in my opinion people who think that way shouldn't be part of the foreign policy debate. (Does this make me an anti-Christian bigot?) A point I have to keep making is that right-wingers have killed a lot of people in the last twenty years, and the "eco-terrorists" and anti-globalists have killed exactly NONE. No matter how much you see them on TV, how weird they look, and no matter how much you hate them, they aren't killing people. (You can name Kaczynski if you want, but he was on the record as hating feminists and radicals -- an environmentalist Rush Limbaugh.) My guess is that Aubrey does live in the TV reality, which is indeed full of frightening leftists. Posted by: zizka at June 8, 2003 09:03 AM | PERMALINKThe links I provided above seem not to work. Here are the URLs: Sorry about the confusion. I'm new to MT (as you can tell from those archive #s), and I haven't used comment boards very much. Posted by: Alan Sullivan at June 8, 2003 09:06 AM | PERMALINKThere's a good post at popandpolitics.com about the NY Times. Posted by: casadelogo at June 8, 2003 09:19 AM | PERMALINKRichard Aubrey subtext puncturing: I was going to make a substantive argument to refute Kevin's statement, but then I realized that I couldn't. So I'll string together a few nonsensical rants about "leftists," equate Mr. Drum's squishy moderate Democratic politics with Lenin and Trotsky, and call it a day. Posted by: MuseZack at June 8, 2003 10:47 AM | PERMALINKKevin might be squishy, or he might be something else, but he surely does want us to know how morally superior he is. Regarding newsmedia bias and partisanship If polls of the biggest media sources, such as the big three TV networks, newsweekly magazines, and NYT/WP/LAT showed that over 80% of the reporters and editors vote democratic and lean left on hot button social issues such as abortion and gun control... ...why do I get the feeling you folks here bouncing around in a left-wing echo chamber would call such a phenomenom evidence of the newsmedia being 'centrist'? I suppose the basic 50/50 split of power reflected in election results in America is due to right wing rigging of the vote, eh? After twenty years of gagging on the media monopoly which preened with false claims of fairness and objectivity, what a liberating relief it was for me to hear voices of opposition spring up in talk radio, the internet, and cable television. Now that the right and Republicans have an outlet to the national audience, it doesn't matter that the left still has a grip on the largest audience media powers, just the fact that the monopoly has broken is enough to carry the day. Free at last! Thank God! Posted by: Brad at June 8, 2003 03:06 PM | PERMALINKRemember, Richard, Gore got more votes than Bush. So we don't hate everybody. Kevin is probably more moderate than Bush, too. Sorry if Kevin's moral superiority bothers you, you poor little victim. You might clean up your act instead of whining, though. Brad, get involved in reality. Was the fraudulent coverage of the Clinton impeachment left-wing? What about the free ride that the cokehead AWOL candidate got while Gore was being chopped to pieces for supposed lies? Abortion and gun control are centrist issues, Brad. Many Republicans take what you think of is the "left" position here. Talk radio and TV talk shows aren't liberal, moderate, fair, balanced, or accurate. If you find relief in that, God bless your sorry ass. Posted by: zizka at June 8, 2003 03:23 PM | PERMALINKZizka Thanks for living the sterotype and confirming every claim I made about the left wing mindset. Posted by: Brad at June 8, 2003 03:38 PM | PERMALINKbrad, i can't for the life of me understand why right-wingers think it's so all fired definitive to cite statistics about how newspaper reporters vote. First, as memory serves, the stat is fairly bogus. It represents a very small sample. Second, what kind of reductionist thinking is it that assumes, even if the statistic is true, that results in "liberal bias?" If the people who grew up to become newspaper reporters and editors wanted to be activists - well, they'd have become activists. If they wanted to be politicians or work for politicians - that's where they'd have directed their career path. they became reporters and editors because they were interested in the news, and do their best, every day, in a highly demanding, charged, and difficult profession, to get the story. they do lots of things wrong and foolishly and misguidedly, no question. but if you want to prove that what they do is display "liberal bias," then you, like, actually have to show "liberal bias," not