Trump is in second place in New Hampshire Republican Primary.

Incomprehensible.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... president/

Christie got what is perhaps the most negative opinion piece on a candidate I've ever read in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/opinion/gov-christies-phony-truth-telling.html

geojanes wrote:Christie got what is perhaps the most negative opinion piece on a candidate I've ever read in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/opinion/gov-christies-phony-truth-telling.html

At what point does the paper of record just become another partisan rag locked in its own point of view similar to Fox or Huffpo?

ray

At what point does the paper of recorId just become another partisan rag locked in its own point of view similar to Fox or Huffpo

?

It is on the Opinion Page and labeled as such.
It probably has as much effect as publishing the results of an opinion poll on New jersey attitudes towards Christie.
(Hugely negative)
Or being asked about those negative polls by Meghan Kelly on Fox.
Whats fundamental is how Christies managed to get a 65% negative in New Jersey polling...

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/20 ... _ever.html

rickyp wrote:ray

At what point does the paper of recorId just become another partisan rag locked in its own point of view similar to Fox or Huffpo

?

It is on the Opinion Page and labeled as such.
...

I understand it's an opinion, but it is a smear. For example:

On the positive side, he does not deny climate change — so far — and has taken some constructive stands on immigration.

Ricky:

Whats fundamental is how Christies managed to get a 65% negative in New Jersey polling...

What's fundamental is that you who claim to be expert on polling from work experience are misreading the poll and misrepresenting what it says. He doesn't have a 65% negative in NJ.

geojanes wrote:Christie got what is perhaps the most negative opinion piece on a candidate I've ever read in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/opinion/gov-christies-phony-truth-telling.html

I'm not a Christie supporter. However, this is woefully short on fact and long on opinion and innuendo.

Of course, I look forward to a similar op-ed about Hillary, whose catalog of lies would be some multiple larger than Christie's (alleged) lies. She makes him look like an altar boy.

The NYT is a newspaper, and like all newspapers can be expected to have a fairly transparent political bias. It's not worth getting all bothered about. So long as you're aware of the editorial slant then you can filter it accordingly. I'll never understand why so many people from all sides of the political spectrum get so upset about media bias.

What's fundamental is that you who claim to be expert on polling from work experience are misreading the poll and misrepresenting what it says

How far off am I? Its 56% but 65% think he would not make a good President.
Ringing endorsement? Hardly. And this from the people who should know him best.

A whopping 56% of Garden State voters disapprove of the job Christie is doing as governor, a Quinnipiac Poll released Monday found — his worst Quinnipiac approval rating ever and the worst approval rating for any governor surveyed by the polling organization in 2015.

Only 38% of voters said they approved of the job Christie was doing as governor, Quinnipiac found in its poll, conducted April 9 to 14 of about 1,400 New Jersey voters.

In addition, 65% of those surveyed said they felt Christie would not make a good President, compared to 29% who said they thought he would. Another 64% said he shouldn’t even bother entering the presidential race.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2191366

Ricky:

How far off am I?

No more than usual.

Sassenach wrote:The NYT is a newspaper, and like all newspapers can be expected to have a fairly transparent political bias. It's not worth getting all bothered about. So long as you're aware of the editorial slant then you can filter it accordingly. I'll never understand why so many people from all sides of the political spectrum get so upset about media bias.

Because there is this ideal that journalist in particular and all media in general are supposed to be objective and non-partisan.

For example, in 1987, there was a panel of military, political and media discussing ethics in a military situation that included Peter Jennings, and Mike Wallace. The journalist were given the following hypothetical. The US is in a war with a fictional country and they were traveling with a unit from the other side. The unit they are with is about to ambush an American unit. The question they were asked is what do you do? Jennings answered he would warn the Americans even at the cost of his own life. However, Wallace, said he would do nothing to interfere. He then proceeded to lecture Jennings that they were journalist there to be objective and just report the news and should not favor either side. Jennings responded that he was absolutely correct. (I'll tell you the responses from the rest of the panel, varying levels of contempt, was rather interesting.)

Of course this is all bullshit. People are their biases and can not be objective. They will favor whatever side they think is right. However, we have this illusion of media objectivity. Therefore people get pissed at the supposed hypocrisy of a non-partisan reporter showing his bias.

I think we all understand that all media have some bias to a certain extent. All news has to be interpreted, selected and packaged before it gets to the reader/viewer. And in that selection/filtering process bias creeps in. But I think Fox News has taken bias to an entirely new level and really undermines confidence in news. Yes , I understand conservative allegations about liberal media and even if that it were true it is not consciously biased like Fox News is.

Anyway,I expect the New York Times to try and provide objective news with the understanding that some bias (hopefully minimal) is always going to be there in the presentation of news. The editorial piece on Christie is different because it is an opinion; however, its assertions should still be well- supported. The thing that is problematic is the attempt to cast Christie as a compulsive liar. Of course the conservative media has done the same with Hillary. I don't particularly care for it in either case.

I have no such expectations. This is possibly a result of my daily exposure to the British media, which so far as newspapers are concerned has always been utterly partisan and unashamedly so.

freeman3

The editorial piece on Christie is different because it is an opinion; however, its assertions should still be well- supported

He offers up evidence for everyone one of his assertions... If one really thinks the piece is a smear, then one should be able to refute each assertion with conflicting evidence. Instead whats offered is complaints about the tone... Complain about the tone, but if the facts are right maybe the tone is justified?

Christie has ended up being a disappointment as a Governor in New Jersey. If he's ruinning on his record in new Jersey, then his new Jersey constituents opinion is insightful.

archduke

Of course this is all bullshit. People are their biases and can not be objective. They will favor whatever side they think is right. However, we have this illusion of media objectivity. Therefore people get pissed at the supposed hypocrisy of a non-partisan reporter showing his bias.

There's bias. And an "opinion piece" is by defintion labelling itself as "biased". And there's irresponsible. John Stewart had made a living demonstrating the irresponsibility of news outlets like CNN and Fox. But this opinion piece isn't irresponsible.

This opinion piece offers a strong rationale for his opinion of Christie. If any of his evidence is wrong, inaccurate or out of context ....then he is out of line. If however, the evidence he produces to support his position is accurate and substantiated how should he be condemned? He's buttressed his position with facts...
I get it that some people may think the lines

On the positive side, he does not deny climate change — so far — and has taken some constructive stands on immigration

are shots. But it is true that Christie hasn't denied the science of climate change and almost alone among republican candidates has offered a policy on immigration that is significantly different than Trumps. Whether or not that ends up helping or hurting Christie with republican voters is still in doubt.
What seems to be really depressing his appeal with hard core republicans was his willingness to work with Obama after Hurricane Sandy...
And with new Jersey, his actual handling of Hurricane Sandy rebuilding efforts.
http://www.rawstory.com/2014/10/hurrica ... er-relief/

rickyp wrote:freeman3

The editorial piece on Christie is different because it is an opinion; however, its assertions should still be well- supported

He offers up evidence for everyone one of his assertions... If one really thinks the piece is a smear, then one should be able to refute each assertion with conflicting evidence. Instead whats offered is complaints about the tone... Complain about the tone, but if the facts are right maybe the tone is justified?

"Everyone one (sic) of his assertions?"

Is this evidence?

Mr. Christie presents himself as a paragon of political virtue, but he seems to have fabricated a personal friendship with King Abdullah II of Jordan to justify accepting about $30,000 in gifts from the monarch.

That reads a lot like opinion.

Is this evidence?

. . . (Christie) is responsible at the very least for creating the atmosphere that led his associates to conclude that such conduct on his behalf was appropriate.

That reads a lot like supposition.

Is this evidence?

. . . nothing has been done to cut back the outrageous number of local governments that bloat public budgets . . .

I'm not familiar with NJ. However, "local governments" . . . are those under the governor's control?

Is this evidence?

But as governor he has increased the tax burden on the working poor while vetoing a bill to raise the minimum wage to a paltry $8.50.

What tax burden?

Failing to increase the minimum wage affects how many adults in NJ?

Is this evidence?

Expect to see a lot of Mr. Christie at those phony “town hall” meetings, staged with selected supporters.

I see a lot of opinion and not so many "evidences."

freeman3 wrote: But I think Fox News has taken bias to an entirely new level and really undermines confidence in news. Yes , I understand conservative allegations about liberal media and even if that it were true it is not consciously biased like Fox News is.

As a liberal of course you feel that way. As a libertarian leaning conservative, I think CNN and MSNBC are much worse in their biases than Fox News could even imagine to be.

Of course we would both be wrong if for no other reason than none of those channels are news but rather entertainment.

freeman3 wrote: Anyway,I expect the New York Times to try and provide objective news with the understanding that some bias (hopefully minimal) is always going to be there in the presentation of news.

And again, as a liberal you would see the NYT as having minimal bias because it confirms your biases. However, as a libertarian leaning conservative who makes it a point to read from all sources, I can tell you the NYT's bias is not minimal and come through loud and clear in just about every political article.