TODD Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I've been subjected to a lot of radicalism here. For the most part, it's benign and I enjoy it. Sure we had a guy drive his car into the middle of campus a year ago "in retribution for treatment of Muslim students," but it's usually in good fun. But what one of my professors said to me was just baffling. We were peer-reviewing some papers in my English Comp class when my professor walks up to the guy sitting next to me and asks him "if he used the Washington Times in his research paper?" He responded in the affirmative and she proceeded to tell him that the Times is not a legitimite or authoritative news source for a research paper and he shouldn't use it in class. My jaw-dropped considering we were writing a persuasive paper based on labor unions, most of which require stories from newspapers. I had to say something, so after class I went up and asked her why the Times was not appropriate for our research while papers that I cited such as the New York Times, which has had similar accusations of biases? Apparently the Times has a right-wing, ideologic agenda that is well-known by scholars and in the literary community. This is a paper with an agenda, she told me. It is not a legitimate source to use in any paper, even a persuasive paper. I told her that my parents had subscribed to both the WashTimes and WashPost for most of my life (true) and that I read both daily in high school (mostly true ). The only profound differences I had found between the papers were the attractiveness of the pictures of President Bush, how some headlines were worded and oriented on the front pages (I mostly was more concerned with the way the Post did this), and that the Post’s sports page crushed the Times’. I kept prodding her about this and then she told me that there were tiers of newspapers: 1st tier are the most respected news sources that include the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the L.A. Times. 2nd tier are to be used primarily for local stories, but are okay to use in research papers (for example, Atlanta J-C, Miami Herald, Raleigh N&O). I asked her where the Washington Times sits and she said it was “below the second tier”– it isn’t a resource with any authoritative value. It's important to note that this particular professor has been in a national controversy at UNC, as some of you may recall may recall this story, over homosexuality and a student's right to speak out. But my question is, has the reputation of the Times been tarnished that far or am I right to think that this lady insane? Do you think she’s wrong for saying this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Ive heard the very same thing on here when someone links to the Times. Its just like how the far leftys here and else where refer to fox news as faux news. Its just pure political hate nothing more, I think its unfortunate that a college professor would be so closed minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 It is definitely the reputation the Times currently has. I think that right wingers will tell you that the reputation is undeserved and is based on pure political hate, while the left wingers will tell you that it is totally deserved based on the inability of the Times to keep its "commentary" from spilling over into its "objective news."' It is a tough call, since no news source is ever truly and perfectly objective, (although some do try harder than others, and in my opinion, the Times doesn't try very hard). Biases will always slip in as long as humans are writing the articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Liberals held a monopoly on the media for so long, that compeitors such as FoxNews or the Washington Times, which brings a different angle to each story, is subjected to this kind of treatment No surprise with your prof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Ridiculous academic censorship... at it's best... Is she going to give you a list of "people you can't use of sources", also? I can see professors not allowing you to use Opinion or Editorial articles , but to censor against someone because they don't research and report the news the same, and work for a different company is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Nope, no censorship on college campuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Liberals held a monopoly on the media for so long, that compeitors such as FoxNews or the Washington Times, which brings a different angle to each story, is subjected to this kind of treatment I love the wording. . ."a different angle" Translation: They are a propaganda outfit for the Right Wing. . . The Washington Times is not a credible source in any actual research field, as it is not a credible paper. It's sole justification is pushing a political ideology forward, and not the news. You can say the same thing about other leftist outfits like Mother Jones and The Nation, neither should be quoted for a research paper. I also want to point out something in the thread starter's statement. . . The only profound differences I had found between the papers were the attractiveness of the pictures of President Bush, how some headlines were worded and oriented on the front pages (I mostly was more concerned with the way the Post did this), and that the Post’s sports page crushed the Times’. If that is what you see, then you are not looking at the piece objectively. If you were truly objective, you would see the right wing view pushed by the Times. For example, Boston has a "second tier" paper the Herald, it is a right wing rag, which attacks left wing people on a daily bases. The headlines over the past three days have been on Governor Patrick's use of a helicopter, yet there was absolutely nothing about Romney, or Weld when they were gov's. They will go after on side and not the other. . . They are not as bad as the times, Your teacher is asking you to look at the news in an objective manner, and using a biased source for a research paper is not a good start to a research paper. If you look at people on this message board, we take the Wash. Times at face value and often ridicule people for using them as a source. There is a reason for this and it is because of the track record. It is the same thing when a leftist poster uses common dreams or Atrios to back their point. Using obviously biased viewpoints to back your viewpoint will not cut it. You need to get actual information and garner an opinion outside of traditional biased sources. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Ridiculous academic censorship... at it's best... Is she going to give you a list of "people you can't use of sources", also? I can see professors not allowing you to use Opinion or Editorial articles , but to censor against someone because they don't research and report the news the same, and work for a different company is ridiculous. Would you say that Common Dreams is a credible source for a research paper? Funny, because I would not, and I don't think you would either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 How about this... instead of asking a bunch of political hacks on a message board why no research this? I have and I can tell you there are some pretty serious reasons why the "Moonie" Times lacks respect outside of conservative circles. The loons on the right will tell you that it's BS and that it's no different the Post in terms of bias. That's crap, I read both and that's very clearly incorrect. The Wall Street Journal is slanted right... the Washington Times isn't slanted, it stands entirely on the right wing side of the debate and seeks to pretend otherwise be allowing a few liberals writers some space. It's the media arm of Moony's church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I love the wording. . ."a different angle"Translation: They are a propaganda outfit for the Right Wing. . . The Washington Times is not a credible source in any actual research field, as it is not a credible paper. It's sole justification is pushing a political ideology forward, and not the news. You can say the same thing about other leftist outfits like Mother Jones and The Nation, neither should be quoted for a research paper. . Not really, but in Chomo world, anything not spouting D talking points is a "right wing rag" One of the first things you are taught as a journalist student is the topic of an "angle" of a story For example, in our HS sports section (which yours truly edited) we never took a game recap angle. We took a player development angle, or an angle which covered how the team practiced. Everyone already knew the score A good example. The oil for food scandal. Under reported on the major networks and only Fox News gave any coverage to it Ever wonder why John Stossel is hated by the media establishment? Because he went after unions The bias is there and has been there for a very long time. When some new dogs came on the block, the left quickly cried "propoganda" and "bias!" Typical Chom argument, when in doubt yell "right wing blah blah" or "talking points!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I love the wording. . ."a different angle"Translation: They are a propaganda outfit for the Right Wing. . . The Washington Times is not a credible source in any actual research field, as it is not a credible paper. It's sole justification is pushing a political ideology forward, and not the news. You can say the same thing about other leftist outfits like Mother Jones and The Nation, neither should be quoted for a research paper. I also want to point out something in the thread starter's statement. . . If that is what you see, then you are not looking at the piece objectively. For example, Boston has a "second tier" paper the Herald, it is a right wing rag, which attacks left wing people on a daily bases. The headlines over the past three days have been on Governor Patrick's use of a helicopter, yet there was absolutely nothing about Romney, or Weld when they were gov's. They will go after on side and not the other. . . Your teacher is asking you to look at the news in an objective manner, and using a biased source for a research paper is not a good start to a research paper. If you look at people on this message board, we take the Wash. Times at face value and often ridicule people for using them as a source. There is a reason for this and it is because of the track record. It is the same thing when a leftist poster uses common dreams or Atrios to back their point. Using obviously biased viewpoints to back your viewpoint will not cut it. You need to get actual information and garner an opinion outside of traditional biased sources. . . I shudder to think what your idea of a "objective source" would be. I don't think I've ever seen you use one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 How about this... instead of asking a bunch of political hacks on a message board why no research this? I have and I can tell you there are some pretty serious reasons why the "Moonie" Times lacks respect outside of conservative circles. The loons on the right will tell you that it's BS and that it's no different the Post in terms of bias. That's crap, I read both and that's very clearly incorrect. The Wall Street Journal is slanted right... the Washington Times isn't slanted, it stands entirely on the right wing side of the debate and seeks to pretend otherwise be allowing a few liberals writers some space. It's the media arm of Moony's church. You call the Post "objective"? :laugh: You must have missed the Bill Arkin thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Can anyone give me an example of what the Wash Times has done to deserve being banned from use as in research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I love the wording. . ."a different angle"Translation: They are a propaganda outfit for the Right Wing. . . The Washington Times is not a credible source in any actual research field, as it is not a credible paper. It's sole justification is pushing a political ideology forward, and not the news. You can say the same thing about other leftist outfits like Mother Jones and The Nation, neither should be quoted for a research paper. I also want to point out something in the thread starter's statement. . . If