2008 Woodie Awards
The Greyhound Editorial: New York Times should know better
Issue date: 2/26/08 Section: Opinion
This week in the political world we saw what seems to be the first few examples of the so-called "silly season" or negative campaigning for U.S. President. The New York Times printed a story about Senator and Republican candidate, John McCain's relationship with a Washington D.C. lobbyist. After looking into the story, the Times apparently had most of its information and sources for the story to be printed months earlier, but they went to the presses just when McCain looks to take the Republican nomination for President in November.
On the other side of polls Hillary Clinton is accusing her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama, of stealing his speeches from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, stating, "lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox." The Greyhound would like to take the side of that Austin, TX audience during that Feb. 21 Democratic debate, as they booed at Clinton's blatantly negative attack on her opponent.
As one of the integral parts of media, newspapers must be impartial and neutral, showing no bias in its writing. When cable news providers like Fox News dole out opinionated spin doctoring along with every story, the American public can laugh it off. We, the American people, are prepared for the kind of nonsense that the Bill O'Reilly's and Michael Moore's of the world serve up frequently. When esteemed news organizations take it upon themselves to withhold information for the purposes of political terrorism that is something all together different. Media has reached a critical juncture, in which bias has infiltrated information in almost every form. And these organizations, as the gatekeepers to information, have a tremendous ability to harm American by participating in smear campaigns and the like. The fear we at The Greyhound now face is that our gatekeepers are attempting to corrupt us. Instead of citizens utilizing the information at their fingertips to make cogent decisions, we find the masses influenced by CNN predictions and negative campaigning. The lesson of the past eight years has to be that the presidential election is too important to trivialize it down to a school-yard name-calling feud. The time has come for the news industry to reevaluate their mission, because if they go the way of partisan "hackery" so goes our nation.
On the other side of polls Hillary Clinton is accusing her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama, of stealing his speeches from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, stating, "lifting whole passages from someone else's speeches is not change you can believe in, it's change you can Xerox." The Greyhound would like to take the side of that Austin, TX audience during that Feb. 21 Democratic debate, as they booed at Clinton's blatantly negative attack on her opponent.
As one of the integral parts of media, newspapers must be impartial and neutral, showing no bias in its writing. When cable news providers like Fox News dole out opinionated spin doctoring along with every story, the American public can laugh it off. We, the American people, are prepared for the kind of nonsense that the Bill O'Reilly's and Michael Moore's of the world serve up frequently. When esteemed news organizations take it upon themselves to withhold information for the purposes of political terrorism that is something all together different. Media has reached a critical juncture, in which bias has infiltrated information in almost every form. And these organizations, as the gatekeepers to information, have a tremendous ability to harm American by participating in smear campaigns and the like. The fear we at The Greyhound now face is that our gatekeepers are attempting to corrupt us. Instead of citizens utilizing the information at their fingertips to make cogent decisions, we find the masses influenced by CNN predictions and negative campaigning. The lesson of the past eight years has to be that the presidential election is too important to trivialize it down to a school-yard name-calling feud. The time has come for the news industry to reevaluate their mission, because if they go the way of partisan "hackery" so goes our nation.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 4
Paul Burns
posted 2/26/08 @ 3:51 PM EST
Let me get this straight - If it's Fox News, it's "opinionated spin doctoring". If it's the New York Times (or perhaps all television media other than Fox News), we have "esteemed news organizations. (Continued…)
John Dougherty
posted 2/26/08 @ 9:55 PM EST
Never mind, of course, that the editorial was equally critical of the actions of both outlets, as well as muckraking on both sides of the political spectrum. (Continued…)
Paul Burns
posted 2/27/08 @ 5:38 PM EST
I have no quarrel with the editorial writer's condemnation of distorting the news. Indeed, I wholeheartedly agree with the editorial's criticism, as well as the entirely warranted condemnation of the Times handling of its McCain story. (Continued…)
Matt Lindeboom
posted 2/28/08 @ 4:53 PM EST
I'll agree that the NY Times has an agenda. Every publication does to one degree or another, even our humbly bumbling Greyhound. However, the key difference between an outlet like Fox News and the NYTimes, that I think needs to be pointed out, is that the New York Times tries to be objective Often it fails spectacularly (see most recent story on John McCain). (Continued…)
Post a Comment