The headline of today’s front page story in The New York Times might have been “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire,” but instead they used a more polite “Christie’s Talk is Blunt, But Not Always Straight.”

Brett Schundler, shown here back in happier days when he joined the governor for an appearance at Montclair High School, is quoted in the Times story with an anecdote about Christie knowingly misleading reporters when New Jersey lost out on $400 million in federal education funds. Schundler himself had warned Christie right before the news conference.

The Times also quotes MSU professor Brigid Harrison saying that Christie plays “fast and loose” with the truth.

What do you think?

[polldaddy poll=4694584]

Before you comment on Montclair Local
Comments are moderated. Montclair Local reserves the right to delete or close comments on any story at any time. Please read our → Commenting Policy before commenting.

130 replies on “NYT Calls Christie on Truthfulness”

  1. When I read this article this morning, I thought it was short on any real “GOTCHA” and long on a Pile on the Big Guy.

    I saw it and thought: well, I guess they got him on something. But after reading it, I thought it was a hit job because while true, his “stretching of the truth” as they see it, cannot be considered a lie.

    That one of the first issues was his being in Disney during a snow storm (has the NY Times even figured out and screamed that Bloomberg was in Bermuda during the same storm?) is telling.

    The story then goes back to the botched 400 million from the Feds. We know. That was covered months ago.

    No matter. The people of NJ LOVE the guy.

  3. I don’t think our Governor has any ones interests in mind except his own, when it coincides with the rest of us it’s more of a lucky coincidence.

  4. You know what would be great? If there was a Democratic leader who actually held the line on spending and taxing, but didn’t subscribe to the rest of the Republican agenda on charter schools, social positions, etc. Back to Glee, American Idol and Survivor I suppose. Baaaaaahhhhh, Baaaaaaahhhh!

  5. “The people of NJ LOVE the guy”

    So, Prof, by your definition, that statement is not a “lie”, but a mere “stretching of the truth”.

    SOME people of NJ love the guy. Some people of NJ don’t. THAT’S the truth.

    But feel free to gauge a leader’s worth by how he/she polls, (or how you perceive a poll) rather than the measure of his/her words. That sort of stance fills me with oodles of faith in our political future.

  6. The latest Rutgers-Eagleton poll shows that NJ voters disapprove of Christie by 48% versus 45% who approve. So its just about even.

    As for NJ voters “loving this guy”, virtually ALL polls have shown that he is much more popular outside the state than in it.

    The NYT focused on his statements since the election. Had they really wanted to delve deeper, they might have referenced his frequent and very public assurances delivered to police and fire and teachers unions that their pensions, benefits, etc. would not be touched. Or his promise to make the state’s contribution to the pension fund. Good people can, and do, disagree about those particular issues, but the fact remains that the governor said one thing and did another. Most would define that as “lying”.

  7. What was pointed out in the Times was really splitting hairs in my opinion. The pension issue to police/fire seem real and I wonder why they were not mentioned in the article?

  8. Kevin, perhaps those issues were not raised because the paper chose to focus on the governor’s statements since taking office. To some (alright, to me!) it seems to suggest a sad acceptance of the fact that NO candidate should be expected to live up to what he/she promises during a campaign. A sort of “well sure, but he/she was trying to get elected, so what do you expect?” mindset.

    Also, the governor was not nearly as combative during the campaign. It is since the election that he has been cast as this plain-talking, no-nonsense tough guy.

    I don’t think its splitting hairs, by the way. The governor’s refusal to accept any blame, his taunting and demonizing opponents, etc. has helped to create a climate wherein compromise and progress is made that much more difficult. He is not by a long shot solely responsible for this atmosphere, and a lot of what he says makes good sense. But his approach is not one that I feel is likely to result in real compromise, which is after all at the heart of the system of governance in place here. I also feel that anger will not prove to be a long-term political attribute for him.

    As Hannibal said, “A battle is like lust– frenzy passes, consequence remains.”

