Nice attempt at redirection but it didn't work.

I pointed out that whilst you attacked me for daring to question Wirt's
usage of links to the NYT "editorial section" to buttress his argument, you
never showed the same concern when Wirt questioned my usage of links to The
Washington Times "news section."

You still don't.

Now to answer your latest comment, I will once again explain the difference
between news and opinion.  Listen carefully; this will be my last time.

Comparing the NYT to O'Reilly is silly.  The NYT purports to be a newspaper
with an editorial section.  Instead it acts like an editorial publication
with a news section.

The main problem with the NYT is they long ago blurred the lines between
opinion and news.  They also have had a string of scandals about fabricated
stories that recently culminated in the forced resignation of the editor,
after the firing of some writers.  Does the name Jayson Blair ring a bell?
I understand that any organization may have one or more rotten apples;
however this one for example, was allowed to remain unchallenged for a long
time.  Any news article one reads in the NYT needs to be questioned, simply
because they have published so many that were untrue or incorrect.  The NYT
claims to be non-partisan and that's incorrect.  To that point, there is not
a single conservative writer at that newspaper.  And that includes Bill
Safire.

I haven't watched O'Reilly in quite a while, but the last time I watched
him, he did NOT claim to be a news reporter.  The National Review does NOT
claim to be a news publication; it is magazine of editorials and (usually)
conservative opinions about the news of the day. And yes, an opinion
magazine can surely have opinions about an opinion writer in another
magazine; it's done all the time.

Now, Paul Krugman does write an opinion piece in the NYT and that's ok.
However, because he writes for the NYT he should be treated with more
deference than someone who writes opinions in National Review? Give me a
break.  When Wirt refers to Paul Krugman as a "left-leaning" economist, one
has to laugh.  Paul Krugman long ago fell down, hard, on his left side. His
opinions are just that, opinions.

I have no problems with opinion pieces at moveon.org, The New Republic and
others of that ilk; they do not try to pass themselves off as new magazines.
Neither does National Review, American Spectator, Weekly Standard and
others.  When you read these magazines, you are fully aware they have an
agenda and a slant.  The NYT and its apologists insist it does not and
that's plain wrong.

The "Gray Lady" truly has become "Gray Lady Down," with apologies to David
Lavallee.

Denys

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Bill Shanks
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 1:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Off-topic, but not by much (Part II)

Denys writes:
"Wirt, if you want to make a point about something, you would do yourself a
tremendous favor by a) not quoting the NYT, b) not quoting Maureen Dowd and
C) not quoting Paul Krugman, and especially not referring to him as a
"left-leaning, right-thinking economist."  The truth is, Paul Krugman is
about the most partisan writer at the NYT or any where else.  He is not
left-leaning, he is so far to the left he added a new dimension.  He is also
an inveterate liar and fabricator.  This is to the point where the National
Review has had a KTS (Krugman Truth Squad) for a long time.  Every time
Krugman gets his fulminations published in the NYT, NRO has an article
debunking said article.  At least Dowd has the alcohol excuse to explain her
meandering rubbish."

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *