The commentary by Hoyt is stunning!
He admits that his employer's political coverage is biased, and yet seems to have no problem with it.
I'll tell you, readers, the stench that emanates from the offices of the garbage rag NYT is nauseating!
"The Campaign and the Horse Race" by CLARK HOYT
LATE last month, two respected organizations — the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University — released a study of news coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign. It reached some familiar conclusions.
The public wants to know more about candidates’ records, their backgrounds and where they stand on issues — and more about lesser-known candidates. Instead, the news media give voters the horse race, or as the study put it, “the game of politics.”
Yeah, we know the coverage is garbage. So what's your paper gonna do about it?
This is what I hear from some readers, but after taking a close look at The Times’s coverage, in the newspaper and online, I think it is doing a better job than it gets credit for.
Even though the statistics he will cite contradict what he just said.
I really get sick of stinking elites like Hoyt patting themselves on the back!
Can you be any more arrogant and conceited, Clark?
This is the PUBLIC EDITOR?
Can the NYT's coverage by any worse, readers?
Although the Iowa caucuses, the first opportunity for voters to participate in polls that count, are still nearly seven weeks away, the P.E.J.-Shorenstein study found that news organizations — including newspapers, television stations and Web sites — long ago narrowed the field of eight Democrats and eight Republicans to only five presidential candidates who matter: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the Democratic side and Rudolph Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain among the Republicans.
Yup, the elites have "NARROWED" -- read: PRE-SELECTED -- who the American people can have as president.
Hoyt is admitting it.
So the NYT is NOT reporting "news," it is PUSHING an AGENDA, isn't it?
We are NO LONGER FOOLED, Times!!!!!!!!!!
In that sense, the study accurately reflects the current performance of The Times. Just as the study’s researchers did for 13 newspapers in the first five months of this year, my colleague Michael McElroy examined front pages of The Times since Labor Day. Clinton and Obama dominated on the Democratic side: 11 front-page articles focused on her and seven on him. Only two other Democrats got front-page play, Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd, with one story each. Among Republicans, Giuliani had eight front-page articles, Romney five and McCain four. Fred Thompson, who wasn’t a candidate when the P.E.J.-Shorenstein study was conducted, had three. The other four Republicans didn’t score.
Yes, I am well aware of the front-page puff pieces the propaganda papers are foisting upon the American people.
And notice how the Times is promoting the unpalatable and unelectable New-Yorkers Giuliani and Clinton the most.
Yeah, but they ain't pushing an agenda!
That's part of why I get so enraged.
Sick of being shoveled s*** by the MSM press!
This is interesting analysis, as far as it goes, but I think it misses a fundamental point about the 2008 presidential election: the degree to which coverage has moved to the Internet, where many news organizations, and especially The Times, are providing information of a breadth and depth that cannot be equaled in the printed newspaper, much of it precisely what readers say they want.
Yup, coverage has MOVED to the INTERNET, and yet they IGNORE RON PAUL and all the other eye-opening things that the web has spawned!
That's what happens when a "news" organization is really nothing more than a collaborative and complicit propaganda organ.
And that is ALL the TIMES IS! A PROPAGANDA ORGAN!
Editor & Publisher, a trade magazine, reported last week that 17.5 million people visited the Web site of The Times last month and spent an average of more than half an hour reading its content. The nearest newspaper competitor was USAToday.com, with 9.5 million visitors who spent an average of 16 minutes.
Listen to him sing his own praises. The arrogance and conceit are gagging!
I usually spend all day on the Times site, as I constantly am exposing their garbage lies and the conventional myths they promote!
Never mind that they are recording my visits and length thereof.
Sig Heil!!!!
For those online readers venturing into the politics space at nytimes.com, the array of offerings is vast and impressive: comparisons of the candidates on major issues; video of their ads and of them on the campaign trail; interactive maps that show where the candidates are campaigning and raising money; links to Times articles about the candidates; and a robust blog, The Caucus, that has as many as 15 postings a day from the more than 20 Times reporters assigned full time to the campaign.
Their site stinks, and he is trying to make it sound like the best ever.
Here's a thought, readers: I think this guy is lying about how omnipotent the Times is!
Think about it.
If they were so popular, why is their newspaper readership cratering?
Why did they get rid of TimesSelect, where you had to pay for archives and selected columnists on-line?
Because NO ONE WAS GOING THERE?
And now the Times is joining the blogs, after they have shat all over us in their coverage.
Not buyin' the lies, anymore, NYT!
And with all this web attention, have the words RON PAUL come across the screen yet?
Nope, and they won't be, either. Nice job of prop-pushing, Clarkie!
For all its rich offerings, nytimes.com does not level the playing field for candidates. There is still less content on the Democrats Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich and the Republicans Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo than there is on the leading candidates.
See how he can't even type the words Ron Paul?
And this paragraph was a stark admission that the MSM and the Times RIG ELECTIONS!
For as long as I have been in the newspaper business, there has been tension between editors who have finite resources and an obligation to reflect reality and readers who argue that a lack of coverage shuts out the ideas and diminishes the prospects of lesser-known candidates.
The NYT in NO WAY REFLECTS REALITY, sir!
You guys are a bunch of Zionist liars!
Richard W. Stevenson, the editor in charge of The Times’s coverage of this campaign, said: “Not all candidates are created equal. Some of them have a much greater likelihood of becoming the next president of the United States.”
Yeah, especially when the NYT and the MSM SLANT THE COVERAGE!!!!!!
Yeah, thanks for taking the decisions away from the American people, and conferring your stinking elite selves to decide for us.
And you wonder why I rage and hate you?
I think the call is easier on the candidates at the very back of the pack, including some whose only campaign activity is to appear in the debates. But an unusually large number of serious candidates bunched somewhere behind the front-runners are not getting major attention in The Times.
Yeah, like RON PAUL! Why do you guys hate him so much, Times? Why?
Because he is a DECENT and HONEST MAN, as opposed to the leaches you are selling us, like the Bilderberger queen and Rudy?
“It is frustrating to us as well,” Stevenson said. “We are acutely aware of it, and are watching very carefully to be sure we aren’t making a mistake in how we are apportioning our resources.”
I’ll cite just one case where I don’t think The Times is paying enough attention.
In Iowa, which launched a little-known Jimmy Carter to his party’s nomination in 1976, John Edwards is close behind Clinton in the most recent Des Moines Register poll, yet The Times has given him comparatively scant coverage. Clinton and Obama have been profiled twice each on the front page since Labor Day, but Edwards not at all this year. Throughout the paper, The Times has published 47 articles about Clinton since Labor Day, only 18 about Edwards.
That's because Edwards' rhetoric (and that is all it is, when rubber hits road; otherwise, he would not be a "top tier" candidate!) is anti-AIPAC, anti-PNAC, anti-Clean Break, anti-Zionist -- and pro-Amnerican!
As I have been remarking for months, the swings in the polls correspond to the stances the candidates are taking towards the wars for Israel!
Don't take my word for it, readers. Read my archived posts!
Stevenson said, “I don’t track our coverage by quantity; in a qualitative sense, we’ve covered him pretty thoroughly, and there is more to come.”
And there is more to come in this space about coverage of the ’08 campaign."
Never mentioned Ron Paul, though, did they?
Am I supposed to take this "news coverage" seriously, or...?
I mean, really, it's self-aggrandizing garbage!
That's all Hoyt's commentary is -- and it's not the first time!
Also see (with a warning about the language, readers):
Pre-Emptive Apology
The Arrogant New York Times
