The Greatest Lie Ever Told?

[telkanuru]

Because the media is such a good, objective way to get your facts straight in order to vote for the leader of the country.

Yes, actually, it is, if you read things that aren't the New York Post.

What's your method, an Ouija board?

Sometimes the voices are really in your head, you know.

[I_luv_saber]

Forgive me for being cynical, but I don't take the media's word on anything anymore.

You can find most everything you need on the internet because most of it is public information.

I do look at some third-party organizations, such as factcheck.org... but for the most part, I do my own legwork. I don't need the same people that are telling me about Paris Hilton's latest sex tape or Britney Spears upskirt scandals to be telling who I should or should not vote for, thanks. Yeah... really good method there.

What's your method, an Ouija board?

Incidentally, that would probably be a better method. At least it doesn't have an agenda (albeit that depends on who you are "talking to").

[Fencer X and Y]

The media has long given up its objectivity. A perfect example just happened today. A guy named Norman Hsu was convicted. You'r eprobably wondering who's Norman Hsu. Well he's the democratic equivalent of Jack Abramoff. Now, why is it that you probably know who Jack Abramoff is and have never heard of Norman Hsu?

To me it's scarry that we have a leader who very few people are afraid to question. A major issue with Bush was that he surrounded himself with yes-men and had no idea what the opinions out there in the real world were. Obama says he's different. We'll see. My concern is if Obama isn't doing so well will we even know about it.

[telkanuru]

So he was stupid enough to try to bribe the party NOT in power, and you wonder why he doesn't get column inches?

And if you think places like the NYT are actively fabricating things like planks in the Republican party platform, you are seriously off your meds.

[Fencer X and Y]

So he was stupid enough to try to bribe the party NOT in power, and you wonder why he doesn't get column inches?

And if you think places like the NYT are actively fabricating things like planks in the Republican party platform, you are seriously off your meds.

I never said there were any fabrication but lying by omission is still lying (at least in my opinion). I gues you don't have to report on absolutely everything but then don't pretend like you're unbiased. Don't get me wrong Fox news is as much as a joke as NYT (okay fine probably more of a joke) but come on how many people think it's a reputable news source?

[jeff]

Actually, most people think of it as a reputable news source, including journalists on the other side of the spectrum, like those at the WSJ. There's a big difference between a Fox News, which is a soapbox for the mouthbreather side of the Republican party, and a real newspaper like the NYT. The Times may occasionally get things wrong, but they do try get it right and actually present the news. They're transparent in this effort, and even include an ombudsman who prominently comments on what they got wrong and right, and includes comments from readers and critics.

I knew about Hsu, and I read about him in the New York Times.

There's no need for a paranoid fantasy about the Times (or other reputable sources), or to imply that they didn't report on Hsu or otherwise lied by omission. Unless you have something to back that up, you're just hyperventilating because you don't like their editorial stance.

[Fencer X and Y]

Actually, most people think of it as a reputable news source, including journalists on the other side of the spectrum, like those at the WSJ. There's a big difference between a Fox News, which is a soapbox for the mouthbreather side of the Republican party, and a real newspaper like the NYT. The Times may occasionally get things wrong, but they do try get it right and actually present the news. They're transparent in this effort, and even include an ombudsman who prominently comments on what they got wrong and right, and includes comments from readers and critics.

I knew about Hsu, and I read about him in the New York Times.

There's no need for a paranoid fantasy about the Times (or other reputable sources), or to imply that they didn't report on Hsu or otherwise lied by omission. Unless you have something to back that up, you're just hyperventilating because you don't like their editorial stance.

Okay, I was out of line. I didn't mean to pick on just the NYT (it's an easier target then most as far as liberal media bias goes) Yes, it's a reputable newsource as much as CNN or MSNBC are. The point I was trying to make is that by that same token Fox news is a reputable newsource as well. They don't make stuff up. They report the negative with the positive. And even the NYT has been known to quote Bill O'reilly. To use your own words they just have a different editorial stance. Yet you call them a soapbox for the dumb. I agree. And I guess when you lok at it that makes NYT a soapbox for the intelligentsia. But it's still a soapbox. Didn't it seem kinda shady that they didn't want to run that op-ed of McCain even though they did print his other stuff when he was in the primaries? At some point during the Bush administration most of the liberal news agencies decided that it was no longer just their job to report the news but to report the news in a way that would paint Bush as a nincompoop and a simpleton who knew nothing, the war in Iraq as an evil lost cause that was comparable with Vietnam and every person who supported the republican party as a simpleton hick who was "bitter and hung on to their guns and their bibles." Has it always been like this? Can you really tell me that it's just editorial slant? Most of the stuff I read on CNN or in the NY times just sounds like an editorial. I can't remember the last time I saw a critical article of Obama. Is he really that perfect? I don't think so. Do I think he's going to be a good president? Sure I think he's intelligent and charismatic and he has common sense. Does that mean that he should get a free pass? From my personal obsevation it seems like that's what the media is doing. Can you honestly tell me that the "Cult of Obama" is just my paranoid fantasy?

