Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypo...10/post_42.php

• For the first time since before Watergate, the New York Times endorsed no Republicans for election to Congress this year.
  

Ty, what is the market justification for this?

From the one editorial I saw about a House race, I believe they adopted the Spanky argument about a vote in the House being a vote for one party's leadership or the others.

I'm not sure that market explanations do much to tell you why a newspaper's editorial pages endorses one candidate or another. I'm also not sure why people care so much. Who changes their mind because of them?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
From the one editorial I saw about a House race, I believe they adopted the Spanky argument about a vote in the House being a vote for one party's leadership or the others.

I'm not sure that market explanations do much to tell you why a newspaper's editorial pages endorses one candidate or another. I'm also not sure why people care so much. Who changes their mind because of them?

I doubt Club's point is the NYT is changing votes. I sort of see the point as maybe changing your mind when you claim the paper doesn't have an extreme bias.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think you are right that some of the appeal of being a teacher is job security. But, in my opinion, that does not attract the right kind of people. I would prefer higher pay and less job security.

No offense, but you would suck as a teacher. Thankfully, you aren't a teacher. For both these reasons, what you want isn't particularly relevant to this debate.

OTOH, I know a lot of excellent career teachers who chose teaching precisely because of the job security and the alignment of the working hours with their children's schedules. Telling them "Congratulations, you're a great teacher, so as a reward we're going to put you in a class of hard cases - but don't worry, we'll pay you more, at least until next year when the Republicans cut our funding" would cause them to quit. Immediately. I'm not making this up. I know a teacher who did exactly that (more precisely, retired early) when confronted with exactly that scenario when a new principal came into my high school. Since she was in my estimation the best teacher in the school, that was a pretty crappy result. Thankfully for me, I had just graduated.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I doubt Club's point is the NYT is changing votes. I sort of see the point as maybe changing your mind when you claim the paper doesn't have an extreme bias.

And they call you a troll?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I doubt Club's point is the NYT is changing votes.

OK, but mine was, who cares about the editorial endorsements?

I sort of see the point as maybe changing your mind when you claim the paper doesn't have an extreme bias.

Did I say somewhere that newspapers don't have biases?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, but mine was, who cares about the editorial endorsements?

You'd be surprised. Most people don't follow politics like you do and they look to a paper or other source that they trust to inform them.

Did I say somewhere that newspapers don't have biases?

Yes, you said that any alleged bias was not that, but rather, a market forces reaction.

[SlaveNoMore]

by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not sure that market explanations do much to tell you why a newspaper's editorial pages endorses one candidate or another. I'm also not sure why people care so much. Who changes their mind because of them?

I'll personally bring the Chron's vote list into the booth with me, and then vote the opposite way on every issue.

This way, I don't have to actually read the propositions are for

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You'd be surprised. Most people don't follow politics like you do and they look to a paper or other source that they trust to inform them.

OK. Be that as it may, I don't see much connection between arguments about so-called media bias and the contents of newspaper editorials.

Yes, you said that any alleged bias was not that, but rather, a market forces reaction.

I didn't go quite that far. No doubt that the publishers of newspapers use the editorial pages to advance their own political agenda. This has nothing to do with the bias of journalists, who don't get a say in editorial page decisions. It usually reflects the views of the paper's owners. The NYT's owners are to the left of center, but the owners of papers in other major cities that tend to vote Democratic are often to the right -- e.g., the Seattle Times or the Chicago Tribune.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. Be that as it may, I don't see much connection between arguments about so-called media bias and the contents of newspaper editorials.



I didn't go quite that far. No doubt that the publishers of newspapers use the editorial pages to advance their own political agenda. This has nothing to do with the bias of journalists, who don't get a say in editorial page decisions. It usually reflects the views of the paper's owners. The NYT's owners are to the left of center, but the owners of papers in other major cities that tend to vote Democratic are often to the right -- e.g., the Seattle Times or the Chicago Tribune.

wanna guestimate the times a NYT "news" story is cited nationally compared to the Seattle times?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You'd be surprised. Most people don't follow politics like you do and they look to a paper or other source that they trust to inform them.

I'm fairly sure that 99% of the people outside NYC who read the NYT already know who they're voting for in 2008.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wanna guestimate the times a NYT "news" story is cited nationally compared to the Seattle times?

Since that doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about, no.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You'd be surprised. Most people don't follow politics like you do and they look to a paper or other source that they trust to inform them.




Yes, you said that any alleged bias was not that, but rather, a market forces reaction.

I can think of at least twenty candidates that I have supported that have obtained all the local paper endorsements and lost. The Newspapers always love moderate Republicans, but the primary voters don't share their enthusiasm.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
I'm fairly sure that 99% of the people outside NYC who read the NYT already know who they're voting for in 2008.

"Nixon couldn't have won! I don't know anyone that voted for him!"

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Nixon couldn't have won! I don't know anyone that voted for him!"

I heard that same thing from someone about Clinton. She was talking to me. In all seriousness. And knows my mom. I was like, um, you know me, and you know my mom . . . .

[Spanky]

Thank you John Kerry. He has done more for the Republicans in this election than anyone else. If I were a Democrat I would want this guy drawn and quartered.

:bow: