NY Times Political Reporting: Target for Destruction?

[BurtWorm]

For the record, we were struck by Kurtz’s piece because we were going there anyway. All this week, we’re going to offer an overview of the way this election is now being covered. More specifically, we’re going to look at the New York Times—at the odd coverage it seems to be offering. Yes, we’re going to watch as the paper of record seems to shout and cheerlead for Bush. And we’re going to ask a question you’ll rarely see asked by “provocative” scribes of the type Kurtz describes. We’re going to ask why the New York Times has now done this for two straight elections.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050304.shtml


Bob Somerby is right. Why is the Times' political reporting so awful? Can it be changed with a campaign from readers? I'm not talking about getting them to favor Kerry and Democrats. I'm talking about getting them to report just the facts and lay off the cliched "analysis." This could be effective if the political desk gets bombarded every day with angry e-mails pointing out their bias, with CC's to Keller, Okrent, Sulzberger... I don't know if it would work. But we could try it, coordinated from here.

[blm]

1. It's as if they bend over backward to PROVE they aren't liberal so

they bend over backward INSTEAD to be biased FOR Bush.

[BurtWorm]

2. Elizabeth Bumiller actually seems pro-Bush.

Nagourney and Seelye seem anti-Democrat. It's not as though they're pretending to be objective. It's that they really seem to be biased against Kerry and in favor of Bush.