make silly extrapolations from incomplete data sets. Truly showing "liberal bias" means that you can't just behave like the Bush administration on iraq and cherrypick your favorite anecdotes. It means you have to spend the time to read the thousands and thousands of words that even one newspaper publishes every week and subject them, in toto, to honest analysis. if and when you do - and i've done this, to challenge conservative friends caught up with the "liberal bias" delusion - you'll discover that what kevin said in the original posting (and what taktile cited actual research about) is true: there's plenty wrong with newspaper coverage, but it's wrong in all directions. people who insist that it's only "liberal" bias (as opposed, just to cite a few, to "conventional story" bias, "don't criticize your peers" bias, "protect your sources" bias, "on the one hand, on the other" bias, and, of course, "conservative" bias which is constantly present in the mere selection of stories every day) are telling us about themselves, not about the meida. Posted by: howard at June 8, 2003 06:21 PM | PERMALINKHoward, you have a good point. Howard I doubt anything I could post here in the time and space limitations of CalPundit's comments section could convince you. But... The single strongest and simplest evidence of media bias I could show is the wildly unfair coverage that the big threes, ABC/CBS/NBC, NYT/WP/LAT, Time/Newsweek/USNews have given the gun issue. My personal experience has demonstrated to me how even a blatant hoax printed on the front page would not be retracted when I confronted a newspaper with the truth. When such deception falls right in line with the editorial page stance, of course the the paper was biased and agenda driven. And this is just one sample, albeit the worst, of many examples I have witnessed of bias. Hell even TIme magazine has come right out and admitted they give biased agenda driven coverage to the gun issue. Even Alterman who wrote the book 'What liberal media?', grudgingly admits the news profession is biased regarding social issues. (the hoax story was the so-called 'Black-Rhino' ammo, which was a handgun bullet with the magical ability to not only penetrate body armor, but also expand explosively once inside the target) Posted by: Brad at June 8, 2003 07:10 PM | PERMALINKI don't think you're going to make much headway with the Black Rhino story, Brad. Brad and Richard, I'll let you guys be the last ones standing. I don't see that you've made any points, though. You're just repeating cliches that were refuted some time ago. I don't know dick about black Rhino. so maybe you're right about that one. It doesn't even seem to be a big issue to the other trolls, because they never bring it up. Posted by: zizka at June 8, 2003 10:12 PM | PERMALINKBrad/Richard - you both seem saner than the typical Times-bashers, but unfortunately, you're still both playing by Bush rules - cherrypicking the stories you love best. Let me pretend for a moment (and that's what it is) that I accept your examples, although richard, that's not how I remember the arctic story (i remember andy doing conniptions and backflips to prove that in some areas of the arctic, temperatures weren't as bad as the times claimed) and brad, i honestly don't know the "black rhino" story. but let's accept them. so what? My challenge to you is that if you want to prove "liberal bias," you've got to do the sustained analysis of the total newspaper, not tell me about a couple of stories. i'll see your two stories without even having to think about it: the times still has never apologized and/or retracted the inept reportage of jeff gerth on whitewhater, and has never apologized and/or retracted its part in the slime-Al-Gore-by-telling-false-stories program. And that doesn't prove anything either, other than two can play at the cherrypicking game. you do raise two potentially more significant issues. The first is Eric Alterman. let's dispose of that quickly. i personally disagree with him on that point, but i'll tell you what: i'll concede that point if you'll concede everything else that alterman wrote. the second is the ever-elusive, always popular "it's a matter of mindset." I appreciate that human beings assign, write, and edit the news, as well as make choices about where to place a story, how long the story should be, whether a photo should run with it, what kind of follow-up, and that therefore, being only human, they will make choices that, ultimately, are based upon their impression of what the best choice is, not upon some empirical standard. it's a long way from there to saying that every choice reflects a "liberal" bias. I am a person of the left, and believe me, i have every bit as long a list of complaints about those choices and the mindset of those who make them as you do, simply from a differing perspective. that's why kevin's original post is correct. P.S. the detroit free press story, richard, i'm afraid is meaningless, and the "unfair adjectives" story has been debunked, so we won't waste any more time on them, ok? Posted by: howard at June 8, 2003 10:17 PM | PERMALINKHoward
