Is there a good alternative to the NYTimes?

Andrew McCarthy and Captain Edi do a good job of dissecting the NYTimes recent effort to mislead its readers into believing that there were no connections between Saddam and Al Queada, when in fact it knew that they had a cooperative relationship.

Robert and others argue that this administration faces a credibility problem. Fault for this credibility problem lies at the feet of the major media like the NYTimes that keep misreporting both what the Administration has said and the facts on the ground that may corroborate Administration conclusions.

In describing Michael Moore’s newest movie, Jeff Jarvis observes:

He’s no longer just ridiculing the powerful; he’s no longer turning them into punchlines; he’s now trying to convince us that these particular powerful people — Bush et al — are evil, venal, corrupt, incompetent co-conspirators out to ruin our world. If you’re going to try to convince us of that, then you have a different obligation of fact and argument than if you’re just trying to make fun of somebody. You should give us legitimate facts and arm us with arguments by showing both sides of an issue and beating down the other side. If you don’t do that, you’re only shrieking. You’re weakening your own argument by ignoring the other side. You’re insulting the intelligence of your audience by not giving them both sides. You’re just seething. That’s what Moore is like now. He wants to convince us he’s telling the truth but he’s afraid to tell the whole truth.

“All the News That’s Fit to Print” is falling into the same category. Unfortunately, unlike Moor’s movie, the NYTimes is, by far, the dominant news source for many people I know. And, they don’t feel insulted by its dishonest behavior, they feel relieved, and will leap to its defense. I don’t know what NYTime lie would be so outrageous so as to cause doubt. I think the solution is to find a news source that would serve the NYTimes’ audience better than it itself does. The NYSun attempts to provide a conservative alternative to the NYTimes but I think that misses the mark. What I am looking for is an honest news source for a liberal readership. Any recomendations?

Update: See also lying by the Kerry campaign.

Advertisements

5 Responses to Is there a good alternative to the NYTimes?

  1. ooghe says:

    If you’re curious- I try to read as wide a variety of news sources as I can to come to some basis of opinion. I don’t believe there’s anything in print that is disopinionated, and the NYTimes in particular seems to be labeled as right wing, left wing, pro-Israel, pro Palestinian, what have you- depending on who you talk to. Since NYTimes seems to be equally hated by everyone, I read it, the Washington Post, and BBC News for ‘daily news’- but I take it all with a grain of salt. I subscribe to the Journal of Foreign Affairs, which at least allows me to see how various policymakers are formulating their own positions- You’re just as likely to read Colin Powell in his own words as Sandy Berger. Janes Defence is good for geopolitics, and Center for Strategic and International Studies tends to put a lot of stuff online which is interesting.

    Admittedly, I read Salon and blogs which undoubtedly count as left (though not as far left as Counterpunch and the Independent Media Center), and have endeavoured to suss out their right wing equivalents. I used to read Rush Limbaugh but surely the right has something better than this (by the way- whatever criticisms can be levied against Michael Moore surely can only at least match the sins of the equally bombastic Limbaugh). I tried American Spectator for awhile, but again- just felt like I was being shouted at. National Review seems okay. The best conservative thought I can find tends to come from Context, the Podhoretz journal- although I feel I have to accept at the door that everything Israel has ever done is absolutely, unquestionably right.

    If you feel there is a better source of right wing editorial opinion I am unaware of, I’m happy to solicit your suggestions.

    BTW- I do like the Financial Times, but I thought you had to pay for their articles (I used to get a free subscription when I worked there- so I’m cranky about paying them)

  2. Robert,

    There is something amusing about the denial of left-liberal bias at the NYTimes and then the subsequent claim that you are achieving diversity by reading the WaPost and the “Bagdhad Broadcasting Corporation.”

    Re WaPost read this letter Arnold Kling wrote recently to the WaPost editors. http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/000507.html

    I don’t think either qualify as particlarly more honest than the NYTimes.

    If you are looking for good non-left blogs, I would recommend:

    http://instapundit.com
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/
    http://www.belmontclub.blogspot.com/
    http://www.buzzmachine.com/ (he’s lib but honest)
    http://www.michaeltotten.com/ (also lib, but honest)

    I should probably update my very old blogroll!

    Yes, the FT and the WSJ both charge money. Perhaps the rule is that you get what you pay for!

  3. ooghe says:

    like I say- I don’t deny BBC is left of center- just saying that my interest in NYTimes, WaPost and BBC isn’t really for opinions one way or the other- more like I want to see what blew up/was invaded in South Asia (which CNN doesn’t report nearly as well), whether anyone was assassinated- etc. Synthesis and context I try to get from elsewhere- hence thx for the links…

  4. joe lefty says:

    Alex wrote:

    — Yes, the FT and the WSJ both charge money. Perhaps the rule is that you get what you pay for!

    I write:

    I note with wry amusement that this blog is free.

  5. ooghe says:

    regarding your link to Kerry’s ad. there has been an update, wherein it makes clearer that Bush’s ad cites an ad submitted to MoveOn.org that they had removed since it was offensive. Of course, as per Godwin’s Law, someone had to throw Hitler into the conversation since it’s a charged election.

    On that note, I remember visiting the GOPUSA website when their lead article referred to George Soros a “Hungarian-born descendent of Shylock” after he had pledged his fortune to defeat Bush. Surely a Kerry ad that featured this quote and called it “Faces of the GOP” would warrant a rebuttal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: