GregsOpinion.com

Wow! You've done it! You've blown the whole thing wide open. You've destroyed the myth using just this one story! Now we can be sure we'll never hear anything about it media bias again. KUDOS!!!

*sigh*

This, coming from someone who thinks he's proven the NYT's own bias on the basis of Okrent's article?

Oh, no, not at all! I didn't prove it... Okrent did.

Your post is here is rather less convincing: Reporters at Wapo and NYT are hacked that the pieces they wrote critical of the administration that were in fact published didn't get the front page space they deserved... which begs the question: according to whom did they deserve that space? The reporters themselves? The Wapo and NYT boards? They're retroactively upset they weren't more critical and that proves they aren't biased? Um.... okaaay.

Now to resume reading Greg's blog, which has taken recently to linking to KOS and Krugman. Yikes!

Oh, and by the way: can you point me to a story in the LA Times or the NY Times on the fictitious Christmas in Cambodia story Kerry's been peddling for the last 25 years. I'd really appreciate it. Thanks!!!

"... according to whom did they deserve that space?"

I cannot believe you would commit such text to the world for consideration. If you've paid attention to the conservative efforts to slam the press as being too liberal, you'd know that one of the VERY points often used is to denote how something is "buried" behind the front page. So now that the NYT and WaPo note that stories were buried that should have been given more prominence - especially in view of hindsight - you now allude that this proves [*surprise*] liberal bias. Put another way ... when conservatives carp about a story being on page 16 instead of page 1 that is favorable to their side, it means the media outlet is liberal. But when they bury a story on page 16 that favors anyone BUT conservative ... surprise, surprise ... they're still liberal. I'm quite amazed at this brilliant intellectual construct you've put together.

Want some real world examples? Take the ChronicallyBiased.com slam on how the Chron "buried" a WMD-in-Iraq story, only to find out that it wasn't WMD. Burying the story proved, to them, that the paper is liberal. That stories raising doubt about WMD *before* the war, however ... proves, to you, that the NY Times is liberal. Which is it?

Simply amazing. You're further proving my theory that even when conservatives get their way, they're still not happy. If you're going to apply the canard of debating newspaper real estate placement as evidence of bias, then at least disown it on your side too.

Giving credit where credit is due, at least one more GOP soul has some decency to do the right thing:

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=21651

What a load of crap, Greg. The point is, when you see the NY Times and WaPo come to that exact same conclusion about something that's unfavorable to the left, then we'll talk. Do yourself a favor and make a habit of checking the corrections page of the NYT daily and see how their errors always skew.

According to your theory, MYT and WaPo should lament burying Berger. Will they?

Maybe you ought to go back to reproducing TPM and KOS in their entirety here... oh, wait... that would get in the way of the 20+ NYT, LA Times and WaPo links per week you're always using to make your arguments. Funny how they seem always to bolster your cause. Hmm....

Wow ... your worst argument ever. But while we're *not* talking about this:

Accoding to your theory, NYT and WaPo should lead with Berger:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/21/politics/campaign/21berger.html?hp - Page 1, Section A

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62776-2004Jul19.html - Page A02

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64379-2004Jul20.html - Page A01

Ya know what would be really good about some of this commentary on media bias?

... if conservative critics actually had a point.

No dice... that story broke on page 16A of the print edition. I held and thumbed through it at the local Starbucks.

You know what would be really good about GO commentary on media bias? If it didn't have its head up its ass about something even Daniel Okrent and the Democratic campaign press secretaries can plainly see.

Ummm, you might want to note just a few things, Dice. For one, the national edition may not have the same ordering as the New York edition (which gets read more often). Secondly, there's another story, which WAS on page 17A from the 20th:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/politics/20document.html

Might help to have a at least a few facts straight. So yet again, you don't let facts get in the way. Brilliant. You claim the NYT and WaPo should lament doing something they DIDN'T do. Bottom line. Now ... what was your point?

Greg, after my last post, I realized there's no point arguing this with you. I've spoken with no less than half a dozen left-of-center folks who freely acknowledge the Times' bias. As has Daniel Okrent. As have the Democratic campaign secretaries. But I realize there's too much a stake here for you. You rely nearly 90% in your blog on news stories from the LA Times, The NY Times and WaPo. To acknowledge their bias would destroy whatever veneer of "objective" rectitude you claim. Because their left-of-center perspective describes the world as you see it too, they seem to you to be objective because, well... the world is exactly what you say it is. You flatter yourself that those perspectives on events are somehow in accordance with a universal truth that all decent people should recognize. Fine. Whatever.

You can sit back smugly and pretend that you have the "facts" on your side... that you sit in the esteemed position of knowing the Times' slant better even than an editor who works there. The arrogance is misplaced, but I don't pretend to believe you'll ever be disabused of it. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Post all the quips you want in response to that, but I'm not arguing anymore with someone who essentially puts his fingers in his ears and chants, "I'm not hearing you!"

Amazingly well said ... we've been at the same points on the compass on this issue for quite some time and I could just as well have said all of the above in the reverse direction. Of course, I didn't. Reason being, I didn't see a point in leading off with a comment with "there's no point arguing this with you" and then go on to do just that.