I've heard that Alterman seemed so far out that he even made Jon Stewart roll his eyes. If you truly believe that even Alterman doesn't go far enough for you, I'm confident no amount of evidence from me will convince you of anything. So this is my last post to you on this matter. I will credit you with some more civility than is typical from the left end of the web. What does it say though that I know about Alterman and his book, but the 'Black Rhino' hoax is a mystery to you. If you care to look, google 'Black Rhino ammo', it's easy to find. Posted by: Brad at June 8, 2003 11:06 PM | PERMALINKHoward, you keep missing the point. First, the Detroit story is
interesting because an editor said we self-censor, we do it deliberately
and here's why. The "why" is part of the issue. Richard Aubrey says "there are a number" of "liberals" who will say anything so long as it supports their cause, but do we think he really means anything under, say, 99.99999 of all people who disagree with him about anything? Posted by: Jeffrey Kramer at June 9, 2003 06:35 AM | PERMALINKThe Times feels a bit soulless to me, and it has some deeply significant blind spots (US foreign policy errors, for one). That is why I'll say that the UK Independent is the world's best English-language newspaper these days, even if the NYT has greater newsgathering capacities, as I'm sure it does. Posted by: John Isbell at June 9, 2003 07:25 AM | PERMALINKBrad, no, really, Jon Stewart "rolled" his eyes, you've heard? well, that settles everything, doesn't it? or maybe it doesn't, and maybe second-hand anecdotal evidence doesn't do a thing to prove your case, limitations of the forum or not. richard, i don't have time to dig into it right now (maybe later today?), but the "far left/far right" story has long been debunked. Among the problems with that story is that if conservative x is quoted as saying "they always call us far right," then amazingly enough, this shows up as a count for "far right." but as i'm sure you will acknowledge, this doesn't suggest bias at all, it suggest whining self-pity. or perhaps you recall that ann coulter tried this very trick in her book. among the "far right" references that she came up with, it turned out, was a knick scoring a 3-pointer from the "far right" corner. (she also cheated on her count and pulled a number of the other dishonesties that are the hallmark of her book.) in fact, serious studies (that is, studies that exclude silly cases like the two i just cited) find that the media are quite equal in their use of terms like "far left" and "far right." as i say, i don't have time now, but i'll try and find them and post them here later, if only in the hopes that you'll abandon this line of argument and try to find some better ones to prove bias. now, your next step in the mindset question is a mighty dangerous one. next thing you know, richard, you'll be supporting the university of michigan on its admission policies. after all, by your analysis, social and economic backgrounds are definitive and cannot possibly be overcome. is this really what you mean? the detroit story is still meaningless. yes, i agree, people make decisions. gosh, that's a terrible, horrible, thing isn't it? a meaningful story would be a carefully done, controlled study of managing editors across the country. as an anecdote, your tale is of as much value as brad's having heard that jon stewart rolled his eyes at eric alterman. as for your parting comment, i can't figure it out. if you'd like to know what the media really said, massively dishonestly, about gore, feel free to visit the daily howler site and sarch through the archives. it's covered quite definitively and quite accurately. Posted by: howard at June 9, 2003 07:47 AM | PERMALINKThe plural of anecdote is not data. Kevin wrote: "Of course it does, Jim. I've come to realize that the Times isn't really a newspaper at all, it's the perfect political Rorschach test: just ask someone to read a copy, note down what they mumble irritably about, and then take the mirror image. That's their political leaning."
