The Washington Times: Inappropriate for a research paper?

[TODD]

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?

[dreamingwolf]

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.

[Predicto]

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.

[SkinsHokieFan]

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

[Fergasun]

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.

[Sarge]

Nope, no censorship on college campuses. :rolleyes:

[chomerics]

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. . .

[chomerics]

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.

[Destino]

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.

[SkinsHokieFan]

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!"

[Sarge]

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

[Sarge]

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: :stop:

You must have missed the Bill Arkin thread :rolleyes:

[Kilmer17]

Can anyone give me an example of what the Wash Times has done to deserve being banned from use as in research?

[Zguy28]

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.

[SkinsHokieFan]

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

[Spaceman Spiff]

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.

[chomerics]

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. . .

[chomerics]

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. . .

[chomerics]

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. . .

[chomerics]

Its editorial board endorsed GWB twice

And that should tell you something about their credibility :laugh:

[Kilmer17]

mediamatters is a left wing propoganda site. Nothing from there can be used in a debate. It's too biased.

[Destino]

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.

[luckydevil]

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.

[Kilmer17]

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)

[chomerics]

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. . .

[Sarge]

Really Sarge, maybe that is because you have the objectivity of a worker bee. . .

Realistically, one should read the same story on both the Compost and the Times. But that's not what this hack is saying. She's saying, read the Post.

Way to go Ms Goebbels :rolleyes:

[Kilmer17]

How many items does mediamatters list for the NYTimes or LA Times?

[chomerics]

Seriously though, are biased sources not allowed for research?

That is a good question, and one which should be addressed. It brings validity to the argument if you do not used obvious biased sources to produce a research paper, and it can expose a bias in and of it self if you have only biased sources as your evidence.



And why does the left get to be the sole decider of what is biased?

They do not, unless you consider academia "leftist". I consider it a search for knowledge, and I do not look at it with the eyes of politics, but if you MUST push a label on them, and state where they are on a political map, then yes, they are left of center, as they should be.



Show me where they lied or made up a story to further their agenda.

Clinton's haircut that shut down the airport for one. It never happened. . .

[Sarge]

They do not, unless you consider academia "leftist". I consider it a search for knowledge, and I do not look at it with the eyes of politics, but if you MUST push a label on them, and state where they are on a political map, then yes, they are left of center, as they should be.





At least you're truthful........chomrade :rolleyes:

[Kilmer17]

They list the same number 958 when you search NYTs and LA Times.

Are those not allowed now as well?

[chomerics]

How many items does mediamatters list for the NYTimes or LA Times?

814 for the NY Times. . .didn't do the LA Times.

[chomerics]

At least you're truthful........chomrade :rolleyes:

Something you're not der fuehrer

[Baculus]

I think it has to do with the "Moonies Times" moniker, as well as the fact that the Time has printed some articles that some saw as border line bogus. The Times has become a lot better of the years, but some of you may not remember that it some of its reporting was seen as a bit questionable in the past. But don't underestimate the entire "Moonies" angle when some folks question the Times as a legimitate news source.

Even though the Times has reported on subjects that the "let-wing" Post didn't report, such as the gay prostitute White House story.

[Kilmer17]

814 for the NY Times. . .didn't do the LA Times.

So they're out as well right?

[Kilmer17]

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

[SkinsHokieFan]

Clearly the media in this nation has been biased for generations, mostly to the left

One thing the media, right, left, upside down, in America has been very protective of is Isreal. I have my own theories on why, but Blade almost banned me in 2003 when I said why :)

Carry on now

[chomerics]

So they're out as well right?

:laugh: touche. . .

My point was we can go through the items line by line and debate if they are correct or not.

[The Evil Genius]

Can anyone give me an example of what the Wash Times has done to deserve being banned from use as in research?

If it's the mouthpiece of the Unification Church, that would be enough for me.

:D

[SkinsHokieFan]

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
. .


