The Washington Times: Inappropriate for a research paper?

[TMK9973]

I dont need to. I know which way they all lean. And I know that NONE of them are straight and narrow.

That's an interesting point about the Ed board having power over the news staff. I wasnt aware of that. Can we get confirmation? If so, that might be the monkey in the wrench that could eliminate them

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A60061-2002May22

Yes - It's from the Post - But it's not like the times will do a article on it. The biggest line is this line (Pruden was the editor).

Pruden said in an interview earlier this week. "We're conservative on the editorial page and in story selection, but we do not strive to write conservative stories."

[TODD]

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.

Don't flatter yourself. You think you're my only voice on this? Why couldn't I be researching concurrently?

Plus, I'm sure there will be at least a few good tidbits in here.

[aREDSKIN]

Here's a site that offers some explanations as to some of the different "biases" that exists out there. There are many.

http://www.fairpress.org/identify.htm

[DoGood28]

This thread is hilarious. I'm amazed how the liberals on there think that it is only a one-way street. Don't believe what they tell you. There are far more media sources in the United States that spin any news they can get their hands on towards the left wing agenda.

DENIAL PEOPLE.

[JMS]

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.

I didn't read the times for a long time because I couldn't get past the Reverend Sung Young Moon ownership. I have to tell you though I've been reading the Times for more than a decade. It's a great paper and with Great editorials. It is slanted to the Right, but the Post and NY Times are both slanted to the left. It's irrelivent. I mean today you have to always be on the lookout for bias, but I wouldn't put the Washington Times in the same catagory with Fox news for example. The Washington Times is a first rate paper.

The only moony influence I've ever duduced is their treatment of Religous Freedom. Any Morman, Dianetics, or any religous freedom issue no mater how obscure is more likely to appear on the front page of the Times and not be even covered by the Post. I've noticed this with amusement maybe twice in 12 years or so.

Times is a great paper and there are columnists like George Will, Pat Buchanan and many others who you won't be exposed to if you don't read the Washington Times. I like the original poster usually read both local papers.

I disagree with you on the sports page. The Times has a better sports page than the Post. The Post covers too much womens sports and their columnists aren't as knowledgable or unbiased as the Times sports colunmists. The Times sports columnists are much more likely to go after local team ownership for bad moves.

I find the Times refreshing.

[TMK9973]

This thread is hilarious. I'm amazed how the liberals on there think that it is only a one-way street. Don't believe what they tell you. There are far more media sources in the United States that spin any news they can get their hands on towards the left wing agenda.

DENIAL PEOPLE.

What does that have to do with anything? Who out there said that there aren't newpaper that lean to the left? I've heard people say there are right and left leading newpaper.

Are you saying that all press is eaither left or fair? That there are no right leaning papers?

[grhqofb5]

If you're unhappy with your professor's interpretation of what reliable authority is, write a letter to the head her department and let that particular official know what was said and what you think would be an appropriate solution.

Many professors have there own opinion of what contitutes a reliable source. It's all subjective. Don't let it bother you. You've got nothing to bargain with.

[twa]

She lost me when she ok'd the LA Times

I used to enjoy the days of the Houston Chronicle and the Post here seeing who could lean the furtherest each way on a story. :laugh:

You would wonder how two people could be reporting so differently on the same event.

Now they simply slant the reporting in the same paper

[Winslowalrob]

Christ dude, do not turn this on a referendum about the objectivity of the Washington Times or evils of liberals in education Todd . If you write research papers, you know there are things you can and cannot cite or use as sources. If you can use the Wall Street Journal, then you can use a conservative source. If the Washington Times is the same caliber of newspaper as the New York Times or the Journal, then it would have the same big stories reported. Think about it:

She eliminated a whole HEAP of newspapers with her criteria, and presuming the media is, in fact, liberal (some of you believe in that "conspiracy" more than others), she eliminated mostly liberal newspapers from her selection, therefore she leans too far to the right! I thought only Communists taught at universities!