  9. He is a self-deluded mess. I saw an interview this week where he said people keep calling him saying he could win the White House in 2012 and his response to them is I know I could. I think the biggest lie is whatever he’s telling himself. To be mean- only second to whatever his cardiologist is telling him.

  10. Christie’s combative responses when questioned, and his carefully controlled public appearances contribute to the increasing polarization between the left and the right; people on the right admire his chutzpah; people on the left think he’s a lying sack of….
    I like what he’s doing with the Passaic Valley Sewer Commission and now the PV Water Commission.I think what he’s doing to public education is appalling. The former in no way makes up for the damage being done to our property taxes by the latter.

  13. Whether you like Christie (which I do) or don’t like Christie (which is an opinion you’re certainly entitled to have), this alleged piece of journalism doesn’t belong on page 1. It belongs on the editorial page, where the NYT can express whsstever opinion it chooses.

    Slow news day at the NYT????

    Yeah, I know, Fox News does it to Obama, Blah, Blah, Blah….

  14. No opinion was expressed in the article, nellie. Simply a recitation of several contradictions regarding the governor’s public pronouncements. It is most certainly newsworthy, and doesn’t differ greatly from articles that the NYT has published regarding Obama’s contradictions concerning Guantanamo and gay marriage, to cite just two.

    These are news stories. No opinion was offered in any of these cases, that’s left to the reader.

  15. What Nellie said. I would like to see The New York Times call some liberal politicians out on their lies or false promises but I won’t hold my breath for that one. Guantanamo anyone?

  16. I would like to see The New York Times call some liberal politicians out on their lies or false promises but I won’t hold my breath for that one

    So the Times didn’t publish anything about the Rangel mess recently? Or the governor of Illinois accused of selling Obama’s seat? And those are just off the top of my head. Sure is nice for Christie, jetting around the country like a rock star, but call him our on some of the things he says and it’s the ‘evil liberal media’s’ fault.

    Cro, ignore Prof’s opinions about lies, at least regarding pols on the right. When I called out Sarah Palin for her idiotic lies about the health care bill, he excused it as a lie that “changed the conversation” or some such nonsense. The blinders are fully operational.

  17. I’m glad you’re not holding your breath, MM, for I feared i wouldn’t get a chance to get back before you passed out.

    You can start with Charlie Savage’s 25 June 2010 piece in the NYT, “Closing Guantanamo Fades As A Priority”.

    If you prefer editorial content, 15 June 2009’s “A Bad Call On Gay Rights” might whet your whistle.

  18. Interesting that people who don’t even read the NYT are so quick to claim a liberal bias.

  19. Here we go with the old liberal defend the NYT/Washington Post vs. the old conservative defend Fox News debate. Don’t we all have something better to do?

  20. I believe that FoxNews, unlike the NYTimes, is getting more evenhanded in their reporting.

    Let’s respect the fact that Fox has not yet blamed the flooding in Wayne on either the Ground Zero Mosque or the Mexican Anchor Babies.

  22. I agree Stu. This is a mere diversion. I think asking kids to write notes about the importance of teacher’s aides is disgraceful. I think the actions of the MEA are disgraceful. I think our town council is a useless bunch of nincompoops who have put the town in a most precarious financial position and they stubbornly refuse to see past their own agendas. There’s so much corruption in our state, county and municipal governments it makes my head spin.

  23. Of course, the NYT “slant” or Fox “slant” is beside the point.

    Were these things said by Christie, or not? If he said them, and then they turned out not to be true, what difference does it make which outlet reports it?

    The facts in the article are not in dispute.

  24. Just wait until the muni bond market implodes. That will open everyone’s eyes and wallets very quickly.

  25. MM – if you did, you would know they have called out Obama on his inconsistencies. Spiro, some people will think you’re serious.

  28. “I think asking kids to write notes about the importance of teacher’s aides is disgraceful.”

    Why? Disgraceful? Really?