[jeff]

We have a fundamental point of disagreement. I think that the NYT does a very good job of confining its opinions to the Op-Ed pages and to articles clearly marked as an opinion column from an individual author (even in the sports pages), with the bulk of the content in the "news hole" being actual news, while Fox News is essentially an Op-Ed department with occasional news and a lot of outright lies.

The "fair and balanced" claim of Fox News was illustrated with Hannity and Colmes, with the latter just a patsy for Hannity to run over. In contrast, the NYT has people like David Brooks (who has considerable conservative credentials) on their editorial page, and previously had the odious Bill Kristol. Those are and were regular columnists, and there are other conservative contributors, so multiple opinions appear in the NYT opinion pages. I have no idea which McCain OpEd you refer to. He's been published on the OpEd page numerous times, as have other prominent Republicans. He's hardly been censored.

So, I dispute your equating the NYT with Fox News as being equal and opposite soapboxes. Maybe you feel that they portrayed Bush as a dope - but it's events that illustrated that. Yeah, the news items made your preferred guy look bad, but that's just too bad. He earned it all by himself. The news portion reported the details and it looks like editorial slant because it made your side look dumb. Too bad. When the editorial page says their opinion on the editorial page that's fair game - that's what the editorial page is for.

Frankly, your hyperbole doesn't help your case. It's just not true that the NYT portrays Republicans as bitter simpleton hicks. In fact, I've seen recent editorials saying that it's really a problem that the Republicans are pandering to the Limbaugh clique, because they believe that a democracy needs a vibrant and effective party in opposition. Similarly, they haven't indulged in a cult of Obama. Krugman and other columnists and editorial pieces have criticized him. Maybe there's a cult of Obama or belief that he deserves a free pass, but that doesn't appear in the NYT, nor do I subscribe to cultlike worship of Obama.

You say the NYT doesn't criticize Obama? Under 10 seconds and I was able to find http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/op...sun1.html?_r=1 which includes that does not change the fact that Mr. Obama was wrong when he flip-flopped and decided to resist orders by two federal courts to release the photos. We fear he is showing the same lack of resolve when it comes to Mr. Bush’s kangaroo courts So, it is just your paranoid fantasy.

I don't think you actually read the paper you criticize.

[I_luv_saber]

To be clear on what my position is... as I have said before, I don't think the media's agenda, be it newspaper, TV, or what have you, is necessarily that they are trying to advance one cause or the other (although of course that plays into it from time to time... human factor after all). I think mainly the agenda is that they are trying to do the same thing as every other company out there: make money. If bashing Bush is the popular thing, that's what they'll lean towards. If bashing Obama becomes the popular thing, you can bet your ass they'll all jump on that bandwagon. Do they write/broadcast some factual, sound, objective articles/reports? Of course they do. But that isn't all they do.

My favorite term for it is "newswhores". Very apt, IMO.

Maybe there are a select few out there that are the exception to this rule... I've not had the pleasure of seeing any of these yet, but I'm sure they probably exist. However, I don't think this is the case for the media in general.

[telkanuru]

Which is generally what we in the real world refer to as off your meds.

[I_luv_saber]

Because I think companies are greedy bastards trying to make a dime? You're right... that would be a new one. What was I thinking?

[jeff]

So, your claim is that the news outlets "jump on that bandwagon" and go with whatever is currently popular. That explains why the Weekly Standard, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal (all owned by Murdoch), and the National Review are all loudly championing Obama, and why the New York Times vigorously supported Bush when he had 70% popularity ratings.

Oh, wait. None of that ever happened. Off your meds, definitely. Well, let me restate that: your distrust and cynicism of the media is excessive and misplaced. By taking the position that "they're all the same" ("newswhores"), you deprive yourself of the ability to distinguish between news outlets that are largely trustworthy (say, NYT and WSJ, to pick two with opposing editorial stances) and those that exist only for advocacy, ideology, and outright propaganda. This reduces your ability to be meaningfully informed, and limits your understanding of the world. That's too bad, really.


