Palin reads the NY Times-pro-Bush, but liberal on social issues

[StopTheNeoCons]

In mid-2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote a piece in which he concluded that the Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issue such as gay marriage. He claimed that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City. Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of "hard news", such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties, but did state that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration.<65>

[WorseBeforeBetter]

1. Mooselini is hardly liberal on social issues.

Don't be fooled.

[LiberadorHugo]

3. But Mussolini had one thing and only one thing right.

A daring atheist, he asked the fictitious Yhwh to instantly strike him dead. Naturally, the fictitious sky deity failed to oblige. :-)

[FrenchieCat]

2. Liberal how?

:wtf: Fundamentalist Republicans are in love with her, but she's got liberal social values?

You are fucking kidding, right?

Is that before a teen might be forced to bear their perverted father's child or after? :crazy:

[RollWithIt]

4. Your point? Let me quote your post for you....

In mid-2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote a piece in which he concluded that the Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issue such as gay marriage.

Because Gay bashing is so cool that only the New York Times stood up to the unconstitutional bullshit.

He claimed that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City.

Got a problem with NYC? 9/11? Remember that? Stand on the runes and cheer, then bash the city for its "liberal" bias.

Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of "hard news", such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties, but did state that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration.

Insufficiently critical? What the fuck does that mean? And I love how "hard news" is limited to one sentence.

[Bubbha Jo]

5. I betcha you can't find a subscription or a purchase receipt for any of those in her name....

She's simply saying what she was told to say, just like her sudden knowledge on Supreme Court decisions too.

[BrklynLiberal]

6. I cancelled my subscription to the NYTimes in 2003...and Okent's arrogance was

among the reasons.