New York Times Reporting Dotted With Warnings of 'Far-Right,' 'Hard-Right' Conservatives
A couple of loaded ideological labels made it into Wednesday’s New York Times. On the first page of the National section, Sabrina Tavernise and A.G. Sulzberger (son of Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.) collaborated on the latest news from Wisconsin: “Thousands March on Capitols as Union Turmoil Spreads.”
But Republicans could also gain, said Gene Beaupre, a political science professor at Xavier University in Cincinnati. Taking a cost-cutting position against unions is part of the mantra for far-right groups like the Tea Party, and not necessarily unpopular.
Four pages deeper was a hostile profile of Virginia’s crusading conservative attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, by contributing reporter John Collins Rudolf, “A Climate Skeptic With a Bully Pulpit in Virginia Finds an Ear in Congress.”
Mr. Cuccinelli’s conservative views make him no stranger to controversy. Before his election as attorney general in November 2009, he served nearly eight years in the State Senate, where he was known for his hard-right stances on illegal immigration, same-sex marriage, gun control and abortion and for clashing with moderates within his party.
A Nexis search indicates Times reporters have used “hard-right” five times in the last two years to describe an American political figure or movement. Columnist Paul Krugman and Frank Rich have also used the term several times, and it has cropped up on the editorial page. By contrast, no Times reporter, columnist, or editorial writer has used the term “hard-left” to describe an American political figure or movement a single time in the last two years.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Whodathunkit?
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 5:15pm.
It's time for the
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 5:26pm.
It's time for the Conservative politicians, where they are the majority, to cram, ram, shove or by any means humanly possible bring about change that benefits the majority of Americans, no matter what anyone, whether from outside or within their own party has to say about it.
The American people are a fickle bunch and change their minds ( votes ) more often than their underwear these days.
If they do not follow through on BUSTING the backs of the corrupt 50 year quid pro quo arrangement between the unions ( all of them ) and the democrat party, this country will be lost forever.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
The media constantly showcase
Submitted by motherbelt on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 5:37pm.
The media constantly showcase accusations by Democrats (and some that they launch themselves) accusing Republicans of passing laws to favor their "fat cat corporations" that contribute to their campaigns.
However, unions, which confiscate money from their members, regardless of their political leanings, and give it to Democrats, get a pass. The Democrats then support efforts of the unions to confiscate money from even more people (supporting card-check), because the unions will then have more money to contribute to Democrats' campaigns. And the media are silent on this.
Does no one in the media, or the Justice Department for that matter, see this as corruption????
Oh, they see it alright.
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Thu, 02/24/2011 - 5:52pm.
Oh, they see it alright.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
Are unions 'far left'? Are
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Fri, 02/25/2011 - 1:29am.
Are unions 'far left'? Are fleebaggers far left?