Funny thing, btw. Both the Weekly Standard and the National Review lose tons of money, and are kept alive by subsidies and donations. Ironic that two of the publications that most pungently tout red blooded capitalism unmitigated by social welfare only survive due to charity from its political sponsors.

[I_luv_saber]

So, your claim is that the news outlets "jump on that bandwagon" and go with whatever is currently popular.

To a point, yes. I don't necessarily think the reporters do this (or at least want to), but then they aren't the ones with money in it.

That explains why the Weekly Standard, Fox News, The Wall Street Journal (all owned by Murdoch), and the National Review are all loudly championing Obama, and why the New York Times vigorously supported Bush when he had 70% popularity ratings.

When Bush had high popularity ratings, the media was all over "the patriotic" tear-jerkers. Flag waving was amazingly popular and there was a strong stand-behind-your-country/president attitude, which the media was more than happy to milk. Then, as soon as popularity started to drop, they were right on the other side of it, more than happy to bash Bush and his policies (even before the really despicable things surfaced).

Another example: Obama was strongly heralded by the media, through his campaign and into his presidency.

Now, these people aren't stupid. They didn't expect Obama to change the world in a month or two. But, the people were getting restless (most sheeple aren't very patient), and now we see some sentiment growing in the media of Obama "not keeping his promises" even though he's been in the White House less than half a year still. It's something that resonates with people and what they want to hear.

Oh, wait. None of that ever happened. Off your meds, definitely. Well, let me restate that: your distrust and cynicism of the media is excessive and misplaced.

Why is it misplaced? Why is the media something that is above what other companies are? They are still companies (most owned by bigger names) that are still out to make money! Why is it such an odd notion that they have their own self-interests involved? How can you say the credit card companies were left to tend with their self-interests in mind, but not say the same thing of news companies? I have to say, I don't understand this at all...

By taking the position that "they're all the same" ("newswhores"), you deprive yourself of the ability to distinguish between news outlets that are largely trustworthy (say, NYT and WSJ, to pick two with opposing editorial stances) and those that exist only for advocacy, ideology, and outright propaganda.

No, I do see the difference between that. But that doesn't effect my point. Sure, I think Fox is more out for ideology than the bucks, and I think there are others out like that as well. I definitely don't see CNN and Fox as one and the same. But the trustworthy sources you cite, I honestly don't find to be that trustworthy.

If I have someone reporting news to me who has their own self-interests involved, it hurts credibility. In the media's case, it is not an ideology (usually, with exceptions such as Fox) that is driving them, but money.

Why is this any different than a lobbyist saying you should/should not vote for something?

This reduces your ability to be meaningfully informed, and limits your understanding of the world. That's too bad, really.

I don't see why. I can be even more meaningfully informed by A) Going out and either getting the information myself, or cross-checking facts and B) Checking the same news from multiple sources (especially from different places, if possible). Obviously you can't completely remove objectivity, but it helps. If I get the same story from CNN, BBC, FOX, MSNBC, or even straight from the AP I can more likely draw a more complete conclusion than one who saw a story on CNN (especially if I cross-check their facts).

Funny thing, btw. Both the Weekly Standard and the National Review lose tons of money, and are kept alive by subsidies and donations. Ironic that two of the publications that most pungently tout red blooded capitalism unmitigated by social welfare only survive due to charity from its political sponsors.

Depending on the newspaper, I will say that newspapers are not as bad as other more popular forms of media (since that's where the money really is) most of the time.

[Fencer X and Y]

We have a fundamental point of disagreement.

Agreed. Therefore, since I can't convince you of my viewpoint and I'm still unconvinced by yours, what follows is just some clarifications on my viewpoint. I am in no way trying to persuade you to my side.

I have no idea which McCain OpEd you refer to. He's been published on the OpEd page numerous times, as have other prominent Republicans. He's hardly been censored.

Here is what I'm talking about. Straight from the horse's mouth so you don't accuse me of trying to be biased. To me this seems very suspicious. Now I understand that an editor has a right to ask for a rewording or a new draft. However McCain's position throughout the whole campaign has always been: "I will not commit to any timetables for Iraq because things may change and I will do whatever is necesserry to win this war." I highly doubt that David Shipley didn't know that therefore when he asked him to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. He was not only being unreasonable but in his own way saying I'm sorry but there's no way I'm printing your letter. Now of course this is just my opinion since neither I (nor you) could possibly know what Mr. Shipley was really thinking.