What in the hell are you talking about? Another Chom line "dodging the topic, changing the subject" sort of like trying to prove a story is bogus by saying a member got it from a certain website


Fox News presented a story, which back in 2002 was not being reported by anyone else. Find me those 1,000 links, I am looking forward to it :)

[Sarge]

Something you're not der fuehrer


I believe the Hitler Youth went to indoctination camps like this. But as long as they spouted left wing ideologies it'd be cool, eh?

And that's Mein with a capital "M" and Fuehrer with a capital "F"

[Kilmer17]

I dont doubt the bias that exists. I just think it's crazy to say one publication/newsgroup is bias and cant be trusted, but another is less biased and can be trusted.

Using an editorial is one thing, but dismissing the entire publication is completely shortsighted and biased in itself.

[Baculus]

Clearly the media in this nation has been biased for generations, mostly to the left

One thing the media, right, left, upside down, in America has been very protective of is Isreal. I have my own theories on why, but Blade almost banned me in 2003 when I said why :)

Carry on now

The entire "liberal left" media bias is a big cliche', which has been repeated for a bit now. If you look at media for a long time, it was not left or right leaning, but really went with whatever direction the editors thought would sell a story or create success for the paper, TV channel, whatever. It is the editors who are often conservative, and they, more so then the reporters, decide the direction of the stories.

Heck, if you read the Post during the Monica Lewinksy days, you didn't exactly see the reporters pulling their punches.

Nevermind the fact that Big Money, as well as some intelligence organizations such as the CIA, have had influence upon the media.

The media is a self-serving beast, depending upon who's pulling the strings. But merely labeling it as "liberal" is missing out on the complexities of the media, who controls and owns it, and who helps dictate its direction.

[luckydevil]

One thing the media, right, left, upside down, in America has been very protective of is Isreal. I have my own theories on why, but Blade almost banned me in 2003 when I said why :)

do tell

[TMK9973]

Actually - There is a legitimitate reason the times isn't used as a legitimate source. They are one of the only major Newspaper NOT to seaperate their Editoral and New divisions. Their Editiroal borad has editor powers over news articles.

They also use a LOT of "Un named sources".

They are in the same catagoriey as "The Nation", a left wing paper that can't be used as a source.

Now - If the Times is giving a fact, then is should be easy to get the same fact from another source. But if you are quoting a article, then it is fishy.
The Post leans left. The Journal leans right. Both are good sources.

The Times IS right and the Nation IS left - They are not good sources.

[chomerics]

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

They lean left as well. Do you want to list where everything is ideologically speaking?

You can read this research paper who is pretty good. . .

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf

There is a large inherent flaw in their analysis, and one they seem to not look at, but it is a pretty good approach of where everything lies (minus the WSJ) which they talk about. . .

OK, gotta go and do the Valentine bit tonight, I'll be online sometime after 9pm, and catch up then. . .hopefully it won't be 10 pages long ;)

[The Evil Genius]

Lookup the racial leanings of its Editor in Chief, Wesley Pruden - and you might get a clue as to what some people have against the paper. It's assistant National Editor, Robert Stacy McCain might even be worse.

:(

[Kilmer17]

edit





.

[Kilmer17]

They lean left as well. Do you want to list where everything is ideologically speaking?

You can read this research paper who is pretty good. . .

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf

There is a large inherent flaw in their analysis, and one they seem to not look at, but it is a pretty good approach of where everything lies (minus the WSJ) which they talk about. . .

OK, gotta go and do the Valentine bit tonight, I'll be online sometime after 9pm, and catch up then. . .hopefully it won't be 10 pages long ;)


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

[TMK9973]

BTW -
You said this was suppose to a presusive paper, correct?
So then the proffesor wanted you to presuade someone of a issue. That someone is him. So rule 1 was Know your audience. Your audience was your proffesor. You need to use sources he trusts, not ones you trust. Otherwise, you can't presuade him.

Politicians do this all the time. Democrats CONSITENTLY pick articles from the Wall Street Journal to prove a point, because it's a source trusted by people they are trying to convince.
Republicans always use the NY times and Washington Post for the same reason.

[Sarge]

They lean left as well. Do you want to list where everything is ideologically speaking?

You can read this research paper who is pretty good. . .

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf

There is a large inherent flaw in their analysis, and one they seem to not look at, but it is a pretty good approach of where everything lies (minus the WSJ) which they talk about. . .

OK, gotta go and do the Valentine bit tonight, I'll be online sometime after 9pm, and catch up then. . .hopefully it won't be 10 pages long ;)

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 :rolleyes:


Have a nice date with the boyfriend

[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? :D 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 :silly:

[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. :rolleyes:


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. :rolleyes:


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 :rolleyes:


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. :rolleyes:


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. :)

[DoGood28]

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 hate to break it too you and it speaks volumes that you don't realize this already, but you are as maniacally left as Sarge, AFC, and Mass are right. Except they tend to make more sense than you.

[aREDSKIN]

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.


LOL keep dreaming CBM. Any "objective observer" can clearly tell you of ABSOLUTE biaes of the NY Times & the Wash ComPost. They wear it as a badge of honor.

[Burgold]

This is the reason academic papers are not supposed to use solo sourcing. If the student author finds an article that did poor research or was subjective it should hopefully be balanced out by other journals that the student author picked. The Proffessor's stance was wrong. I know when I was in Grad school my areas of study were underresearched and sometimes I needed to rely on lesser scholarly journals to find support or information, that didn't disqualify them, but it does diminish your own study to an extent. I would argue that exclusively using the Wash Times would be a bad idea, but as one source... the worst it can do is offer an alternative perspective.

[Burgold]

LOL keep dreaming CBM. Any "objective observer" can clearly tell you of ABSOLUTE biaes of the NY Times & the Wash ComPost. They wear it as a badge of honor.

I worked in the newsroom of a radio station for a while and can tell you that in my experience that there was no conscious bias. The news director never demanded a pitch or ordered that the story be looked at from a certain angle. Now, I do believe that there is a subconcious bias that bleeds through... you see it in the choice of adjectives mostly. That's a really tough thing to spot because to one side that adjective sounds neutral or fair and to the other it sounds hostile. There was, however, no agenda being pushed or forced.

[kameuh]

Stick to peer reviewed journals until you graduate, or at least pass the course. Then feel free to lambast your professor as you see fit, unless you want some sort of reference :)

*edit* Don't argue, its not the extremeskins discussion board. It's the professors minipower trip forum. Aka you cannot win the debate. So do what you must to pass the course, and feel free to disagree at a later point in time.

[Mr. S]

I hate to break it too you and it speaks volumes that you don't realize this already, but you are as maniacally left as Sarge, AFC, and Mass are right. Except they tend to make more sense than you.

that is just a matter of opinion. Obviously Sarge and AFC are more right, while Chom is more left. I have no problem with how any of the three report their sides though. They all make sense to me, I just use what they say and make my own opinion, which just happens to be leftist in general.

[chomerics]

I hate to break it too you and it speaks volumes that you don't realize this already, but you are as maniacally left as Sarge, AFC, and Mass are right. Except they tend to make more sense than you.

If Sarge and AFC make more sense then me, then that speaks a lot about your beliefs. . .and to say I am as far left as AFC and Sarge are right really shows that you know nothing of my position. Just because I can give a convincing argument from my point of view does not mean I am ready to sign up for ELF, or contribute to Moveon.org. maybe one day you can see this, but I would not bet on it. . .

[chomerics]

I know when I was in Grad school my areas of study were underresearched and sometimes I needed to rely on lesser scholarly journals to find support or information, that didn't disqualify them, but it does diminish your own study to an extent. I would argue that exclusively using the Wash Times would be a bad idea, but as one source... the worst it can do is offer an alternative perspective.

Excellent post Burgold, and spot on. Yes, it doesn't necessarily make the paper invalid, but it diminishes your own study, which is the message she was poorly conveying to the student.

