In article
,
ScottW wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:30*pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article ,
*Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:
Jenn said:
I think it's worthy that while a couple of the neo-cons in this
group
provide links to OT topics, it's some biased blog. *George, a
liberal,
used the NY Times. *Nice touch.
If you're implying that the Times is a bastion of "liberal"
politics, I
disagree.
I don't that's what he's implying.
How come you didn't resent it when Stephen called you an oick? Hahaha,
just
kidding. Nobody who wields both a baton and a guitar could possibly be
an
oick. In fact, I don't think girls can be oicks at all. They probably
have a
completely different slur for the female equivalent.
Shall we wait for Marc to clarify, or would you like to splain me where
I
went wrong in my reading of his post?
It just reads to me like a complement.
Yes, I think he was contrasting the relatively credible NYT to the
slaverings of Right Blogistan.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._20082/2008_pr
esidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_o bama_win
"A Rasmussen Reports survey earlier this year found that just 24% of
American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. The
paperšs ratings divided sharply along partisan and ideological lines,
with liberals far more supportive of the paper than conservatives."
Are they implying that only 24% of America is liberal enough to have a
favorable opinion of the NYTs?
That would assume no conservatives have a favorable opinion, so no. Is
that a trick math question or something?
Many liberals have unfavorable views of the NYT, especially of the op-ed
page.
Stephen