Yeah, the news items made your preferred guy look bad, but that's just too bad.

I have no clue where you got the idea that Bush was my preferred guy. I honestly have no preferred guy.

You say the NYT doesn't criticize Obama? Under 10 seconds and I was able to find http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/op...sun1.html?_r=1 which includes that does not change the fact that Mr. Obama was wrong when he flip-flopped and decided to resist orders by two federal courts to release the photos. We fear he is showing the same lack of resolve when it comes to Mr. Bush’s kangaroo courts So, it is just your paranoid fantasy.

Again I see this as only criticizing him when the editors at NYT feel like he hasn't been liberal enough or he's pandering to the republicans. When I tried to search for criticism of the stimulus package (granted I didn't try that hard but I still put in some time into it) all I found was one article by Ben Stein in which A. he doesn't protest it entirely just suggests that it needs to be spent on different things; and B. he praises Obama more than anything else.

I don't think you actually read the paper you criticize.

I do read it ocasionaly. We get it at work sometimes I'll look through it during my lunch hour. Quite honestly I don't like it's pretenciousness more then it's politics but that could be because I look through it's Arts section more then I do the news.

To be clear on what my position is... as I have said before, I don't think the media's agenda, be it newspaper, TV, or what have you, is necessarily that they are trying to advance one cause or the other (although of course that plays into it from time to time... human factor after all). I think mainly the agenda is that they are trying to do the same thing as every other company out there: make money. If bashing Bush is the popular thing, that's what they'll lean towards. If bashing Obama becomes the popular thing, you can bet your ass they'll all jump on that bandwagon. Do they write/broadcast some factual, sound, objective articles/reports? Of course they do. But that isn't all they do.

I have to disagree with you there. My problem is that I feel like the media has become comepletely polarized. There's either the right or the left. And both sides have taken it upon themselves to further their cause. Since Jeff has already showed how that's done at Fox News (and for the record I comepletely 100% agree with you Jeff) I'll bring an example of the other side. The tea parties. Here's an event that could actually help the republican party. A (semi)-populist movement that would show the government that no matter how bad things get that there are still people out there that oppose the big government and big spending. So what does the liberal part of the media do? That's right, instead of objectively covering the even they decide to call the whole thing tea-bagging. Honestly I feel like I'm not even watching news anymore but two high school cliques fighting each other. The truth is even if they just reported the events as they happened then the reader himself could have figured out that even by the largest estimates from the most conservatives bloggers the "hundred of thousands of people" that turned out (that is including the 5 and 6 year olds holding the cute signs complete with the backwards Rs and everything) that the event was still less than 0.1% of the entire US population and not the "swelling populist movement" that Fox news publicized for so long. Instead MSNBC gives it an overt homosexual name and only interviews the dumbest, most radical, idiots that show up. I don't see that as being objective.

[jeff]

With all due respect, guys, I think you're both missing a vital point. It is not the obligation of the press in a free society to give a soapbox to one political faction or another on their editorial page (there's a word for the kind of society that requires the newspaper to print the editorials of the current candidate of the "ruling party"). They have a total right (and obligation) to voice their own opinions (clearly labeled as such) and opinions of writers they voluntarily have on their pages. What they do have as an obligation is to report the news without protecting one party or another. That's the news part of the paper, not the editorial and opinion part. News is one thing, opinion another. Are we clear on that, folks?

That said, I have absolutely no problem with the cited item where McCain's article was sent back, with (if you read the link) suggestions for revision, and a note that McCain had been on the NYT Op-Ed page at least 7 times in recent years. I think that, and the transparency of the discussion of printing his piece was reported in the open are exemplary. You don't see anything remotely like that in Fox News. But #1 - the paper has a right to control what opinions are expressed on their pages. Just as Fox News has a right to express its opinions.

I_luv_saber: Do I really have to point out that flag waving is non-partisan, and that expressing patriotism isn't a vote for Bush? Love of country spans party lines, for goodness sake. Plus, there's my other examples you ignore, of right-wing papers continuing to support their policies despite the "bandwagon" of Obama's policy. I can add that the NYT didn't support Reagan even when he was extremely popular. QED, the news media doesn't jump on the convenient bandwagon, and you are wrong. I also object to your referring to "sheeple", which is dismissive and condescending. When you talk about money, are you implying that the media are bribed to support the party in office? That's a bit of a stretch, fella.