Also, if the New York Times had a similar article that came to a similar conclusion... use the Times. It is one thing to find a podunk newspaper that agrees with you (I would categorize the Washington Times as wack, but thats just me) its another thing to get the New York Times or the Journal to agree with you. Besides, when dealing with labor unions, you have a limitless supply of sources you can use: almost everyone opines about them. Obviously there is just enough wrong with the Times to make some academics not accept it as a source, so just roll with the punches and plaigerize from the New York Times instead .

[Riggo-toni]

Okay, so the New York Times, whose editor knowingly allowed one of his favorite writers to continually fabricate stories, is a first-tier news source. Yeah, right.

I agree the Wash Times, particularly the editorials, is biased. I also believe the Post is just as biased, and I believe Newsweek is even more so - though I'm sure most academics likely consider it a "reputable" source.

[Winslowalrob]

I agree the Wash Times, particularly the editorials, is biased. I also believe the Post is just as biased, and I believe Newsweek is even more so - though I'm sure most academics likely consider it a "reputable" source.

I do not know about that, he should ask his professor. A few of my professors considered it a joke. For the record I refuse to read Newsweek (not serious), the Post (not serious), and the Washington Times (not serious and conservative).

[TODD]

I agree the Wash Times, particularly the editorials, is biased. I also believe the Post is just as biased, and I believe Newsweek is even more so - though I'm sure most academics likely consider it a "reputable" source.

It's an opinion. Isn't it supposed to have a disposition?

[JCB]

Hmmm, I'll comment here (whereas I usually don't on these kinds of threads). I'm a lefty and a professor (at NC State - Wolfpack!). And I think your professor is a bonehead. Yup, a total bonehead.

First of all, there are obvious differences in the quality of reporting in major American newspapers. People will rank papers differently, of course, but most folks will agree that in terms of pure reportage the top tier includes, e.g., the NYT, the WaPo, the Boston Globe, etc.

Second of all, even though bias obviously creeps into articles, these are distinct from the editorial profiles that newspapers have. While even editorial boards can diverge in their thinking, most reasonable people on the left and the right do make this distinction and can then process information accordingly.

So with regards to source citation, we can say the following things off the cuff. The Times may not be - top to bottom - the paper that the Post or the NYT is. In other words, their reporters may not write as well, may not have as many interesting things to say, their book reviews section might suck, etc. And it's obvious that your prof doesn't like their editorial positions on many issues. Well, fine. It just so happens that I don't either. But, despite the fact that it's a conservative rag, despite the fact that in some areas its quality might be (objectively?) a notch or two below other rags, and despite its ownership (Rev. Moon), it is an established paper with a trained staff, a network of contacts, and so forth. In other words, it's not the Weekly World News or Jimmy's Blog.

What makes me nervous as a prof is when students want to cite blogs (obviously just opinion-driven) and Wikipedia (user input, subject to all kinds of misinformation) rather than legit sources. To me, I don't read the Times but they employ trained reporters, etc. If their editors make arguments I don't agree with, big deal. I'm all about training students to make *good* arguments, not about training them *what* to argue.

In short, your prof sucks. As a lefty and an academic, I think this is lame lame lame. Good luck with your paper, dude. There are nincompoops in every profession. But at Chapel Hill you have access to a fantastic group of professors (and obviously some narrow-minded ones too). Keep your head up and enjoy college.

HTTR.

[DoGood28]

What does that have to do with anything? Who out there said that there aren't newpaper that lean to the left? I've heard people say there are right and left leading newpaper.

Are you saying that all press is eaither left or fair? That there are no right leaning papers?

You need to reread my post and contemplate what a "one-way street" means. Then you need to read some of Chom's ridiculous comments.

[zoony]

It never ceases to amaze me.... the arrogance of liberals. Everybody who disagrees with them is a close-minded hack.

Anyone who is a liberal though is enlightened and open minded.

Pathetic. Truly.

[Peregrine]

lol, the problem with the Washington Times is it doesnt fall lock step in line with the rest of the Liberal papers. My brother actually got a job there this past month as a writer(and we asked him about where they lean). We figured they were more conservative but he said they really werent.

