Is the New York Times A Reliable News Source

[gottaB]

By "reliable," I mean do you typically accept their reporting as factual.

[Eric J in MN]

1. I voted yes, though I want Judith Miller to resign (nt)

nt

[gottaB]

2. sounds like a potential "it depends"

Do you distrust her reporting?

[Eric J in MN]

3. I distrust Judith Miller's reporting, but I like the NY Times enough

I distrust Judith Miller's reporting, but I like the NY Times enough to call the paper trustworthy in spite of her.

We could say "it depends" about the trustworthiness of anyone or anything, but the NY Times is one of the best newspapers.

[democracyindanger]

16. ...and Gerth...and Nagourney

The NYT needs to be dismantled. The damage it has done to the country over the past 10+ years is unforgiveable. Sure, Krugman and Herbert are great, but a few brilliant and honest journalistic voices don't make up for the years of Whitewater and the paper's complicity in sending the US to war--which was only compounded by its milquetoast non-apology last week.

Oh, Guardian, when will you start a US version?

[kentuck]

4. Compared to what ??

FOX News? Washington Times ? Weekly Journal? All in all, they are about the most reliable we have.....unfortunately.

[Eric J in MN]

5. Exactly. I chose "yes" because of how many news sources it's better than.

nt

[gottaB]

10. my choices for reliability are BBC, Los Angeles Times,

Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor. The New York Times has some columnists I like, and some foreign corresponents I trust, but my trust in the paper as a whole has been shaken.

[Darranar]

6. NO!

They are a pro-establishment propaganda outlet, as is most of the US mainstream media.

[Senior citizen]

7. No, I don't like to trust any news source

The best way I know to get some idea of what is going on is to look at news sources on at least 3 sides of an issue, and then triangulate to sort of get a fix on where the truth might be.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

8. Other. Over the last 15+ years, the NYT has been a GOP....

...mouthpiece, ready to print anything that supports Republicans and bashes Democrats. Lately, I sense that there is a faction within the NYT that has begun to see the light, particularly in regards to Judith "Iraq has WMDs" Miller.

[Shopaholic]

9. Between Jayson Blair and Judith Miller. . .

I'd have to say that their influence isn't quite what it used to be.

[BeyondGeography]

11. On the Midddle East, The Times' pro-Israeli tilt always does it in

One can't help but think that many at the Times bought into the whole "remaking the Middle East" theme underlying the push to go to war with Sadaam. Nor can one easily resist the notion that the deeply felt desire by many at the Times to find a way to make the world a safer place for Israel had a negative effect on their ability to think clearly about how to deal with Sadaam Hussein's Iraq, which had tried to secure nuclear arms in the distant past with the obvious intent to destroy Israel.

And, whatever one wants to say about that, if you totally blow the coverage of a run-up to a war, you cease to be a reliable news source.

[Eric J in MN]

12. New York Times editorials were against the Iraq War (nt)

nt

[BeyondGeography]

14. That was the left-hand side of the op-ed page

And on the right, you had Thomas Friedman, William Safire, David Brooks and a host of guest contributors (there was a Wolfie, Perle, and Bill Kristol for every protesting Daniel Ellsberg)banging the war drums.

Dowd, as is her custom, waited to see what the cool position was. Only Krugman and Herbert called this turkey for what it was from the get-go.

The doves were outnumbered at the NYT as in the country. By the time the "editors" had their say, this deal was done, with the help of the NYT.

[TahitiNut]

13. Believe nothing of what you hear and less than half of what you read.

And to even get that high on the garbage-to-gold scale, choose wisely. The New York Times says "All the news that's fit to print." Reading between the lines you see "... and a lot that isn't!"

The "Garbage Rule" - Eighty per cent of anything is garbage!

(Try comparing the weight of your groceries to the weight of the resulting shit, piss, trash, garbage, and recyclables!)

[wellst0nev0ter]

15. No

NY Times states unequivocally and without irony that there were no accusations of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay an assertions that ignores its own reporting on the issue.

[gottaB]

18. that's pretty outrageous

"there have been no accusations of serious prisoner abuse in connection with interrogations at Guantánamo."

Doesn't pass the smell test, much less Google.

http://www.glphr.org/guantanamo/news.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa_gitmo

The icrc naturally is circumspect and cautious in their criticisms. The Times reporters should know that, and know how to read between the lines. The point that criticisms have generally focused on lack of rights and legal status, and especially the indefinite detentions, that's rather ridiculous. If the Guantánamo detainees weren't being subjected to severe psychological torture, the icrc wouldn't be extremely concerned. As icrc spokesperson Christophe Girod said back in October of 2003, as quoted in the Times, "The open-endedness of the situation and its impact on the mental health of the population has become a major problem" (Red Cross Criticizes Indefinite Detention in Guantánamo Bay).

There's something fundamentally misleading about using the icrc to characterize criticisms of the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo and then failing somehow to account for the icrc's explicit strategety of using diplomatic language and circumspection in its criticisms. And likewise it would be wrong to pretend as if the words "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" are not a key element of the criticisms presented by other human rights groups.

[Right Makes Might]

17. No

And if you're not sure, check out They Rule (theyrule.net). Go to Load Map > Popular > All The News They See Fit to Print.

Hard to be a reliable news source when you're the whore of every corporation in the US.

[robbedvoter]

19. No. Before Miller there was Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee and other boo-boos

How many lies does it take for you to stop trusting someone?
They are more dangerous than Faux because they fool some of you. Watch nagourney during the campaign writing about "worried democrats...." , and other fearless leader kiss-up. Just because Krugman has a column there doesn't give the gray whorse any credibility.

[gottaB]

20. DWC--Downloading While Chinese, thanks NYT

• How the New York Times helped railroad Wen Ho Lee
  
• Covering Wen Ho Lee
  
• How the New York Times convicted Wen Ho Lee
  
• Why Won't the Times Apologize to Wen Ho Lee?
  
• The Times and Wen Ho Lee
  

Finally came the apologia: "On the whole, we remain proud of work that brought into the open a major national security problem...."

aka, Downloading While Chinese.