I agree with your idea of getting your information from multiple sources, but remember the difference between news and opinion. Come back and talk to me when you see specific news outlets misreporting or fabricating the news, rather than exercising their right to express their opinions. If you're dislike some outlet's opinions not agreeing with yours, that's one thing, but you haven't yet exposed a case where management of a reputable source (NYT, WSJ) falsified news for ideological purposes. That's why your mistrust is inappropriate

Fencer X and Y: I came into this thread because of your remark "but come on how many people think it's a reputable news source?" but all you've discussed since then is the content of their opinions, rather than the news they report. I hope we can close that particular line.

I covered your issue about McCain above. That's opinion and not news. Not giving the side you oppose a pulpit is completely appropriate. To your remarks about criticism of Obama: First you say he doesn't get criticized ("cult of Obama"), now you require them to criticize him for reasons in a way consistent your political beliefs and not theirs. It doesn't work that way - they get to criticize him for whatever reasons they like. It's easy to find articles there that criticized him. QED, no cult of Obama, at least not in that paper.

My mistake for thinking you were a Bush fan, for which offensive assumption I apologize. I appreciate your agreeing with me on Fox - it really is a different animal from a news organization. It's kind of like the mirror image of Mother Jones or the Village Voice. And, if you don't like the Times' Arts section, don't read it! (though the book reviews are good, and the crossword puzzles excellent)


EDIT: "tea bag" was a name the tea-party participants picked for themselves. That's newsworthy, and worthy of being mocked.

[I_luv_saber]

With all due respect, guys, I think you're both missing a vital point. It is not the obligation of the press in a free society to give a soapbox to one political faction or another on their editorial page (there's a word for the kind of society that requires the newspaper to print the editorials of the current candidate of the "ruling party").
{snip for brevity}
Are we clear on that, folks?

Absolutely, as long as it's painfully clear they are stating opinions, and they are put in a different area, I don't really care.

I_luv_saber: Do I really have to point out that flag waving is non-partisan, and that expressing patriotism isn't a vote for Bush? Love of country spans party lines, for goodness sake.

Of course it should... but there's a reason I put "/president", because there was this odd attribution of country with president, like the two were tied together. That's why we saw (or I saw, in my area of the country) a sad drop in people loving (or even just liking) their country because they didn't like/hated the president after Bush's approval nosedived. When they started hating the president, they started hating their own country. The two should be separate things... but that doesn't mean that 1) Everyone treats it that way or 2) That it's presented that way.

Plus, there's my other examples you ignore, of right-wing papers continuing to support their policies despite the "bandwagon" of Obama's policy.

I've already pointed out that some of the more extreme examples have some ideology in it.

But, if you think of it in terms of a business model, it isn't a bad way to run a business either. They are catering to a niche market they have going. While CNN and other mainstream sources are catering to the masses and tend to what is currently popular, certain news sources such as Fox News, or I dare say MSNBC, each have their own particular market they cater to. NOT having a Fox News would leave a big gap in the market waiting for someone to fill.

These are still businesses owned by big names... why is it weird to think they are in this for money?

I can add that the NYT didn't support Reagan even when he was extremely popular.

Two points here: 1) I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here as I wasn't old enough at the time to know what was going on, so I'd have to take your word on that. 2) I also am not implying that this has always been the case in the media. I think the element has always been present, to a point... but in the past news agencies have been very stubborn in adhering to their principles and seemed to take more enjoyment in the glory of keeping the government honest. Watching older news reports and newsreels, I get this impression.

My argument is that now, they are starting to care more about the money than that position. It has not gotten to the point where they are falsifying information... but it does dictate what they do and do not report, or the tone of the broadcast, or the ways in which the information is presented.

QED, the news media doesn't jump on the convenient bandwagon, and you are wrong.

And the banks all just wanted to give us really good deals, because they aren't really wanting to make any money. They're just there to help people.

I also object to your referring to "sheeple", which is dismissive and condescending.

You can object, but it doesn't make it wrong. I've worked in this business for far too long and seen far too many people walk through the front doors to not think that the majority of Americans (actually, just people in general) are stupid and will pretty easily follow the next person who gives a few sweet words. Humans have demonstrated this to be true many, many times. Harsh the term may be, but not false.