It would be nice to actually see what was referenced, and if it was legit or not. If it was something like Clinton's haircut that was used as evidence, when everyone knows it was a fabrication and a lie perpetrated by the right, and a 10 second Google search can give evidence that it did not happen, then this discussion would be entirely different.

[JMS]

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.

NY Times didn't knowingly allow, or enable. They fixed it as soon as they figured out what their reporter was doing. The reason why it was such news is because the NY Times is so respected.

Winston is right here. The Washington Times is a fine paper. But it doesn't rise to the reputation of the NY Times, Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal.

Still I like the Times, and in conservatives circles it's very widely respected, followed and Read. It is not the print version of Fox News.

[Destino]

I hate to break it too you and it speaks volumes that you don't realize this already, but you are as maniacally left as Sarge, AFC, and Mass are right. Except they tend to make more sense than you.
Chom is a bias democrat (more for the party then the ideology). Sarge is a bias conservative (more for the ideology then the party). Mass is flat out off the charts (subscribes to a extremist set of moral guidelines of his own design).

You claiming Mass makes more sense then Chom, puts you farther out onto the fringe then Chomerics. So perhaps you should stop throwing stones.

[grhqofb5]

Mass is flat out off the charts (subscribes to a extremist set of moral guidelines of his own design).

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Good Stuff

[JCB]

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...
Humanities here. I'll take your word for it on the sciences. And I think all Wiki stuff has the potential to be sound, but there are too many potential pitfalls.

[DoGood28]

If Sarge and AFC make more sense then me, then that speaks a lot about your beliefs. . .and to say I am as far left as AFC and Sarge are right really shows that you know nothing of my position. Just because I can give a convincing argument from my point of view does not mean I am ready to sign up for ELF, or contribute to Moveon.org. maybe one day you can see this, but I would not bet on it. . .


Chom is a bias democrat (more for the party then the ideology). Sarge is a bias conservative (more for the ideology then the party). Mass is flat out off the charts (subscribes to a extremist set of moral guidelines of his own design).

You claiming Mass makes more sense then Chom, puts you farther out onto the fringe then Chomerics. So perhaps you should stop throwing stones.

Ignore the comment about who I side with. The fact remains that Chom thinks he is infallible when he just represents the polar opposite stances as the right-wingers on this website. He calls these guys out for being so far right when he is equally left. Sarge and AFC KNOW where their feelings lie and realize that. Chom is blind.

[Midnight Judges]

NY Times didn't knowingly allow, or enable. They fixed it as soon as they figured out what their reporter was doing. The reason why it was such news is because the NY Times is so respected.

Winston is right here. The Washington Times is a fine paper. But it doesn't rise to the reputation of the NY Times, Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal.

Still I like the Times, and in conservatives circles it's very widely respected, followed and Read. It is not the print version of Fox News.

I agree with this. I have read hundreds of Washington Times articles and it's not as bad as their reputation leads one to believe. According to my folks it used to be a lot worse. In my experience, they are nowhere near FOX news in terms of bias and falsehoods.

Still, just in terms of comprehesiveness on political issues, it's hard for them, or anybody for that matter, to compete with the Washington Post. The Post is absolutely a top tier newspaper and a solid source of information. Only fringe right wingers can't read the Post, because they live in the snug alternative reality taylored for them by frontpagmag, newsmax, FOX news, weekly standard, Republican talk radio and all the other political campaign offices for the Republican party. I don't include the Washington Times on this list for good reason. They actually do have some credibility IMO.

[Sarge]

Ignore the comment about who I side with. The fact remains that Chom thinks he is infallible when he just represents the polar opposite stances as the right-wingers on this website. He calls these guys out for being so far right when he is equally left. Sarge and AFC KNOW where their feelings lie and realize that. Chom is blind.


Ding, ding, ding, ding!

[Midnight Judges]

Ignore the comment about who I side with. The fact remains that Chom thinks he is infallible when he just represents the polar opposite stances as the right-wingers on this website. He calls these guys out for being so far right when he is equally left. Sarge and AFC KNOW where their feelings lie and realize that. Chom is blind.