  30. Something about a morbidly obese guy who talks about austerity and control, and then cuts funding for the poor and disabled about as easily as a housewife cuts coupons is not anyone I can ever really trust. (but dang, he did give me some beaucoup tax breaks)

  31. The NYT is liberal, jerseygurl, just like Fox is conservative. If that’s their editorial slant, it’s their right and choice…But leave it on the editorial page.

  32. Sorry Nellie. I completely disagree that the content of the news pages of the NYT is remotely as biased as Fox News. The NYT is still one of the world’s most highly regarded news publications. FOX is a joke.

  33. Ah yes, the New York Times is calling out Governor Christie as untruthful. Where does this leave the likes of Bloomberg, Napolitano, Rahm Emanuel, Lautenberg, Menendez, Joe Biden, even the President himself?

    Honestly, this flailing of extreme partisanship was worth a Baristanet item? (Well, yes, the article for localized reasons quotes a Montlair State prof, but still…)

  35. Not worth an item and yet here you are again, cathar, commenting on said item.

    Some things never change.

    Bloomberg, a Republican, has had stories quite critical of him run repeatedly in the NYT, most recently the one about his refusal to make public his whereabouts whilst “off-duty”. Emanuael was the subject of several stories, including a cover story in the Sunday magazine. Virtually all of the “dirt” I’ve seen on both Menendez and Lautenberg I saw in the NYT.

    This constant “what about YOUR guys?” is such a tiresome refrain. As I wrote earlier, if the facts are not in question who cares who reports them. And in your case, if the subject is so tedious and unimportant, why read it or comment on it?

  36. Cro, it’s almost inconceivable that FoxNews would run critical stories on any public figure they promote, be they a cultural or political conservative.
    It goes against their (it seems to me) standard policy of “circle the wagons” or “no airing of our own dirty linen in public-it’s a sign of weakness” and/or
    “it someone in out clan messes up, we privately take’em out to the woodshed for a good whompin”,
    and then come back to the studio, makeup reapplied, ties straightened, smiles all around, scars not to be photographed.

  37. Yesterday I borrowed an employee’s computer while my office was getting vacuumed, so I could hear the phone. I was reading his default news page, which was getting me more & more upset. I realized I was reading the Fox news page, which was subtly slanted against everything I hold dear. It felt a little like being at a tea party ralley.
    The Wall Street Journal is as conservative as the Times is liberal, but I never feel like either of them skew their entire news presentation the way Fox does.

  39. Stu, I keep waiting for something to happen to muni bonds. Something’s going to happen to our state finances but when? And will the fed just jump and buy munis like they are buying treasuries? Call it QE3, the propping up of state & local finances.

  40. I prefer to think of Bloomberg as a Republican who thinks for himself, just as Lieberman was a Democrat who did. Whether I agree with either of them is not important. Both refused to follow some “official” party line, and I think that that is deserving of admiration rather than scorn.

    Apparently, if you don’t adhere to Rush’s view you’re a RINO. If you veer from Pelosi’s path you’re not a “real” Democrat.

    How ridiculous.

  41. Just so we’re clear, I’m reporting both stu and deadeye to the SEC for dispensing financial advice on the internet.

    Move over, Bernie Madoff. Two newbies comin’ in!

  42. Speaking of Madoff, were you aware that Corzine’s proposed lieutenant governor (I think that’s what it is called) fell for the Madoff ponzi? Is this the kind of person you want second in command of the state? I suppose if you were the type of person who invested NJ’s public pension dollars in Lehman Brothers just days before it went bankrupt, then picking someone who can’t do due diligence on an investment that is too good to be true was appropriate.

  43. say what you will about Fox News. at least they’re not conspiring with groups who say they’re affiliated with The Muslim Brotherhood to “shield” large donations from government audits.

    i supspect well see more NPR “resignations”.

  45. I keep waiting for something to happen to muni bonds. Something’s going to happen to our state finances but when? And will the fed just jump and buy munis like they are buying treasuries?

    Montclair’s finances are hanging in the wind, munis are about to tank. Where the hell is deadeye? Goddamit, we need some actionable advice here.

