Talk:The New York Times
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Accusations of liberal bias
Nothing her shows liberal bias.
The 2005 roster of regular columnists ranges in political position from Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, and Bob Herbert on the left, to Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman on the center-left, to David Brooks and John Tierney on the right. These labels must be placed alongside the subjects that the columnists most frequently choose to write about. For example, Friedman writes a great deal about free trade and globalization -- and thus often comes across as more conservative -- while Kristof writes almost exclusively about human rights, and thus comes across as more liberal.[citation needed]
The editorial page of The Times last endorsed a Republican Party presidential candidate in 1956 when it backed Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nonetheless, the paper has endorsed Republicans in statewide or local races, such as current New York Governor George Pataki and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.[citation needed]
Daniel Okrent, The Times former Public Editor stated that his was a liberal newspaper in a July 25, 2004 article. Additionally in a post-Jayson Blair report to Bill Keller,[1] a committee of Times employees noted:
Nothing we recommend should be seen as endorsing a retreat from tough-minded reporting of abuses of power by public or private institutions. In part because the Times’s editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic.
- Last bit is a better fit in the "self-examination of bias" section.71.249.22.33 02:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pulitzer Prizes
I've moved the giant list of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to Times' staff to a new article. The list was out of place in this article and really impaired its readability. Please look at the new article and make any necessary or recommended changes. Thanks! --ElKevbo 06:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- The problem as I see it is that we now have a tiny section about the good things, and a big section of mistakes/controversies. yandman 09:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- If there is a balance issue then it needs to be addressed in a different and more effective manner than simply listing every Pulitzer. It was simply a very poor section of the article with choppy prose in a long list. Not to mention almost completely uncited. Perhaps someone knowledgeable in this area can write up a few paragraphs of nice, descriptive prose about the important and interesting Pulitzers the Times' staff has won over the years? --ElKevbo 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good call. We're not the Guiness Book of records here. Maybe I'll see if I can knock up a paragraph or two summarising the reasons it has been given awards. yandman 12:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- If there is a balance issue then it needs to be addressed in a different and more effective manner than simply listing every Pulitzer. It was simply a very poor section of the article with choppy prose in a long list. Not to mention almost completely uncited. Perhaps someone knowledgeable in this area can write up a few paragraphs of nice, descriptive prose about the important and interesting Pulitzers the Times' staff has won over the years? --ElKevbo 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Licensing Issue
The image Image:Nytimesbuilding.jpg says it's only OK for fair use on the article New York Times Tower. Doesn't that mean it can't be used here? CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good call. I removed the image from this article. --ElKevbo 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversies in the 2000's
I reverted these recent changes. The previous text had an obvious POV, it recasts the SWIFT program from a 'program to detect terrorist financier' to a 'scheme to access transactional database'. How can you make this change and leave no reference that the intent was to track terrorist funding? There is no reference that the Belgian government declared that the SWIFT program was illegal. And what Bill Keller posts in a blog in hardly encyclopedic, just his opinion. Lets not try to sort out the politics of the SWIFT scandal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GomerMcFlarp (talk • contribs).
I am new user to wiki, so maybe I dont understand the policy, but I changed Wikiwatch's edit of my edits and provided an explanation. Wikiwatch, just reverted the changes without comment. Isnt it proper to add an explanation?
In the new edits, it reads the the other newspapers were invoved somehow in the publication of the story. This is clearly not true. The choice of words: 'scheme' over 'program' suggest POV. As well removal of the fact that the program targeted terrorist also suggest POV. To quote the Editor of the Times in response to a controversy doesn't clarify the article. Certainly the editor of the newspaper might hold the belief that he did nothing wrong. That is why it is a controversial. I will wait on this one. I hope that Wikiwatch is able to reply. GomerMcFlarp
- I cleaned up the SWIFT section and tried to tone down the POV.
""I reverted these recent changes. The previous text had an obvious POV, it recasts the SWIFT program from a 'program to detect terrorist financier' to a 'scheme to access transactional database'. How can you make this change and leave no reference that the intent was to track terrorist funding?""
Since the it clearly stated that the program being revealed was called the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program it seems redundant to say that it is to detect terrorist financing.
