The NY Times was wrong to publish intelligence information, their political coverage is ridiculously left-leaning, and their economic reporting is useless garbage.
Submitted for your approval: Two real-life examples why this left-leaning dung heap of ink and paper should be held suspect in all instances
EXAMPLE 1: Unemployment reporting under President George H.W. Bush in 1992 vs. Today for Times hero and love interest President Obama, courtesy of Byron York. First, Last week's coverage of the Obama economy:
The lead story, "Job Losses Slow, Signaling Momentum for a Recovery," reporting a decline in the unemployment rate from 9.5 percent in June to 9.4 percent in July, begins by declaring that, "The most heartening employment report since last summer suggested on Friday that a recovery was under way -- and perhaps gathering steam."Now, compare it with this Bush-bashing, in the midst of his 1992 reelection campaign:
"Employers are no longer in a panic," one expert tells the Times.
"Jobless Rate Dips a Notch to 7.7% in Mixed Showing," was the front-page headline of the August 8, 1992 Times. "The nation's jobless rate improved marginally last month, edging down to 7.7 percent from 7.8 percent," the Times reported. "But the improvement was not enough to signal a stronger economic recovery or to help President Bush as he heads into the Republican National Convention."EXAMPLE #2: Reportage on the APA's statement on "Gay Reparative Therapy"
From NYT-AP:
The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.From The Wall Street Journal:
In a resolution adopted by the association’s governing council, and in an accompanying report, the association issued its most comprehensive repudiation of so-called reparative therapy, a concept espoused by a small but persistent group of therapists, often allied with religious conservatives, who maintain that gay men and lesbians can change.
According to new APA guidelines, the therapist must make clear that homosexuality doesn't signal a mental or emotional disorder. The counselor must advise clients that gay men and women can lead happy and healthy lives, and emphasize that there is no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation.Somebody is twisting the facts. Here's the part of the APA press release that deals with the issue:
But if the client still believes that affirming his same-sex attractions would be sinful or destructive to his faith, psychologists can help him construct an identity that rejects the power of those attractions, the APA says. That might require living celibately, learning to deflect sexual impulses or framing a life of struggle as an opportunity to grow closer to God.
As part of its report, the task force identified that some clients seeking to change their sexual orientation may be in distress because of a conflict between their sexual orientation and religious beliefs. The task force recommended that licensed mental health care providers treating such clients help them "explore possible life paths that address the reality of their sexual orientation, reduce the stigma associated with homosexuality, respect the client's religious beliefs, and consider possibilities for a religiously and spiritually meaningful and rewarding life."There's no "repudiation" there. Is it any wonder this so-called "news" paper is bleeding red ink?
"In other words," Glassgold said, "we recommend that psychologists be completely honest about the likelihood of sexual orientation change, and that they help clients explore their assumptions and goals with respect to both religion and sexuality."
NYT - Gay Therapy
WSJ - A New Therapy
APA Press Release
Examiner - Byron York
18 comments:
Why should there be a repudiation there?
"The American Psychological Association adopted a resolution Wednesday stating that mental health professionals should avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments."
That's fro mthe APA. What did the NYT write that was different?
Do you believe that gay people can "change"?
The APA did not repudiate this therapy. NYT is not lying, they are propagandizing by selective shading and emphasis.
Open your eyes, grasshopper. You claim to have read and comprehend Fred, cutting through this BS is much easier. I notice you're silent on the first example.
Which?
The APA did repudiate the therapy. They say there is no evidence that it works and it could have very bad social and psychologixal consequences.
You think it's okay? Becauseif you do you are a bigot. The Times is not for reprting the news.
This sort of therapy is only undertaken by bigots. Plain and simple.
Relgious and non-religious, anyone is who thinks being gay is a choice and should be "changed" is a bigot and a homophobic.
So, you're not a racist. At least you've got that.
You and Obama attacking the straw man, and missing the point while you're at it.
I did not defend or attack this therapy. Try to stay on topic.
The NY Slimes is aboninable! Heh I'm bacccccccccccck! ;)
So, what are you saying. The NY times didn't quote the entire APA article, so they're taking it out of context.
The way they referenced the APA would be acceptable at any University in the world.
I'm not sure what your point is with this argument other than "I'm a moron and don't know how to read newspapers".
Ok, we agree. You're a moron who doesn't know how to read newspapers.
Anyone who thinks kleptomania is a choice is a bigot and a kleptophobe!
Sorry, I couldn't resist...
Silverfiddle is right, you're missing the point. The discussion is about perspective and bias in reporting, not about unemployment or homosexuality.
Read the NYT article and then read the WSJ article, you come away with completely different perspectives on the same press announcement. Then read the APA release.
Sword or plowshare, the grinding wheel doesn't care.
What I find annoying about the media, both left and right... is the absurd idea that whatever is said, it requires interpretation. Take a presidential speech for example.
The media interrupts regular programming to air a presidential speech... this is journalism. The man has something to say and most likely it is important. The president talks for twenty minutes... followed by a forty minute interpretation of what he said. HELLO? He's speaking English isn't he?
When the president gets done talking, pretty much anything that follows is bias. Think how you would feel at work if someone followed you around "interpreting" what the boss just said. Annoying?
The APA crafted a fairly comprehensive and well thought out press release... why does the NYT or WSJ feel the need to rewrite it? Honestly, the APA release isn't any longer or shorter than the articles published about it.
Ask yourself why a newspaper would publish a 500 word article on a 500 word press release? Other than to spin it in a certain direction? The problem is most people are too lazy to read the source, and only read the spin.
Could a news source that only published fact and eliminated opinion be successful today?
~Finntann~
I read the APA article and I got out of it the same thing I got from the Times.
If anything, both the APA and the Times were too fair to conservative Christians trying to "change" gay people.
Kleptomania is a disorder, homosexuality is not. That's the difference.
Finntann: Great point. Why don't they just publish the press release and be done with it?
It's other people's material.
Why doesn't the post just publish times articles?
Why don't you publish me blog posts here on your blog? And why don't I do the same. We'd reach a point at which neither of us would write anything original, and we'd be publishing the article you published that I published that you published that I published that you published........
That's why newspapers don't just steal from eachother or from academic journals or group like the APA. Good thought though.
You seem unable to differentiate news from news articles. The APA press release is the news, the NYT article an interpretation of that news.
Your description above is apt, because it describes much of what is considered journalism on both sides today, a recycling and rehashing of other peoples opinions, more often than not bereft of fact.
The APA issued a press release, undoubtedly after much careful consideration and choice of words. So, whose words more accurately represent their position? Theirs? The NYTs or the WSJs?
Paraphrasing, if done correctly is not anything bad. I don't see how the Times mis-represents the APA press release. I read the press release. It seems like they're against the gay therapy. Why else would they put out a press release? To declare no opinion either way?
To Quote Brad Pitt, "kill nazis." Obama is hitting the rural base where he is weakest politiically and where folk is also in the same boat with this screwed up economy. A not sure where this is going to end up but most likely somewhere in the gray amongst all the polarizing. This is not half of it-When things get closer to a bill watch more of nuts come out of the closet-to include business.
Demonos are out in force pushing this agenda and if you haven't had a town hall meeting yet-you will be.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.