  46. Where’s deadeye?

    He’s on his way to the Federal Correctional Facility in Danbury, following my drop of the proverbial dime.

    You were warned.

    You’re next.

  47. Buy low, sell high. If you’re long, start short selling. If you’re short don’t play basketball.

  48. I don’t know what deadeye looks like, but somehow I can see him in an orange jumpsuit and chains, riding in the back of a paddy wagon, muttering about margins and puts and so forth to the disinterested guards.

    Sorry, deadeye, you seem like a nice enough fellow and hardly deserve all this abuse. Don’t give up on us…

  49. That’s about as good as any financial advice I’ve ever gotten, bebop. I’ll send you a check for 2 percent of the gross.

  53. Not bad! Are they from your personal collection?

    You take the blonde, I’ll take the one with the turban.

  55. The photos are a few years old. They’ve moved on.

    You know how kids are — they always want to take a path that runs counter to your wishes.

    Fiona (on the left)is a nun. We should have seen it coming, what with the mean look and the gun and all.

    Niamh( on the right) is working with Newt Gingrich on his campaign. She was instrumental in getting Newt into the RCs after his lifetime of whoring around.

    I couldn’t be prouder!

  56. Wait a second, croi….what was I thinking taking parenting advice on raising girls from the likes of you? Good God, never again.

  57. Guys, I’ve reached out to some folks that I know to get some more eyes on the numbers. It’s funny, these are Yale and Berkeley guys whose opinions on the numbers have always been spot on, but our debates on other issues resemble our threads here. I’ve been hung up on more than once. Stay tuned.

  58. WOW!

    Yale guys (Anderson Cooper, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Clarence Thomas, John Kerry, Gerald Ford, Sam Alito, David Dellinger) AND Berkeley guys ( Bill Bixby, Galbraith, Jerry Mathers (THE EFFIN’BEAVER!), Jerry Brown, Bob McNamara, Ed Meese)!

    Are we worthy to listen to the wisdom of these guys?

  59. Tudlow, I’ve raised 4 daughters and while they may have dressed somewhat questionably in that photo, they are wonderful girls who have done their da proud.

    I wish I could say that they turned out well because of me, but that would be awfully inaccurate.

    But I did me best. And if ANY of them ever see that link or this post, I’m dead!

  60. I’ve just been trying to suppress my baritone chortles over the last dozen posts so I don’t wake my husband and cause him to think that Johnny Hartman’s trying to break in…very funny, guys.

  61. Oh, what good, clean fun y’all had with cro’s whorish daughters last night. I almost wish I hadn’t gone to bed so early. On the other hand, I feel so good this morning after my breakfast of nails and motor oil that I could punch a moose.

    Cro, why don’t you ask your good friend Christopher Hitchens, who attended Balliol and thus is by definition far better educated than anyone else in the entire American continent (north and south) on all subjects–certainly better than anyone deadeye could possibly know–what he thinks of munis and Montclair?

  66. Thinking more math and less politics, or acting. Why am I not surprised that Kit has a baritone?

  67. The real tedium, croiagusanam, is that the Baristas cunningoly run such an item as the one above in complete confidence that the predictable “old sweats” of local liberalism, such as yourself, will post in sagelike agreement. I find such behavior ovine in the extreme.

    Anyone who doesn’t find the New York Times’ pathetic slanting of the news and (relatively, at the very least) kid glove treatment of liberals predictable is just kidding himself/herself. (The most recent horror in this vein was that “profile” in the Times Magazine last Sunday of Lori Berenson.) That this seems to escape you, croi, does you no real intellectual credit. This is a newspaper in great, unstoppable decline, one where even ostensible non-partisanship long ago ceased to exist.

    And Spiro T., that you are a particularly egregious sort of lickspittle doesn’t make any of your lame posts either funny or timely.

  68. Given a choice between the NYT and you, cathar, I’ll take the TIMES. Always.

    And even an old sweat like me knows that you are far from any type of credible judge as to intellectual abilities, since you so consistently overrate your own.

