- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 44,814
- Reaction score
- 20,221
- Location
- A very blue state
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, the party of personal responsibility has become the party of "it's their fault."
You can't own it?
You (pretend to?) have missed the point entirely: those words are used by many people thus to disguise those words (edit them out?) them when the NYT likes the speaker but to include those same words when the NYT does not like the speaker is a prime example of media bias.
Can't own what?You can't own it?
I understand the point, and the point is laughably stupid.
Right, it's their fault for quoting him accurately.
Of course, nothing to say about the person who said those words, just that the Times is bad for printing them.
In contrast to its policy of not repeating "barnyard epithets," said policy existing only days ago when the Times refused to spell out what Senator Reed said about Farenthold in his hot-mic conversation with Susan Collins, now comes Scaramucci, and what do you know? It's time to abandon any pretense of editorial standards.
From NRO:
Two days later, though, the paper’s policy on reporting vulgarities seemed to have undergone a distinct change when it reported on White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci’s “colorful language” in an exchange with a New Yorker writer. The Times fully, even a bit gleefully, reported Scaramucci’s profane remarks. There is little precedent for a swear word used by Scaramucci ever to appear in the New York Times. Nor is there much, if any, precedent for directly quoting the kind of language Scaramucci used when he described an anatomically improbable act.
...Let’s not pretend there isn’t another reason the Times cast off its usual standards in quoting Scaramucci without using dashes or euphemisms or the catchall term “vulgarity.” Quoting Scaramucci accurately is a way to make the Trump administration look bad, and making the Trump administration look bad is the Times’ primary purpose these days. This has been its primary purpose since long before its executive editor, Dean Baquet, admitted he thought his columnist Jim Rutenberg “nailed it” when Rutenberg, in a column Baquet placed on the front page last August, begged America’s Fourth Estate to abandon (its usual pretense of) objectivity and be boldly oppositional to Trump.
New York Times & Anthony Scaramucci -- It Prints His Profanity, Not Others? | National Review
I've been saying since 2004 that the old grey lady became a two-bit doxy in its shamelessly partisan support for John Kerry, but still, it's good to know that the NY Times has now abandoned any pretense at all at journalistic consistency, much less integrity.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/...id-just-kept-saying-the-exact-same-thing.htmlHis approach to Trump, he said, wouldn’t be fundamentally different. “It falls in that category,” Biden told me. “It’s one thing to say: ‘I think the proposal on the following is a serious mistake. I think it’s gonna do the following damage.’ It’s another thing to say, ‘The guy’s a ****ing idiot, and he is an egomaniac who’s a whatever.’ ”
Former tennis star faces ban for calling female players ?bitches? – Women in the World in Association with The New York Times – WITWIlie Nastase, former tennis star and current Fed Cup captain for Romania, might face a ban from professional tennis after he called two female tennis players (Great Britain captain Anne Keothavong and Johanna Konta) “****ing bitches.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.htmlAbout three weeks later, however, the unnamed specialist “had an ‘oh ****’ moment” and realized that he had not destroyed an archive of emails that was supposed to have been deleted a year earlier, according to the F.B.I. report.
Yeah, but that's not really true.Close, it is media bias for only quoting him accurately.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/...id-just-kept-saying-the-exact-same-thing.html
Oh look, the Times didn't censor Joe Biden when he dropped an F-bomb, thus rendering this thread irrelevant. And here they printed it again:
Former tennis star faces ban for calling female players ?bitches? – Women in the World in Association with The New York Times – WITW
And how about when reporting on Hillary Clinton's e-mail server?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.html
This is why you shouldn't read nakedly biased sources and should try to think for yourself and do research for yourself. Now that you see your wrong nota bene, I fully expect you to retract your position and apologize for pushing "fake news". Right?
Yeah, but that's not really true.
Slow your roll though, you gonna hurt yourself with them savage arguments.
In contrast to its policy of not repeating "barnyard epithets," said policy existing only days ago when the Times refused to spell out what Senator Reed said about Farenthold in his hot-mic conversation with Susan Collins, now comes Scaramucci, and what do you know? It's time to abandon any pretense of editorial standards.
From NRO:
Two days later, though, the paper’s policy on reporting vulgarities seemed to have undergone a distinct change when it reported on White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci’s “colorful language” in an exchange with a New Yorker writer. The Times fully, even a bit gleefully, reported Scaramucci’s profane remarks. There is little precedent for a swear word used by Scaramucci ever to appear in the New York Times. Nor is there much, if any, precedent for directly quoting the kind of language Scaramucci used when he described an anatomically improbable act.
...Let’s not pretend there isn’t another reason the Times cast off its usual standards in quoting Scaramucci without using dashes or euphemisms or the catchall term “vulgarity.” Quoting Scaramucci accurately is a way to make the Trump administration look bad, and making the Trump administration look bad is the Times’ primary purpose these days. This has been its primary purpose since long before its executive editor, Dean Baquet, admitted he thought his columnist Jim Rutenberg “nailed it” when Rutenberg, in a column Baquet placed on the front page last August, begged America’s Fourth Estate to abandon (its usual pretense of) objectivity and be boldly oppositional to Trump.
New York Times & Anthony Scaramucci -- It Prints His Profanity, Not Others? | National Review
I've been saying since 2004 that the old grey lady became a two-bit doxy in its shamelessly partisan support for John Kerry, but still, it's good to know that the NY Times has now abandoned any pretense at all at journalistic consistency, much less integrity.
Of course, nothing to say about the person who said those words, just that the Times is bad for printing them.
That kinda totally misses the point. There is exactly no substantive difference between spelling the word out, or using ****ing stars. It is a seriously petty thing to whine about.
All those words and no indignation for the man who used the words. There is little precedent for the words Scaramucci used to be associated with the White House. It is a strange new world!
Trump lowering the standards everywhere. Maybe everyone will now finally quit censoring ****. Hint.
That the New York Times accurately quotes people is certainly more concerning and egregious than the fact that people in the Trump administration (himself included, of course) talk like this.
Yep, gotta keep our priorities in order here.
Do you think not censoring will elevate standards?
Well, we all "use grammar," but if you mean that Times writers use good grammar/write well, they do.
If you'd like to talk about the hypocrisy of delicately avoiding repeating what Senator Reed said and then, when it suited its ignoble purposes, printing profanity two days later which was unprecedented, that would be great.
are? Integrity and reporting facts seems to have been replaced by strategic quarterbacking.editorial standards
This is why you shouldn't read nakedly biased sources and should try to think for yourself and do research for yourself. Now that you see your wrong nota bene, I fully expect you to retract your position and apologize for pushing "fake news". Right?
I was never a fan of censoring words, be it in print, on websites or on TV. So, I guess I don't care about "high standards" when it comes to banning words we all say every day anyway.
For some of us, there is a time and a place for everything, and some don't say these words every day. I don't think most people casually talk about somebody trying to suck himself off. Perhaps you do, but that's not my frame of reference.
And there is a difference between the spoken word, particularly in private/among friends, and the public written word. This is why I'm so amused by those who can't make a post here at DP without gratuitous swearing. I mean, if you can't control yourself when you're writing, you have major self-control issues. :lol:
But perhaps you're right. Why have any standards at all?
We all know about the boy who should wash his mouth with soap. The question de jour is why aren't other boys reported on for needing a good oral cleaning? The example of Reid was given. Do you really think he is the only one? Or may be he is the only one daring enough to spew it out in the open.It was your boi who made the comment.
We all know about the boy who should wash his mouth with soap. The question de jour is why aren't other boys reported on for needing a good oral cleaning? The example of Reid was given. Do you really think he is the only one? Or may be he is the only one daring enough to spew it out in the open.
So please don't distract for the issue of media bias by pointing to that one boy.
(laughs)
Funny..
Seeing NYT & and journalistic integrity in the same post, when I am pretty sure one killed the other a long time ago.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?