Perhaps this is just an example of customer service's horrible effect of jading people, or perhaps it's an effect of it giving you a better view of people. Tomato Tomahto

When you talk about money, are you implying that the media are bribed to support the party in office? That's a bit of a stretch, fella.

So, did you actually read any of my post before asking this?

If I was implying the media was accepting bribes to support the current party in power, I would have said that. It's nothing so dramatic.

I'm simply saying that CNN (or whoever else you'd care to use an example) is a business. They don't report news out of the goodness of their hearts, they are there to make money. What I am accusing the media of is eroding their principles, which they used to adhere pretty strongly to, in order to get more ratings and make more money. Of course there will always be some element of this and it can never be eliminated... but my stance is it's gotten a bit out of hand.

In short, they are running a business to make money.

I agree with your idea of getting your information from multiple sources, but remember the difference between news and opinion. Come back and talk to me when you see specific news outlets misreporting or fabricating the news, rather than exercising their right to express their opinions

.

I have no problem with them expressing their opinions, as long as it is explicitly labeled as such, and is presented at a different time than regular news (or in a different section for newspapers).

If you're dislike some outlet's opinions not agreeing with yours, that's one thing, but you haven't yet exposed a case where management of a reputable source (NYT, WSJ) falsified news for ideological purposes. That's why your mistrust is inappropriate

Because I specifically said (indeed my entire argument was) that most of the media is less swayed by ideology and more by what will sell more.

[jeff]

With the agreement on what's done separately in news and editorial content, the issue that dragged me into this thread is covered. Some people distrust the news contents of reputable media because they dislike the editorial contents, which is a mistake.

I agree that the media is out there (usually) to make money - but I've already pointed out NR and Weekly Standard that don't, and don't particularly try. I still feel your previous posts mix news and editorial content, and contradict what you just said. Earlier you said "If bashing Bush is the popular thing, that's what they'll lean towards. If bashing Obama becomes the popular thing, you can bet your ass they'll all jump on that bandwagon." I've given several examples in which none of that happened, in both extreme (NR, Fox, VV) and less extreme (WSJ, NYT) cases, where they stick to their ideological guns.

The contradiction is between your assertion above about jumping on the bandwagon (which they largely don't, or NR would be singing Obama's praises) and your assertion of a business model based on a political identity that plays to their viewer's political beliefs, and doesn't waver with who is currently popular. The latter is the more accurate of your observations: Fox News sticks to its guns as the right wing loudspeaker and sells to advertisers selling to that market. But that's not the business model of news outlets that aren't primarily news organizations and only secondarily political affiliation: NYT, WSJ, Economist, etc - whose primary business model is based on advertising revenue and sales that are not affiliated with partisan sides.

[I_luv_saber]

I agree that the media is out there (usually) to make money - but I've already pointed out NR and Weekly Standard that don't, and don't particularly try. I still feel your previous posts mix news and editorial content, and contradict what you just said. Earlier you said "If bashing Bush is the popular thing, that's what they'll lean towards. If bashing Obama becomes the popular thing, you can bet your ass they'll all jump on that bandwagon." I've given several examples in which none of that happened, in both extreme (NR, Fox, VV) and less extreme (WSJ, NYT) cases, where they stick to their ideological guns.

I don't doubt that 1) Those examples are out there and that 2) There is some representation from the other side (even at Bush's most unpopular times there would be the occasional report in his favor). I don't believe they are totally one-sided.

But, at least to me, it's usually pretty easy to tell which way they are leaning (left or right, matters not), and with some exceptions, I have noticed it tends towards popular opinion at the time.

The contradiction is between your assertion above about jumping on the bandwagon (which they largely don't, or NR would be singing Obama's praises) and your assertion of a business model based on a political identity that plays to their viewer's political beliefs, and doesn't waver with who is currently popular.

I don't see it as a contradiction, simply two different ways of running a business. One has a strong base they wish to keep, and the other plays with the people who are not firmly on either side. They just go after different markets.

[Inquartata]

Considering that some people seem to think that the mere fact of newspapers being for-profit businesses ensures their corruption, maybe we should be surprised( and grateful ) that any of them still maintain what objectivity and integrity they do...

[I_luv_saber]

Considering that some people seem to think that the mere fact of newspapers being for-profit businesses ensures their corruption, maybe we should be surprised( and grateful ) that any of them still maintain what objectivity and integrity they do...

Actually, it's not only that. As I pointed out, I don't think it was always that way (even though they were still a for profit business then as well. But I do think it's getting that way more and more.