Michael Barone: The Negative Impact of New York Times Front-Page Editorials

Barone-3Michael Barone writes: What influence does a front-page editorial in The New York Times have on public opinion? A strong negative influence, judging from the only two examples from the last 95 years. The Times famously ran a front-page editorial Dec. 4 calling for drastic gun control measures, including confiscation of weapons. The response: No. The latest CBS/New York Times poll reports that 50 percent oppose “a nationwide ban on assault weapons,” while only 44 percent support it.

[Read the full story here, at the Washington Examiner]

That’s a sharp reversal of trend: In January 2011, 63 percent supported the ban on “assault weapons” — a vague term that invites agreement, even though any gun, even a toy pistol, can be used to assault someone (consult your law dictionary) and the 1990s legislation banning “assault weapons” distinguished them from other guns by purely cosmetic criteria.

The report contends that so called assault rifles are rarely used in mass shootings in the US.

So-called ‘assault rifles’ are rarely used in mass shootings in the US.

The Times’ second-most recent front-page editorial, published in June 1920, had a similar effect. It criticized the Republican National Conventions‘ nomination of Warren G. Harding as that of “a candidate whose nomination will be received with astonishment and dismay by the party whose suffrages he invites.” Voters took a different view that fall….(read more)

Source: Washington Examiner


Dissent Is Now The Highest Form Of Bigotry

shutterstock_249836911-405x270

 Read on… from Brandon McGinley at The Federalist

Also, from Daily Caller‘s Betsy Rothstein writes:

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

0803_freespeech_630x420-e1435340962205

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared. 

After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time. Read the rest of this entry »


[CARTOON] ‘Liberty, Equality…Whatever’

B7Ria5bIMAATP_Q

 


Grey Lady Down: New York Times Reporters Embarrassed by the Paper’s Editorial Pages

The New York Times' editorial page is not exactly beloved by staffers, according to a New York Observer report. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

The New York Times’ editorial page is not exactly beloved by staffers, according to a New York Observer report. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)

Charles Hoskinson  reports:  Reporters in The New York Times newsroom deeply resent the paper’s editorial page, and the dissent has “reached the boiling point,” the New York Observer reports Tuesday.

“As for the columnists, Friedman is the worst. He hasn’t had an original thought in 20 years; he’s an embarrassment. He’s perceived as an idiot who has been wrong about every major issue for 20 years…”

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

It’s not an ideological dispute, the Observer says, but rather the sense that the paper’s editorials and columns are boring, ineffectual, poorly written and poorly read. The story was based on interviews with more than two dozen current and former Times staffers, mostly on condition of anonymity out of fear of editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal.

Rosenthal was described as a petty tyrant, and lazy in his supervision of an opinion staff that is widely seen outside the newsroom as the voice of the Left-wing establishment.

“Then there’s Maureen Dowd, who has been writing the same column since George H. W. Bush was president…”

[See Gray Lady Down: What the Decline and Fall of the New York Times Means for America at Amazon]

Read the rest of this entry »