I think you are trying to put words in Chom's mouth. Certainly he does not think he is infallible, in fact I've seen him man up when he is mistaken. When you exaggerate like that, it undermines your point.

[zoony]

I like taffy


....

[DoGood28]

I think you are trying to put words in Chom's mouth. Certainly he does not think he is infallible, in fact I've seen him man up when he is mistaken. When you exaggerate like that, it undermines your point.

Point taken. But laughably, the quote below illustrates just how close-minded Chom is. He is summing up entire groups of people in the left and right wing, not just individual posters. Implying that the right wing is close-minded with the left not being at all guilty of the same offense tells me a lot.


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:

[TODD]

:sucks:
!!!!!!!

[rebornempowered]

I like taffy


....

Me too.....do you know where I can get some sugar free taffy?

[chomerics]

Ignore the comment about who I side with. The fact remains that Chom thinks he is infallible when he just represents the polar opposite stances as the right-wingers on this website. He calls these guys out for being so far right when he is equally left. Sarge and AFC KNOW where their feelings lie and realize that. Chom is blind.

:laugh: If you could only understand just how completely wrong you are. :laugh:

I do not think I am infallible, nor do I try to be, I represent my opinion, and I defend it with a belief that I am right. If someone makes a convincing argument about their position, I may change my mind about the topic. I have absolutely no problem admitting when I am wrong, and I will if I am, people will attest to that. If someone can give real good reasons why they believe in something, then I can come to an agreement with them, and it does not matter who the poster is or what side of the fence they come from. Sarge and AFC OTOH, will never admit they are wrong and it is a charactor flaw, it is one that stems from the leader of their (and your) party.

Anyone can make a mistake, but it take balls to admit it when you are wrong. That is something our fearless president, and party, has refused to do. Instead of admitting they were wrong about anything, they will resort to as sleaze tactics (read liberals=terrorists) to try to get people to believe their opinions, no matter how whacked it is.

The only reason you think I am infallible is because I am right most of the time, things like Iraq, the elections, the future of the GOP, the rise of the democrats, the governing from the center, exposing propaganda for what it is. If I sprouted things like Sarge does, as when he said he had "inside information" that the were WMDs located and it was only a matter of days before they were announced, or that he had "first hand knowledge" that Clinton shut down LAX, you would have a point, but I do not. You see, time proves him wrong, it proves me right and it pisses people off. Nobody likes to be on the wrong side of an argument, and people are finally starting to see the truth through the fog they have been living under for the past 6 years. It does not make me infallible, not at all, it just makes me right, which I will take over infallible any day ;)

[chomerics]

Point taken. But laughably, the quote below illustrates just how close-minded Chom is. He is summing up entire groups of people in the left and right wing, not just individual posters. Implying that the right wing is close-minded with the left not being at all guilty of the same offense tells me a lot.

And you do not realize that you are doing the exact same thing here. You only agree with Sarge and AFC because they are republicans, not because they have convincing arguments. There is a big difference.

I also do think the right wing is extremely close minded, as well as the far left wing. The problem is though, there are really no far left wing posters here (Crazy Horse is long gone). If you think I am a "far left wing" person, then you really have no idea what the far left wing is. . .and THAT was my point about objectivity. You need to understand your own personal leanings to realize where things are in this world. I at one time was a conservative, back when I thought the conservatives believed in what I did. As I grew older and more mature, I began to see the shift in ideologies of the parties, and now I am a democrat because their ideologies meld with mine. The political spectrum shifted over the past 20 years, and the democrats are now in the middle ground, where the republicans are on the far right. If the pendulum sways back towards the other side, I will most likely start voting republican again, but as of right now, they represent nothing of my ideology.

I am a conservative democrat, almost more libertarian then anything else. And if you don't see the fact that the right wing is now a party of extremists, then you really are not looking at the political landscape with a clear view. That is what I was talking about before, and that is what I was implying with my other posts. You only see me as a far left person because your own position is so skewed right GHWB would be a leftist SOB to you.