that is what you see, then you are not looking at the piece objectively. If you were truly objective, you would see the right wing view pushed by the Times. For example, Boston has a "second tier" paper the Herald, it is a right wing rag, which attacks left wing people on a daily bases. The headlines over the past three days have been on Governor Patrick's use of a helicopter, yet there was absolutely nothing about Romney, or Weld when they were gov's. They will go after on side and not the other. . . They are not as bad as the times, Your teacher is asking you to look at the news in an objective manner, and using a biased source for a research paper is not a good start to a research paper. If you look at people on this message board, we take the Wash. Times at face value and often ridicule people for using them as a source. There is a reason for this and it is because of the track record. It is the same thing when a leftist poster uses common dreams or Atrios to back their point. Using obviously biased viewpoints to back your viewpoint will not cut it. You need to get actual information and garner an opinion outside of traditional biased sources. . . TODD, I don't think the source of this info is very credible, third tier at best, I wouldn't use this post by Chomerics in a research paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Can anyone give me an example of what the Wash Times has done to deserve being banned from use as in research? Its editorial board endorsed GWB twice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Christ, here we go again....another debate on leftist/rightist media crap. Can't we all just get along? Read what you want and enjoy it, even if it means pissing off the other side. If Charmin made red toilet paper and blue toilet paper there'd be arguments between the lefties and righties on which ones better to wipe your ass with. Unbelieveable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Not really, but in Chomo world, anything not spouting D talking points is a "right wing rag"A good example. The oil for food scandal. Under reported on the major networks and only Fox News gave any coverage to it No, Fox news tried to tell everyone the reason the UN did not want to go into Iraq was because of the scandal, not the fact that they did not have WMDs and was not a threat. Nice try to dodge the conversation though, but again, you are wrong as usual. . . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090701646.html I can come up with 1000 different links of the scandal being in major publications, but it was not forced down the public's throat as a justification that the UN did not want to invade Iraq. The right wing pushed that agenda as a justification for ignoring the UN, and you know this as well. . . Ever wonder why John Stossel is hated by the media establishment? Because he went after unions The bias is there and has been there for a very long time. When some new dogs came on the block, the left quickly cried "propoganda" and "bias!" Typical Chom argument, when in doubt yell "right wing blah blah" or "talking points!" Please, come up with something better then "sprouting talking points" The Mooney Times is a biased paper and you know this for a fact. You would be the first in line to call out anyone who used common dreams as a source and you know it. There is a GREAT difference between the WSJ and the WT. The WSJ is a right slanted paper, but the WT is a propaganda paper. Just as the NYT is a left slanted paper and Mother Jones is a left wing propaganda outlet. . . i don't expect you to see this though, that would actually require some objectivity. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I shudder to think what your idea of a "objective source" would be. I don't think I've ever seen you use one Really Sarge, maybe that is because you have the objectivity of a worker bee. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Can anyone give me an example of what the Wash Times has done to deserve being banned from use as in research? http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=Washington+Times 958 items on their website which states the Times is pushing one side of an agenda. If you want to go through each one individually, and debate the validity of their claims, I will do so. But suffice to say, they have a tendency to not only just push one side of an argument, but to outright lie as well. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Its editorial board endorsed GWB twice And that should tell you something about their credibility :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 mediamatters is a left wing propoganda site. Nothing from there can be used in a debate. It's too biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 No, Fox news tried to tell everyone Chom, you forget something. Where the hell do you think these guys get this "under reported" stuff from? You think they are picking up every paper or googling these stories? No. The right wing media will SAY that the stories they like are being under reported. Tune into Rush, Hannity, or Fox and wait for them to say it. Then check the so called "liberal media" and you'll find this "under reported story". But the righties don't read the liberal media... so they just parrot what they are told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 A source can be biased and credible. So yes of course people can cite magazines like the Nation and Mother Jones. I have. The Wall Street Journal editorial page is biased and one of the most credible sections in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Seriously though, are biased sources not allowed for research? And why does the left get to be the sole decider of what is biased? Show me where they lied or made up a story to further their agenda. (edit. fixing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 mediamatters is a left wing propoganda site. Nothing from there can be used in a debate. It's too biased. I know they are, like I said I will go through each of their line items and discuss them if you want. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.