    I would conjure an equally “animalistic” characterization for you, dear boy, bad sadly , licet bovi, non licet Jovi.

  69. While Meredith Whitney says the sky is falling, the WSJ has taken a more temperate approach, and quotes managers that use historical models. I think that the stresses in the system are unprecedented. Also, the monoline insurers upon which the muni market has relied upon so heavily in the past have largely been vaporized.

    “We’ve never defaulted, not once in our entire history, including during the Great Depression,” says Tom Dresslar, spokesman for California Treasurer Bill Lockyer. He says paying debt service for the state’s bonds is the Treasurer’s second-highest priority, after schools.” Hmm, aren’t we seeing an increasingly developing conundrum about school funding?

    Remember back in the halcyon days before the mortgage market imploded? The mantra then was, “Housing has never declined on a nationwide basis since the great depression, and if the market does decline precipitously (>15%), the government will certainly intervene to contain the damage.” Well, It certainly didn’t work out that way did it now.

  70. Cathar,

    give the baristas some credit!

    if they are “cunningly” aware (you make it sound so scary–oh, those crafty baristas!) they can attract “the ‘old sweats’ of local liberalism”, as you so warmly put it, then they are equally aware that they can attracted the smelly sweat sock logic and overly emotional postings of predicatbly pathetic conservatives like you as well.

  71. I’m weighing in with Cathar regarding the NYT. Unreadable waste of time and money. Galls me to buy it Sunday for the puzzle. If it only made a token effort at objectivity, I wouldn’t feel this way.

  72. What, pray tell, would objectivity look like? Knock-knock, there is no objectivity. What is a wealth gap to some, is Darwinian evolution to others. The Iraq war, is a war for freedom in the Middle East in some eyes, and a war for oil in others.

    I don’t mind the bias of the NYT, it’s the New Yorker that makes me itch.

  73. I’d love to continue this discussion, but I’m off to meet my agent. We’re lunching and working out plans for my book tour once I’ve finished my latest effort.

    As a courtesy to my fellow posters, I’m offering a sneak peek at the proposed cover, and a tip-off as to my “nom de plume”:

    cdn1.iofferphoto.com/img/1131696000/_i/9238121/1.jpg

  77. I like the New Yorker (I read it primarily for the literary articles, the fiction, news stories from around the world) but I, too, cringe at its politics. The only news magazine that I have found to come close to objectivity is U.S. News but it’s tough to find something that’s 100 percent objective. I’ve come to expect the biases from outlets such as the Times, FOX News, NY Post, WSJ and pundits such as Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, and Bill Maher. And it really doesn’t bother me. It’s another man’s (or woman’s) opinion. yes, some of those opinions (especially Maddow’s) make me cringe but so be it. That’s what America is all about. The only thing I find objectional is the name-calling when someone doesn’t agree with you. Cro is extremely guilty of that and it’s getting very tired. I feel as if I am back on my granmmar school playground.

  78. Biases and slants are one thing. FOX is just propaganda – they don’t pretend to care about whether or not something is true. If it’s fabricated but it suits their point of view, they run with it.

  79. My computer as I type this shows four posts in a row by croiagusanam. Which means, I fear, it could as easily be called “the croiagusanam channel.” All croiagusanam, all the time. (With occasional buttressing squeaks from Spiro T.)

    But such a channel wouldn’t at all be fair and balanced. And it would have an element of self-preening that isn’t very attractive at all. But is rather constant from him these last few months.

    Pwehaps, croi, you’ll at least do some of us a favor on March 17 and take some time off to go to the parade in NYC. Perhaps you’ll even march proudly there, and make a wrong turn eastward someplace in the east 70’s or 80’s. Don’t haste ye back if you do, okay?

  82. I’ll take the WSJ any day over the NYT but I read both. I enjoy most of the comentary on Morning Joe.

  83. Lately, I’m enjoying the BBC, or, as some of you might call it, Al Jazeera lite.
    No doubt Peter T. King will be looking for me.

