Do you trust the NYT after all of the crap?

[harpo]

Judith Miller feeding whatever the VP's office wanted to the public.
Jayson Blair resigned over plagiarism.
Executive Editor Howell Raines resigned over plagiarism.
Managing Editor Gerald Boyd resigned over plagiarism.

Please tell me people do not actually trust these folks anymore! I know whenever I read their stuff I usually have to find another source because...well because they plagiarize.

[MadMaddie]

1. Nope...I don't trust any MSM.....and I try to avoid reading them..

[kentuck]

2. They've been riding Bush pretty hard for the last few months....

We need to be careful who we throw overboard...

[400Years]

6. they are proven liars

we don't need them

[cali]

14. I need them.

I need the powerful reporting voices of John Burns, Jeffrey Gettleman and Edward Wong out of Iraq. I need Paul Krugman on the economic malfeasance of the admin and Congress. I need Frank Rich for his strong and biting commentary about social issues and the hypocricy of bushco. I need Nicholas Kristof as a voice of humanity about such issues as Darfur and other human rights issues around the globe. I could go on. The Times has some truly fine writers and opinion columnists. No, I don't trust the management or editorial staff, but that still doesn't entirely negate the value of the paper.

[harpo]

20. wow..you know their names...impressive, they must be valuable 2 you

[cali]

26. And if you don't,

you know jack about the Times. I'd bet that a clear majority of DUers know who Frank Rich, Nick Kristof and Paul Krugman are, and that they have a lot of respect for them.

[400Years]

29. Krugman admitted that they forbid him from using the word "lie"

in reference to the Bush administration.

Krugman, Rich, and Herbert, are all good but I wish they would find a better outlet.

I know, one doesn't really exist but I refuse to financially support and institution that
so blantantly supported the liars in the White House even before they stole that election.

[400Years]

24. they were indespensible in Bush's pre-invasion justification for war

without NYT he wouldn't have been able to fool so many NYT loving liberals

[asjr]

10. Yes, they have, but I believe it may be

because all this stuff is coming out, especially in blogs, that they can not avoid it. When The WaPost and NYT come out with an edition saying IMPEACH on the front page then I can feel they have redeemed themselves somewhat. Those papers know as well as you and I that we have either a puppet, a paranoid idiot, a greedy Republican, or a demented fool posing as our president. In the last 5 years the media have not been truthful as you know. Maybe they have been programmed to self-distruct.

[stray cat]

3. As much as any source

trust but verify goes for any source of information

[harpo]

12. piont well taken, thanks!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. But their crossword rocks!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

7. been reading my mind again, Grannie?

[Horse with no Name]

5. Just curious

Is this your attempt to discredit the source that was given to your argument in this thread?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=791179&mesg_id=791179

[harpo]

8. nope...but it did make me wonder how much people trusted the NYT

so I figured I would ask.

[BurtWorm]

15. So which is it, yep or nope?

You seemed to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth with that answer.

[harpo]

18. did you see the subject in my last reply...it was a NOPE

[BurtWorm]

23. Let's put it on the table: This thread is really about this Times article

It could appear that you're trying to get public approval to ignore the implications of this article because it comes from the NY Times, and not just because it contradicts your assumption that Illegal immigrants pay nothing into the system


http://select.nytimes.com/search/restric...

BUSINESS/FINANCIAL DESK


Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions


By EDUARDO PORTER (NYT) 1746 words
Published: April 5, 2005


...

Starting in the late 1980's, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect -- sometimes simply fictitious -- Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the ''earnings suspense file'' in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.

The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990's, two and a half times the amount of the 1980's.

In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

In 2002 alone, the last year with figures released by the Social Security Administration, nine million W-2's with incorrect Social Security numbers landed in the suspense file, accounting for $56 billion in earnings, or about 1.5 percent of total reported wages.

[harpo]

30. if it were I would have quoted it...but it isn't, thanks for asking though

[BurtWorm]

31. Can I ask you this, then: What do you make of that article?

Do you give yourself permission to consider it as possibly true, even if the consensus in this thread is that the Times is an untrustworthy "right-wing rag?"

[harpo]

32. you can ask...doesn't mean you will get an answer though

I'm not gonna let you change the subject on me :)

[BurtWorm]

33. Why not? You changed the subject on yourself.

;)

[SeattleRob]

9. the NYT has a long history of crappy reporting

The Times has been a mouthpiece for big business and the establishment for as long as I can remember.

[BurtWorm]

11. Why do you ask?

[harpo]

13. becuase I think about 60% of what they say is crap...lol

[BurtWorm]

16. You mean the 60% of the time they contradict your assumptions?

At least some of those assumptions might be wrong.

[harpo]

19. you are assuming that I'm assuming ;)

[Imalittleteapot]

17. No. But then

I don't trust any msm - only Keith.

[Jacobin]

21. Its a garbage right wing rag and has been since they

started bashing on the ClintonBlowJobCrisis and worshipping The Boy King

[cali]

28. Just curious....do you read the Times on a regular

basis? Have you ever done so?

[Dogmudgeon]

22. What the MSM is good for

The kind of news that is "Public Postings" -- like, that Jill Carroll was released, or that the Idiot Bastard Son made some bone-headed remark, or that industrial capacity fell 2.2% this past quarter. Stuff like that.

The editorializing? It's just about all shit topped with a worm-eaten bing cherry. Even my once-beloved Philadelphia Inquirer has turned into a rat's nest of neo-con fulminating (though I hear that the Big Dog is in bidding for it).

The mainstream European media are far more reliable -- and stuff from Agence Presse France is good practice for French. (Which reminds me, I have to start reading the Spanish press now that the Aznaristas are out of power). So is Ha'aretz (even its pro-Israel slant is from a progressive p.o.v.) and Tokyo Shimbun. And, of course, there are many good papers from Canada, though my preference is for that big-assed, glossy, hard-drinkin' grubstake-town woman of a magazine, Macleans.

They're all on-line. The only regret I have is that without a notebook computer, I can't read the news while I'm eating my morning cornflakes.

--p!

[NNN0LHI]

25. No n/t

[TomInTib]

27. I gladly pay $50/month for the NYT because they have

the best of any major dailies in
Arts (film,music,art,theater,etc)
Food
Book Reviews
Dining
Travel
Crossword

And the Business section ain't too shabby, either.

The NYT has far and away they best-written articles of any daily (unless one prefers to read USA today for their incredibly concise, efficient prose that is so enlightening to read while mouthing the words).

Then there's Krugman, Herbert, Dowd, etc.


As far as a news source that never gets it wrong, I go to.... uh, maybe you can help me out, here.