I hold that a Leftist slant is almost always the result of dishonesty or utter ignorance because the fundamental premises of the Left are thoroughly dishonest and at odds with reality.

Of course, one can also accurately say the same about hardcore conservative premises as well. The problem is that, in today’s world, anything that is not Leftist is automatically considered “conservative” and thus people such as myself are grouped together by the Left with the very worst sorts of conservatives in a dastardly package deal.

It is the Left that is the source and responsible for the popular terminology in today’s culture. And, of course, under their own terms, anyone who is NOT a Leftist must be some sort of backwards, uneducated bumpkin boor. I have never bought into that. Indeed, I have a very difficult time regarding as intellectually serious anyone who is a Leftist. In my book, they are on the same plane as Flat Earthers, advocates of Astrology and backwoods hicks who speak in tongues. To me, the only difference is they have a better vocabulary, eat at trendier restaurants and are far more pretentious, pompous and condescending. They are all frauds and phonies with dishonest agendas. So the pseudo-serious psudo-intellectual gloss of Leftist publications – well, I am not impressed any more than I am by watching Pat Robertson’s broadcast efforts. I tend to find Pat Robertson less nauseating simply because, unlike Leftists, he doesn’t pretend to be anything other than exactly what he is

It is no really different than a sophisticated con-man who happens to be charming, witty, educated, smart, a fountain of knowledge about fascinating subjects and whose insightful commentary reflects a thorough familiarity with the Objectivist literature. Sure, he has all those wonderful “virtues” – but he is a scumbag. Indeed, it is those very virtues that give him credibility and the ability to pull con games off that he wouldn’t have if he were just some ignorant, obnoxious boor off the street. Same with the Times – it would be far more forgivable if it were just some third rate populist tabloid. And I would have no problem with it at all if it were completely HONEST and said OUTRIGHT that it was an explicit, advocacy-oriented publication.

As for its alleged virtues – well, I grant that, at one time, the Times was one of the very few sources one could turn to in the USA for foreign news in any depth. Regional papers and television networks would only cover such stories if they had some sort impact on or widespread appeal in the USA. And they do cover stories in greater detail than other papers. The Internet, however, has largely obliterated any advantages it once had in those areas. I have no doubt that they have sincere and well-meaning journalists on staff who do not seek to use their work to proselytize and push agendas. But it is not the journalists who call the shots at a paper – it is the editors. And I suspect that its remaining virtues are largely the residual momentum of less corrupt past. In the past few years, they have been constantly called out on and forced to acknowledge gross inaccuracies – which they usually bury in a “corrections” column deep in the paper surrounded by minor errors such as typos and incorrectly described job titles etc. And there are stories that make the Left look bad that they either refuse to cover or grudgingly report in the most minimalistic way possible deep inside. When Dan Rather and CBS News attempted to throw a political election by reporting a dishonest story based on FORGED DOCUMENTS – well, readers of the New York Times did not find out about it until the scandal was WAY underway and they only saw fit to publish a brief, reluctant summary. When the failed Air America talk network debuted, the New York Times gave it lavish and prominent publicity as though it was MAJOR NEWS. When the network flopped both financially and in the ratings and in the ability to attract and retain affiliates – well, that apparently wasn’t news fit to print. And when it came out that the financially desperate network had been financed, in part, by a shady, illegal loan from a City of New York tax subsidized boys and girls club – well, one would think that, given the lavish attention that the Times gave to the network at its start, that would be big news. As usual, the Times was late to the game in even mentioning the story and covered it as though it was just one of many corrupt business transactions that take place in any big city which impact few beyond its immediate victims.

Of course, the Times is not the only media outlet that behaves in such a manner – which is why I refer to today’s mainstream media as the Walter Duranty Media. The New York Times has never, in fact, abandoned Duranty’s agenda oriented approach – it is just that, with modern communications and rival news networks they have to be a bit more cautious in being able to get away with it.

That is why I pretty much take anything the mainstream media says with a HUGE degree of skepticism. These people are Leftists – and Leftists don’t think twice about lying simply because FACTS and REALITY aren’t fully real to them anyway. To them, the ends justify the means – and that is the approach that the New York Times takes time and time again. And the rise of opposition media in recent years in the form of the blogosphere shows just how many stories of significance that the mainstream media DOES NOT cover or merely goes through the motions of covering when things have unfolded to the point it HAS to cover them.

Yes, this is the point that Schwartz made in his detailed analysis of one NYT article, and I have it seen again and again in the NYT.

For example, today there is an article about mostly “white” gang attacks on lone Hispanics in a small town in NY state. The article has a slant toward the critics of the police (who were supposedly unaware of a general problem), but the virtue of the article is that it provides plenty of interviews and other material.

An objective reader can see that there may have been fault on both sides. Only now has the police department begun taking steps to examine the situation; on the other hand, many of the critics have admitted that the victims of the attacks in many cases did not even report the attacks. (Some feared harassment by immigration “authorities.”)

In a well-written newspaper, an objective reader can construct an hypothesis from the (purported) facts presented–in spite of any slant by leftists or conservatives or other nonobjective people.

The New York Times shows its leftist slant on its editorial page in the same manner the Wall Street Journal shows its conservative slant on its editorial page.

The Times’ choice of topics, placement in the paper, and length devoted to them does reveal its leftist bias. However, I still find its reporting quite informative and useful. It is not hard to see through the slant where it exists.

As for the Journal, there are some great editorial writers, albeit the paper is way too conservative. My favorite is Mary Anastasia O’Grady, who does excellent first-hand reporting on Latin America from a moral, individual rights perspective. Her articles appear on the editorial page.

The New York Times is being torpedoed by the system it regularly derides. In their minds, now they have even more reasons to denounce capitalism. Watch them call for more subsidies such as their recently built skyscraper headquarters that they stole using eminent domain and New York taxpayers’ money. I hear they are under such financial duress that they plan to sell it, and pocket the money.

When I read general news (which is very seldom now), I do look at The New York Times. I learned from a lecture many years ago, given by journalist Peter Schwartz, that even the NYT can be an acceptable source of information if read properly. E.g., he showed his audience examples of articles that contained the most important information–at the end of the articles. Other newspapers had not provided such detailed information.

I would very much like to have a superior alternative: objective, in-depth, general coverage.

Suggestions?

Hear, hear! I could use the good news about now, what with… well, the first part of what you reported. And all the rest.