  85. Don’t overrate yourself, Spiro T. Or what passes for your politics. In any way, shape or form.

  86. Very nice impersonation of a bitter, forgotten old man, cathar. You’re a natural.
    Do you do any comedy?

  87. I won’t march anymore cathar, but I’ll certainly be on the sidewalk cheering the marchers on. Thanks for the good wishes, though.

    MM, odd that “old sweat” doesn’t constitute name-calling. Nor does “buttressing”.

    Just as I’ve grown used to the Fox slant and the NYT slant, so too am I used to your own particular myopia.

    And it is tired.

  89. You’re excused.
    YOU didn’t use the. Cathar did.

    Yet per you, it is I who is the name caller.

  91. ROC, how does the link that you posted disprove what JG posted.

    Is your point that Fox is NOT propaganda, but NPR is?

    Or that both are?

    Or that neither is?

  92. I have always thought of propaganda as something that is one-sided, such as the Soviet newspaper called Pravda, which means “truth,” but is anything but. You might not like FOX News’ slant but they often feature talking heads and guests with the opposite view of the hosts (Alan Colmes comes to mind). So I don’t see how this is propaganda. On the flip side, even Bill Maher who is about as left as you can get has people with right-wing views on his show. So I don’t buy the “FOX News is propaganda” mantra just because you don’t happen to agree with the station’s slant.

  93. Bill Maher, Sean Hannity, Alan Combes, et al are not newspeople, and their shows and appearances are not news shoes. They are opinion oriented. And Fox makes no secret about the fcat that its opinion shows have a conservative bent, just as MSNBC makes no secret that theirs have a liberal bent.

    The argument is about whether Fox, or the NYT, or whoever is slanting the NEWS, rather than reporting the facts. And how you, or I, or anyone else feels about that seems to coincide with one’s own political viewpoint.

  94. It is propaganda because it is exactly like Pravda. It is the mouthpiece of the extreme right wing and calls itself “news” and is not. It does not call out any of it’s own side and allows blatant lies to be discussed and become part of the dialogue as though they are facts. Unlike the more subtle biases or slants of other “real” news organizations, FOX is pure propoganda.

    Merriam Webster: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect

  95. FoxNews brings in token liberals for pre-rigged chit chats much in the same way the GOP brings minstrel shows to their conventions. It’s a set up so their viewers can laugh or bash the bastards from the comfort of their own La-Z-Boy while wearing a greasy t-shirt that probably fit them 20 years ago, but alas, no more. (American exceptionalism comes only in an XXL these days) As such, it’s not too different than WWF. Or the junk food at McDonald’s. Sure, I know the hoary Wall Street tycoon side of the GOP may sneak a peak at channel 66 here and there, but, as far as that goes, it’s just slumming, plain and simple.

  96. it is exactly like Pravda

    You mean the GOP is a totalitarian state?

    how you, or I, or anyone else feels about that seems to coincide with one’s own political viewpoint.

    Is there really symmetry here? The right tends to argue that Fox and the Times are both slanted. Liberals tend to argue that Fox is slanted and the Times is not.

  97. Tough crowd. Well, I for one will continue to watch FOX News, as well as CNN and MSNBC (just for “slumming”) and hopefully will able to glean some kernels of truth within there somewhere. And Spiro, for the record, I don’t approve of minstrel shows, don’t own a Laz-E-Boy, don’t eat junk food, or wear greasy XXL T-shirts.

  98. Et tu, Walleroo? The WSJ, NYT, Washington Post and Slate and Huffpo and Drudge Report may have slants and biases but to even think about lumping in FOX with anything vaguely resembling journalism is an insult to real journalists. It’s a mouthpiece. Not news. And the GOP may not be a totalitarian state, but I’ll bet they’d love another “decider” in office to take charge.

  99. From someone Erik Boehlert who worked there:

    “We Were a Stalin-esque Mouthpiece for Bush” — Fox News Insider
    “They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news,” says a former insider from the world of Rupert Murdoch.
    February 10, 2011 |

  101. Obviously, MM, there is no such thing as T R U T H out there (despite the bullsh*t PR most religions and politicos purvey).
    We just glean from multiple sources, like you said, very much like blind animals groping in the dark ,and then, distill, and hope for “fairness” (which obviously does not exist in the natural world) .
    I never assumed, BTW, that you fit the stereotype I suggested (especially since you promote that fact that you belong to the Y and also that you run) but I think cathar might want to get a new velvet-wrapped recliner sometime soon. That rusty spring popping out of the middle of his seat cushion must irritate him no end. But it keeps us entertained.

  102. Spiro, I, of course, wear Haband when I watch the news…which begs the questions…What is stretched more? The pants or the truth?

  105. In the words of the famous occidental philosopher and motoring enthusiast, Rodney King, “Can’ we all just get along?”

    I’ve said this before, I like the way the Europeans summarize the news and mention the editorial viewpoint of it’s source, i,e, the center left publication…, the conservative…

    Bebop, Sometimes when I read the NYT, I think I’m reading The Onion…

  107. IO have never heard the “right” argue that Fox is as slanted as the NYT, walleroo. It is the liberal viewer who takes that position.

    After all, it is they who claim that Fox is “fair and balanced”.

  109. All right, I’ll bite. You “do” what?

    Though thank you for providing an opportunity to revisit that noted NYT reader theproblem’s views!

  110. Spiro, careful! My husband and I have his & her recliners (tho not in plaid Herculon — leather, perforated by the cat), I am fond of extra large T-shirts, still grab the occasional quarter pounder from MacDonalds, yet Eugene Victor Debs dined with my grandparents, and my aunts’ Workmans Circle funerals were paeans to ‘our beloved Norman Thomas!’

  111. It’s hard to generalize, cro, but it seems to me that the argument from the right tends to be: you don’t like Fox? Look in the mirror! Liberal media is also slanted. Liberals tend to argue that the NYTimes is by and large “objective” but that Fox is deliberately slanted.

    I admit this statement is highly subjective, not researched, and basically indefensible. Of course, I will continue to hold it until you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

  112. Roo, I don’t think anyone is saying certain news organizations like the NYT don’t have a liberal slant. And others have a conservative slant. I am saying that FOX crossed the line. I honestly don’t believe the primary function of that organization has been to deliver news (albeit with a slant). I believe from day one that organization’s overarching goal has been to deliver a message that represents only one side of the story. The ‘slant’ isn’t a result of how they choose to present a story – the stories themselves are often fabrications. And the programs are also full of nuts who just make up stuff. It’s entertainment, and it’s a one sided message, not a slanted one.

  113. JG, Fox simply found their sweet spot, and hence, their lucrative calling.

    Like an irresponsible child, they can fabricate their tall tales to suit their short term goals. They use more lubrication than the Crisco homes did.

    If a viewer challenges their facts, Fox can look at the floor of their studio and fetchingly rub their feet against the stage, and say, “aw shucks, we’re just entertainers”.
    If viewers likes what they hear, Fox can puff up like a rooster and pretend to be a reliable news source.
    Slipping and sliding, like the chord and key changes in Sexy Sadie, or like the scalar variations in the second section of the sonata allegro form of symphony writing. Too bad it isn’t 1808 any more.

    But, Fox takes a calculated gamble. No one they really care about will call them to the woodshed for sending a whopper over the airwaves. To the contrary, their loyal viewers want more.

    After all, their audience so anxiously wants to hear the pseudo-patriotic and xenophobic garbage that Fox slips in sideways, cheerfully delivered by suits smiling (with ultra-white teeth) earnestly all the while, looking right at that camera.
    ( or in the case of Gretchen, showing some leg while sneering )

  115. Spiro T,. your rants above make you sound exactly as hopelessly bigoted against conservatives and narrow-minded as I’ve always imagined you. Thank you ever so much for validating my lonmg-held impression.

    Now, if you’d added witless, we’d have had a trifecta! You are truly the Haband vendor of bad one-, two-, three- and even four-liners.

    It does bother me a bit that you seem to be claiming moral superiority above. But then I think whereof this attempt comes, from such a desperately unfunny lad, and then I almost (but not quite) get warm fuzzy feelings over your utter haplessness.

    Again, thanks ever so much.

  116. I have read somewhere that the tendency to liberalism or conservatism is probably genetic. I’m inclined to believe it.

  122. Genetic? Never heard that but certainly not in my case as both my parents were liberal Democrats. In fact, I was once a registered Democrat myself. A lot of my friends think I changed after 9-11 but I was already on the road to conservatism a few years before that.

  123. Well, Mrs. M, my situation doesn’t jibe with the theory completely either –my mother was a Minnesota Methodist republican and my father rebelled against his family’s socialism to become an ardent freemarket capitalist who hated LBJ & Jimmy Carter. Still, I think there might be something to it. Just like people who are born with an inclination to be shy or outgoing.

  124. Roo, for what it’s worth, I agree with your indefensible and subjective statement above. In an environment where “mainstream media” is decidedly liberal, Newscorp’s publications and broadcasts certainly represent a different editorial viewpoint. This can be seen for what is, which is simply another editorial viewpoint, or from the liberal frame of reference, utter mean spirited heresy, and an affront to accepted beliefs. Meanwhile those beliefs grounded in publications whose most outlandish front page editorialization are accepted as unimpeachable gospel. To be fair, Fox is theatrically blunt about it’s position, where MSNBC and CNN are subtle. and this fuels the outrage. Fox also curries favor with the heretofore neglected lowbrow subset of viewers. This makes them an easy target for the elites to lampoon. If anything they should be held to a higher editorial standard. As with all news, especially political commentary, any intelligent consumer should consider the source and filter out the bias. Having a critical viewpoint is essential.

    Now if you’ll excuse me, some of the other inmates want to use the computer.

  128. When it comes to media bias, I happen to hew to the liberal bias myself. I don’t think you can compare any bias the NY Times might have, or even NPR for that matter, to what goes on at Fox. There may be no such thing as objectivity in news gathering, but the Times at least takes journalism seriously as a profession. Fox News is entertainment of a sort. You may as well compare the Times to the Folies Bergere.

  129. Yes, cathar,
    if I had lumped in the WSJ and a handful of other conservative publications,

    or even better, insulting the devout people who really care about the rights of the unborn,

    and proceeded to trash them all
    (using the viscerally hostile approach that you have resorted to almost all the time you care to share your thoughts on almost with the rest of us -with the notable exceptions of visiting Malta or feeding wildlife, I believe)

    you might have the beginnings of a case against my “prejudice” against conservatives.

    But your fanatic desire to trash me and to do so in such a darkly twisted way has more to do with you than me. I can almost see your fingers shaking while you keyboard your guts all over the place.

    Why do you care to share with all of us the fact that you spend time away from that keyboard hoping to prepare that big announcement that you now can confirm your view of me? I thought you confirmed it years ago.
    Anyway, this new statement is contrary to your previous posts where you claim I am of no consequence to you at all.

    I was indeed trashing FoxNews, and the gullible fools who cite FoxNews to keep their paranoid hatreds alive. You don’t like it? Too bad.

    Share with us your bile-laden views of Al Sharpton or the Black Panthers for the 500th time, will you?

    Anyway, it’s time for me to go downstairs and pull that pinko rag, the NYT, off the sidewalk.
    Have a nice day everyone. You too, cathar.

  130. When News Corp donated $1 million to the republican party, it lost all pretense of being a nonpartisan news organization.

    The republican party created the ‘liberal media bias’ as a straw man to shrill about how the media cannot be trusted.

    America is an experiment in liberal democracy. The NYT is attempt to further that project. So, incidentally, is the WSJ. Faux news is another story.

Comments are closed.