Calling the Washington Times an illegitimate source is basicaly saying "Im a flaiming liberal that hates conservative papers". Shouldnt the judgement be based on the content of the particular article? Basicaly the teacher doesnt want anyone even looking at other sources than his approved list. What an open mind he has...

Is the Washington Times biased? Of course. So is the Washington Post. Claiming to be unbiased is in essence lying. It cant be done(it shouldnt be done, because where are your principles in that case?). But bias is quite different from the reliability of the content in the article.

[Destino]

And of course all of CBS has to be dismissed because of Rathergate correct?

You know you keep bringing that up and all I can say is look at the results. Rather lost his job and it totally let Bush off the hook. Right wingers LOVE to ignore this part for two reasons. It's pretty damn obvious Bush never finished his time in the national guard and they don't want to talk about what happened to Rather because members of their sides "alternative press" never get canned for making **** up.

That's the difference between mainstream and right wing fantasy press.

[Winslowalrob]

What makes me nervous as a prof is when students want to cite blogs (obviously just opinion-driven) and Wikipedia (user input, subject to all kinds of misinformation) rather than legit sources. To me, I don't read the Times but they employ trained reporters, etc. If their editors make arguments I don't agree with, big deal. I'm all about training students to make *good* arguments, not about training them *what* to argue.

HTTR.

Quick question, do you teach science? Cause the science wikipedia stuff is great and they cite tons of legit sources, so if you go back and find the same thing verbatim in the original textbook, is that not just the same thing? The lib arts I would not touch though...

[TMK9973]

It never ceases to amaze me.... the arrogance of liberals. Everybody who disagrees with them is a close-minded hack.

Anyone who is a liberal though is enlightened and open minded.

Pathetic. Truly.

See - And I see it as the arrogance of Conservitivees. Everybody who disagree with them is a flaming anti-american liberal.

Anyone who is conservitive is smart and knows the truth...:doh:

[ChiefBigMeat]

The Times is not a real newspaper. It was bought by Sun Myung Moon to use as a propaganda tool. This is a widely known fact in the news media and among academics. The Times does not even attempt a pretense at objectivity and openly admits its purpose. The reporting it does is not even biased, it is fabricated and should not be in any way considered a reliable source.

Moon calls himself a reverend and is a nut. Example: he believes any sexual act should be cleaned be cleaned after with one cloth which the married couple keeps for the duration of their marriage and is never laundered (yes, really)

He is also a HUGE campaign donor of the republican party and has long, close ties to the Bush family.

Google the guy and see for yourself.

[ChiefBigMeat]

BTW, I know most of you will never accept this, but being the the news business I can tell you: All legitimate newspapers (NYT, WashPost) are not biased in their news reporting AT ALL.

There is no conspiracy.

If you think they are biased it simply means that because of your love for your political "team" YOU either love or hate the stories depending on how you perceive it affects your "team's" image.

When you hear a party try to discredit the media, it is simply their way to try and defuse negative coverage. It's amazing how many people say they believe politicians are so crooked, yet believe them when they try to discredit genuine reporting.

[chomerics]

Damn you're funny. You sit here and spout about objective sources and then give something from UCLA, and then admit it's jacked? :laugh: But objective

Have a nice date with the boyfriend

I take it you didn't read the report then huh sarge.

[chomerics]

It never ceases to amaze me.... the arrogance of liberals. Everybody who disagrees with them is a close-minded hack.

Anyone who is a liberal though is enlightened and open minded.

Pathetic. Truly.

Funny Zooney, I was thinking the same thing about the righities on this board.

So who is the most close minded. . . Sarge, AFC and MassSkinsFan or Predicto and Chomerics. Yea, it is the left who is close minded :doh:

[chomerics]

lMy brother actually got a job there this past month as a writer(and we asked him about where they lean). We figured they were more conservative but he said they really werent.

I think it is safe to say your brother is a hack then :laugh:

[PleaseBlitz]

Funny Zooney, I was thinking the same thing about the righities on this board.

So who is the most close minded. . . Sarge, AFC and MassSkinsFan or Predicto and Chomerics. Yea, it is the left who is close minded :doh:

I would say all of the above, then point out that you missed a bunch.