Is the NY times left or right?

[vonGarvin]

From what I see at this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/world/americas/28canada.html
I would say "left".
In case you can't see it, the caption below a picture of a smiling Stephen Harper being applauded by his caucus reads:
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper was cheered by his party in Parliament Tuesday after a vote rejected extending two antiterrorism measures."

I'm no New Yorker, but seeing that, I highly doubt that I would keep reading!  Oh, the headline?  It read:
Canadian Parliament Decides to Let 2 Measures Passed After 9/11 Expire
Of course, it doesn't say "Canadian Minority government's motion to extend anti-terror legislation fails to pass"
and the tag line doesn't say "Prime Minister Stephen Harper was cheered by his party in Parliament Tuesday after voting to extend two antiterrorism measures."




That's how I feel with that....letter to the editor, anyone????

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

I would say "left".

So do they (it's only the real barking moonbats that think it's right-leaning):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?

By DANIEL OKRENT
Published: July 25, 2004

OF course it is.

The fattest file on my hard drive is jammed with letters from the disappointed, the dismayed and the irate who find in this newspaper a liberal bias that infects not just political coverage but a range of issues from abortion to zoology to the appointment of an admitted Democrat to be its watchdog. (That would be me.) By contrast, readers who attack The Times from the left -- and there are plenty -- generally confine their complaints to the paper's coverage of electoral politics and foreign policy.

I'll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.

But if you're examining the paper's coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn't wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you're traveling in a strange and forbidding world.

Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right...

It goes on in much more detail.

 

[tomahawk6]

Leftwing. A virtual mout piece for the democrat party. They simply love Hillary. :skull:

 

[pylon]

Editorially they are a traditional left wing paper.  However, one of the better left wing papers in North America.  Very well written and great opinions on both the left and the right. 

But remembering that any newspaper's 'political slant' is completely dependant upon the owner/publisher.  And in turn the  editors are the hired guns whom deliver the message.



kc

 

[Daidalous]

The NY times is Left wing, just like the Toronto Star, did anyone see the pic of the day making fun of the CDS.  All you have to do is watch Glen Beck or the O'Reilly factor(I think I spelled it wrong) and listen to them complain about the NY Times.    :

 

[observor 69]

I assume from the tone of this thread that the New York is regarded in a negative light for being a "left" newspaper.

I am curious, what newspaper would you regard as better? And it is a copout to say "oh they are all idiots?"

I'll start, on my list of the better newpapers are The New York Times, Washington Post and the Globe and Mail.

 

[vonGarvin]

I think you make a good point, BG.  "left" or "right" (too far either way, anyway) are both "bad" in my opinion; however, that didn't come out in this thread as it was irrelevant to my point.
Although I do like reading the Globe and Mail, it is not my favourite.  Neither is the National Post; however, I like to read them in conjunction with  (or opposition to?) each other: neither one in solitude, anyway.

If you read my original post, you will see that "one could infer" from the headline and the caption for the photo that the intent was to cause readers to have a certain opinion.  Having said that, the actual article itself is fairly well balanced (IMHO).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Slightly right of far left