The New York Times -- the Sunday Magazine has drifted definitively to the right, perhaps because of the need to keep those Ralph Lauren ads. I realize "anecdote is not data," but the NYTM has run many articles in the last few years favoring Bushite foreign policy (neo-colonialism). Most recently it featured a major aticle by Niall Ferguson (neocon British historian who thinks US ought to revive the British Empire). The NYT recently adopted the odious Washington Post habit of covering leftist causes in the Style section -- an article about leftist pamphlet publishing appeared in the NYT 6/8 Styles section. As for Tne New Republic, on social issues they are not leftist. Liberal but not left. Summary rejection and ridicule of academic leftist phenomena such as queer theory (Judith Butler et al.). If anything the Los Angeles Times is now more leftist than the New York Times. Posted by: sara at June 9, 2003 06:19 PM | PERMALINKLinguist Geoffrey Nunberg pretty effectively shot down some of the liberal bias claims here: http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/biaspieces.html Posted by: Stanton at June 10, 2003 05:44 AM | PERMALINKthank you, stanton - that was the very set of references that I referred to earlier in my exchanges with richard and brad. (given that it's now several days later, i think we'll give the remainder of our back-and-forth a rest.) Posted by: howard at June 10, 2003 05:52 PM | PERMALINKThe NY Times is NOT biased at all! The people that run the paper and the writers that do the stories are NOT leftists but Independents who just report the News as it is. Therefore, there can be no "bias." Right wingers are just jealous the paper is so successful and reaches a world wide audience and gives them all the news that's fit to print. Posted by: Merrick at June 21, 2003 09:22 AM | PERMALINKhttp://www.xxx-database.com/members/asian.html FREE ASIAN
http://www.xxx-database.com/members/amateur.html FREE AMATUER
http://www.xxx-database.com/members/anal.html FREE ANAL
http://www.xxx-database.com/members/hardcore.html FREE HARDCORE
http://www.xxx-database.com/members/lesbian.html FREE LESBIAN
http://www.xxx-database.com/members/latina.html FREE LATINA
http://www.xxx-database.com/a/panties.html FREE PANTIES FREE ASIAN FREE AMATUER FREE LATINA FREE HARDCORE FREE LESBIAN FREE LATINA FREE PANTIES FREE CUMSHOT FREE PORNSTAR FREE MILF FREE EBONY FREE BLONDES paris hilton video You have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours.. http://dogs.healz.com/ In your free time, check out some relevant pages about http://www.byronbayinternet.com/schwarze-online-Steckfassung.html schwarze online Steckfassung http://www.ple.org.uk/play-craps.html play craps http://www.petroglyphx.com/juego-en-lmnea.html juego en línea http://www.luffassociates.co.uk/prescription-diet-pill.html prescription diet pill http://www.shannon-e.co.uk/lcskhnlhj-lkflrdkij-777.html ??? ??? 777 http://www.steelstockholder.co.uk/tramadol-HCL.html tramadol HCL http://www.training-one.co.uk/pneumonia-treatment.html pneumonia treatment http://www.b-witchedcentral.co.uk/egsghddjnhexeqe.html ????? http://www.frangelicasplace.org/cialis-company.html cialis company http://www.touchwoodmagazine.org.uk/online-poker-gambling.html online poker gambling http://www.thehadhams.net/viagra-pill.html viagra pill http://www.gdgc.org/free-online-casino-game.html free online casino game http://www.neurogenics.co.uk/viagra-cheap.html viagra cheap http://www.tanganyikan-cichlids.co.uk/anorexia-y-bulimia.html anorexia y bulimia http://www.rebjorn.co.uk/buy-tramadol.html buy tramadol http://www.unccd.ch/phentermine-37.5.html phentermine 37.5 http://www.cleannbright.co.uk/soma-pill.html soma pill http://www.newgallery.co.uk/lipitor-danger.html lipitor danger http://www.byronbayinternet.com/casino-online.html casino online http://www.int-fed-aromatherapy.co.uk/phentermine.html phentermine http://www.kiranthakrar.co.uk/internet-black-jack.html internet black jack http://www.the1930shome.co.uk/cassinos.html cassinos http://www.claudiachristian.co.uk/casino-lottery.html casino lottery http://www.newgallery.co.uk/lipitor-canada.html lipitor canada http://www.tanganyikan-cichlids.co.uk/celexa-side-effects.html celexa side effects http://www.arcsecurity.co.uk/foreign-online-pharmacy.html foreign online pharmacy http://www.claudiachristian.co.uk/free-casino.html free casino http://www.tapbuster.co.uk/weight-loss-drug.html weight loss drug http://www.clophillac.org.uk/order-levitra-online.html order levitra online http://www.jinlong.co.uk/place-bet.html place bet http://www.electromark-uk.co.uk/roulette-table.html roulette table http://www.keithandrew.co.uk/order-phentermine.html order phentermine http://www.abymetro.org.uk/goudjnhgpegl-777.html ???? 777 http://www.irianjaya.co.uk/texas-hold-em-strategy.html texas hold em strategy http://www.weareconfused.org.uk/gamble-problem.html gamble problem http://www.cantwell2000.com/phentermine-free-shipping.html phentermine free shipping http://www.thehadhams.net/buy-cheap-purchase-uk-viagra.html buy cheap purchase uk viagra http://www.cgg.ch/prescription-diet-pills-cheap.html prescription diet pills cheap http://www.the1930shome.co.uk/entalhe.html entalhe http://www.triadindustries.co.uk/iqipiligjd.html ????? http://www.rebjorn.co.uk/detox-hgh-phentermine-quit-smoking-xenical.html detox hgh phentermine quit smoking xenical http://www.cambridgetherapynotebook.co.uk/cialis-com.html cialis com http://www.petroglyphx.com/casino-en-lmnea.html casino en línea http://www.chauffeurtours.co.uk/adam-mark-hotels.html adam mark hotels http://www.homenetworkingsolutions.co.uk/free-betting-tip.html free betting tip http://www.ecologix.co.uk/slot-machine-sale.html slot machine sale http://www.Soulfulstencils.com/poker.html poker http://www.triadindustries.co.uk/iqipiligjd-iqjdipilimibifilij.html ????? ????????? http://www.milesscaffolding.co.uk/fioricet-generic.html fioricet generic http://www.cgg.ch/buy-diet-pills.html buy diet pills ... Thanks!!! Posted by: diet adipex at July 6, 2004 03:14 AM | PERMALINKYou can also check out some relevant pages dedicated to http://www.dressagehorseinternational.co.uk/virtual-gambling.html virtual gambling http://www.tanganyikan-cichlids.co.uk/effexor-xr.html effexor xr http://www.thehadhams.net/order-viagra.html order viagra http://www.rydoncycles.co.uk/online-casino-bonus.html online casino bonus http://www.electromark-uk.co.uk/roulette-tip.html roulette tip http://www.Soulfulstencils.com/fente.html fente http://www.touchwoodmagazine.org.uk/online-poker-tournament.html online poker tournament http://www.ple.org.uk/playing-craps.html playing craps http://www.wincrestal.com/viagra-cheap.html viagra cheap http://www.weareconfused.org.uk/ Gamble http://www.petroglyphx.com/maquina-de-ranura.html máquina de ranura http://www.acornwebdesign.co.uk/anxiety-attack-symptom.html anxiety attack symptom http://www.scottneiss.net/texas-holdem-poker-rule.html texas holdem poker rule http://www.claudiachristian.co.uk/best-casino.html best casino http://www.ecologix.co.uk/free-slot-machine.html free slot machine http://www.kiranthakrar.co.uk/play-black-jack.html play black jack http://www.byronbayinternet.com/kasino.html kasino http://www.eggesfordhotel.co.uk/allergy-101.html allergy 101 http://www.lynskey-admiration.org.uk/phentermine-diet-pill.html phentermine diet pill http://www.rydoncycles.co.uk/online-casino-directory.html online casino directory http://www.irianjaya.co.uk/buy-viagra.html buy viagra http://www.cyclo-cross.co.uk/over-the-counter-diet-pills.html over the counter diet pills http://www.novacspacetravel.com/internet-poker.html internet poker http://www.neiladams.org.uk/free-texas-holdem-poker.html free texas holdem poker http://www.rydoncycles.co.uk/free-online-casino-game.html free online casino game http://www.neurogenics.co.uk/viagra-cheap.html viagra cheap http://www.garthfans.co.uk/phentermine-side-effects.html