In fact, Keller has so brazenly worn his political views on his sleeve through the pages of the Times
in the past – and has aligned so identically with the Far Left – that his
Aug. 10, 2002 column screamed, “We’ve got a [Bush] administration characterized
by blind faith in crony capitalism, a drunken spendthrift’s version of supply-side
economics, and a secretive, country-club executive style,” Keller inveighed.
“The people-versus-the-powerful sloganeering was grating, but on the merits
wasn’t Mr. Gore right?”
this past May, Keller’s apparent anti-Americanism led him to compare President
Bush to Saddam Hussein: “In a different world, [Iraq] might be a case for
the new International Criminal Court, but the United States does not recognize
its authority,” Keller said. “(Neither does Iraq. In their scorn for international
justice, Mr. Bush and Saddam Hussein were in full agreement.)”
even revealed his disdain for conservatives in this Nov. 2, 2002 venomous
opine: “Senator James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma: Mr. Inhofe is a dimmer
version of Jesse Helms -- an intolerant, xenophobic, might-makes-right ultrapatriot,
but not as quick on his feet as Mr. Helms was in his prime,” Keller charged.
“As a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence committees, he has cover
to utter bellicose nonsense.”
problem with Keller is that he is just as left-wing as his predecessor, Raines.
If Keller doesn’t stop allowing his and other reporters’ political invectives
to invade the Times’ front pages, the newspaper will always remain
out of touch with mainstream America – ultimately making the newspaper obsolete.
But because the Times’
editorial management has obstinately refused to provide a fair and balanced
view of not only the news, but of the world, it has become nothing more than
an out-dated politicized rap sheet with a tired liberal agenda that simply
doesn’t work anymore. After all, Raines’ mindless coddling of Blair
is also the reason the liberal media cannot begin to understand or appreciate
the success of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the Drudge Report, Fox News,
WorldNetDaily.com, Newsmax.com, the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal.com, the Weekly Standard, the National Review, American Spectator, Human Events and Townhall.com.
The reason these alternative news venues are so successful is because they
have provided the antidote to the ultra-leftist propaganda that still gets
pumped daily from the airwaves and newsprint inkwells of these leftist media
sources. With the Times, like all the rest, you only hear what liberals want you to hear.
Much like CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC and NPR, the Times has primarily
relied on fellow Democrats as its main sources for its stories, as well as
on their own op-ed writers to spew out their left-wing drivel in borderline
Unequivocally, the Times
has gone so obdurately Far Left, it excludes all other sides. In fact,
the major reason Fox News continues to beat out CNN in the cable news ratings
is because of its fair and balanced approach to news coverage – which is
something leftist media lapdogs like CNN have never attempted to do before.
interestingly, according to a recent report on newsroom practices – especially
as it now pertains to the Jayson Blair scandal, the Times editorial
management “failed to communicate with each other and balked at firing bad
reporters, but they did know how to speak rudely to staff,” Reuters reported
on July 30.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs, conducting a study called, “Government:
In and Out of the News,” said it found partisan bias at the Times – especially when there were signs of the Times heavily favoring former president Bill Clinton in its political coverage: “The New York Times displayed a tilt toward the Democrats,” the 170-page report said. “The Times
gave more favorable (though still mainly negative) press to the Clinton administration
(33 positive evaluations) than to the Reagan and Bush administrations, which
received only 25 and 30 percent positive comments respectively. Bill Clinton
also bested his rivals in his personal coverage, with 38 percent positive
press vs. 32 percent positive for both Ronald Reagan and George W Bush.”
In order to stem the tide of fraudulent reporting, the Times
announced plans last week to appoint “a readers’ ombudsman to maintain high
standards of fairness and accuracy on the paper as part of its drive to bury
the remains the Jayson Blair plagiarism scandal,” The Guardian reported.
a “public editor” is just one of the measures recommended in a wide-ranging
report into how the newspaper operates, commissioned after it was revealed
that Blair had plagiarized and fabricated dozens of stories,” The Guardian said.
In fact, according to The Guardian, Keller admitted to the “litany
of missed communications and lapses of oversight that allowed Blair’s malpractices
to go unchecked for so long.
result, the ombudsman would review reader complaints and a standards editor
would be responsible for setting ground rules. In addition, the Times is set to appoint another editor, charged with recruitment, training and development.
In the past, Keller admitted, the Times had resisted hiring such watchdogs for fear of public scrutiny – the one thing it desperately needed.
it would foster nit-picking and navel-gazing, that it might undermine staff
morale and, worst of all, that it would absolve other editors of their responsibility
to represent the interests of readers,” Keller said.
added that Keller agreed with the recommendation that the paper would now
“profit from the scrutiny of an independent reader representative.”
The other Times – the Los Angeles Times – is at least
making an effort at fairness and balance. Editor John Carroll admitted
in May to his newspaper’s liberal bias. In fact, Carroll issued a memo
to his staff, warning reporters “to keep their liberal politics out of the
“I’m concerned about the perception – and the occasional reality – that the Times
is a liberal, “politically correct” newspaper,” the memo started. “Generally
speaking, this is an inaccurate view, but occasionally we prove our critics
right. We did so today [May 22] with the front-page story on the bill
in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they
may be risking breast cancer.
OpinionJournal.com reported that Carroll criticized reporter Scott Gold for slanting his report the following ways: