without a doubt - massive nytimes article on george w. bush

i'm not one to get involved in political debates, but this was too amazing to let pass.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/ma...d=all&position

since the new york times likes to lock out their articles after a few days, i'm hosting it here

Why would you trust what the NY Times says about Bush? They have been doing everything short of going out on the Kerry campaign trail for months now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Why would you trust what the NY Times says about Bush? They have been doing everything short of going out on the Kerry campaign trail for months now.

---

while it's true that they lean kerry, the new york times is still a relatively credible source of information, and this article appears to be well-researched. at least read it.

i don't like kerry, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by epmode

while it's true that they lean kerry, the new york times is still a relatively credible source of information, and this article appears to be well-researched. at least read it.

i don't like kerry much, either.

---

I read the article last week, when it was first published. Anyway, the NY Times is generally a credible source of information, as long as its not talking about either candidate, and its not talking about issues related to the campaign. So, in other words, it hasnt really been a credible source for the past few months, though I hope this changes after the election.

I think this was published the same day that they officially endorsed Kerry, too (and if it wasnt the same day, it was the next day). Really, take it with a large bagful of salt, and keep in mind its not meant to be credible or unbiased or whatever - its meant to get Kerry in office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

I read the article last week, when it was first published. Anyway, the NY Times is generally a credible source of information, as long as its not talking about either candidate, and its not talking about issues related to the campaign. So, in other words, it hasnt really been a credible source for the past few months, though I hope this changes after the election.

I think this was published the same day that they officially endorsed Kerry, too (and if it wasnt the same day, it was the next day). Really, take it with a large bagful of salt, and keep in mind its not meant to be credible or unbiased or whatever - its meant to get Kerry in office.

---

Seriously. I love the Times, but getting candidate info from then is just as bad as getting it from FoxNews. Either way you're looking at very biased information.

FoxNews > NYTimes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

FoxNews > NYTimes

---

...

FoxNews > castration, but really that's about the only thing you can compare them favorably to.

Voting Kerry, but sick to death of the whole thing.

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James

FoxNews > castration, but really that's about the only thing you can compare them favorably to.

Voting Kerry, but sick to death of the whole thing.

James

---

Sorry, but the NY Times went from being a widely respected unbiased newspaper to being the bastion of hope for all that is liberal. They are an absolutely terrible newspaper at this point, especially when you consider that news is supposed to be synonmyous with reporting unbiasedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

especially when you consider that news is supposed to be synonmyous with reporting unbiasedly.

---

it never really has been though.