phentermine side effects http://www.cyclo-cross.co.uk/prescription-diet-pills.html prescription diet pills http://www.orlandodominguez.com/online-casino-poker.html online casino poker http://www.roboticmilking.com/online-het-gokken.html online het gokken http://www.byronbayinternet.com/poker-online.html poker online http://www.roboticmilking.com/casinos.html casinos http://www.eggesfordhotel.co.uk/allegra-d.html allegra d http://www.touchwoodmagazine.org.uk/best-online-poker.html best online poker http://www.int-fed-aromatherapy.co.uk/diet.html diet http://www.whizzkidsuk.co.uk/scommettere.html scommettere http://www.glendajackson.co.uk/generic-viagra.html generic viagra http://www.rydoncycles.co.uk/online-casino-guide.html online casino guide http://www.cambridgetherapynotebook.co.uk/free-online-poker.html free online poker http://www.gdgc.org/online-casino-gaming.html online casino gaming http://www.triadindustries.co.uk/online-iqipiligjd.html online ????? http://www.gdgc.org/best-online-casino.html best online casino http://www.wincrestal.com/prescription-diet-pill.html prescription diet pill http://www.b-witchedcentral.co.uk/ivxhfdfmwhex.html ???? http://www.training-one.co.uk/clarithromycin.html clarithromycin http://www.garthfans.co.uk/cialis-cheap.html cialis cheap http://www.neurogenics.co.uk/viagra-prescription.html viagra prescription http://www.rebjorn.co.uk/buy-tramadol.html buy tramadol http://www.wincrestal.com/diet-pill.html diet pill http://www.steelstockholder.co.uk/phentermine-side-effects.html phentermine side effects - Tons of interesdting stuff!!! Posted by: free texas holdem online at July 6, 2004 04:18 AM | PERMALINK
2848 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 11:56 PM | PERMALINK8007 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 7050 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 11:46 AM | PERMALINK3000 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 10, 2004 09:15 PM | PERMALINKhttp://hard-penis-hentai-japanese-porno-asian.analbondagefun.com/hard-penis-hentai-japanese-porno-asian-threesomes-cartoon-pictures-xxx-honeybee-tracy-lords-nude-oral-sex.html hard penis hentai japanese porno asian threesomes cartoon pictures xxx honeybee tracy lords nude oral sex html http://sexe-nackte-belle-sexo-chatte-mouillie.analbondagefun.com/sexe-nackte-belle-sexo-chatte-mouillie-oral-et-anal-bianca-masturbation-belles-fesses-putains-nues-francaises.html sexe nackte belle sexo chatte mouillie oral et anal bianca masturbation belles fesses putains nues francaises html http://panochas-sexo-imagenes-eroticos-eroticas-revistas.analbondagefun.com/panochas-sexo-imagenes-eroticos-eroticas-revistas-gratis-komo-chicas-anal-pornos-melada-y-fotos-de-adolescentes.html panochas sexo imagenes eroticos eroticas revistas gratis komo chicas anal pornos melada y fotos de adolescentes html http://girl-fetish-gay-adult-cartoon-hentai.analbondagefun.com/girl-fetish-gay-adult-cartoon-hentai-balling-mp3-boobs-hot-sex-one-night-stand-film-pornography-amateur.html girl fetish gay adult cartoon hentai balling mp3 boobs hot sex one night stand film pornography amateur html http://imagenes-video-fotos-gratis-eroticos-angelfire.analbondagefun.com/imagenes-video-fotos-gratis-eroticos-angelfire-fotografias-pornos-con-animais-sexo-de-fetiche-anal-oral.html imagenes video fotos gratis eroticos angelfire fotografias pornos con animais sexo de fetiche anal oral html http://erotic-photos-erotic-photos-html.analbondagefun.com/erotic-photos/erotic-photos.html erotic photos erotic photos html http://gynecologist-html.analbondagefun.com/gynecologist.html gynecologist html http://videos-pornograficos-de-doble-nude-penetracion.analbondagefun.com/videos-pornograficos-de-doble-nude-penetracion-sitios-necesitas-fotos-sexo-gratis-fotografias-pornograficas-adolescentes.html videos pornograficos de doble nude penetracion sitios necesitas fotos sexo gratis fotografias pornograficas adolescentes html http://oral-de-mojadas-revistas-eroticas-adolescentes.analbondagefun.com/oral-de-mojadas-revistas-eroticas-adolescentes-gratuito-tetonas-fotos-eroticos-amanda.html oral de mojadas revistas eroticas adolescentes gratuito tetonas fotos eroticos amanda html http://free-adult-downloads-kara-playground-pics.analbondagefun.com/free-adult-downloads-kara-playground-pics.html free adult downloads kara playground pics html http://oral-anal-picture-sexo-et-chatte.analbondagefun.com/oral-anal-picture-sexo-et-chatte-mouillie-sexe-clitoris-huge-gallery.html oral anal picture sexo et chatte mouillie sexe clitoris huge gallery html http://nude-porn-up-video-ass-anus.analbondagefun.com/nude-porn-up-video-ass-anus-clit-nudes-sex-teenage-puzzy-cd-pussy-oriental-lesbian-erotic-pornography-hardcore-rated-games-naked-porno-fuck-x-girls-cunt.html nude porn up video ass anus clit nudes sex teenage puzzy cd pussy oriental lesbian erotic pornography hardcore rated games naked porno fuck x girls cunt html http://spanking-domination-humiliation-rape-torture-femdom.analbondagefun.com/spanking-domination-humiliation-rape-torture-femdom-sisters.html spanking domination humiliation rape torture femdom sisters html http://et-chatte-oral-erotismo-penetracion-erika.analbondagefun.com/et-chatte-oral-erotismo-penetracion-erika-nue-enlarged-sexe-sexo-mouillie-anal-eleniak-photo-clitoris.html et chatte oral erotismo penetracion erika nue enlarged sexe sexo mouillie anal eleniak photo clitoris html http://mouillie-sexe-oral-et-cochonnes-sexo.analbondagefun.com/mouillie-sexe-oral-et-cochonnes-sexo-chatte-anal-de-chien-photo-asiatiques.html mouillie sexe oral et cochonnes sexo chatte anal de chien photo asiatiques html http://mouillie-sexe-anal-sexo-tetons-html.analbondagefun.com/mouillie-sexe-anal-sexo-tetons.html mouillie sexe anal sexo tetons html Posted by: handcuffs hard core titanic amatuers foot sperme cum sm fetish pics orgy big tits pamela and tommy l at August 12, 2004 10:31 AM | PERMALINK3997 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: buy viagra at August 13, 2004 02:01 PM | PERMALINK311 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 11:52 PM | PERMALINK1722 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: poker at August 15, 2004 11:52 PM | PERMALINK3521 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 17, 2004 08:04 AM | PERMALINK680 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 6951 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 12:43 AM | PERMALINK4682 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for Please check some relevant pages about http://www.mrspike.biz/ generic viagra http://www.online-medications24x7.com/ online tramadol http://www.online-shop-24x7.com/ mexican pharmacy http://www.bestdeals-winner.com/ play texas hold em http://www.tramadol90.net/ cod tramadol http://www.online-games24x7.com/ blackjack strategy http://www.worldwide-tramadol.net/ tramadol online http://www.worldwide-online-pharmacy.net/ international online pharmacy http://www.bestbuys-online-24x7.net/ phentermine diet pill http://www.texasholdem777.net/ no limit texas hold em http://www.bestonline-shopping.com/ on line pharmacy http://www.tramadol-24x7.net/ buy tramadol http://www.worldwide-21.com/ online casino free http://www.viagrapills100.com/ purchase viagra http://www.hokitika.info/ poker online http://www.blackjacksite.net/ internet blackjack http://www.phentermine-online-sale.net/ phentermine online http://www.online-deals24x7.com/ texas hold em strategy http://www.bestbuys-win.com/ free online casino game http://www.blackjack777.net/ blackjack games http://www.viagra-online-sales.net/ buy viagra http://www.shop24x7.net/ foreign pharmacy ... Thanks!!! Posted by: texas hold em tips at August 22, 2004 01:56 AM | PERMALINK734 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 04:23 AM | PERMALINK4688 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 03:53 AM | PERMALINK4069 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
