If credibility was measured objectively, the NYT would have long ago lost all of theirs. But it's not.
Credibility in the media is defined by those who populate the media - who have, by consensus, given the NYT the right to determine credibility, as exemplified by their "paper of record" moniker.
This should hurt their credibility, but it will probably just be excused as a minor error based on slopiness (as in the Sandy Berger excuse-making scenario.)
Is pretty hard to hurt Charlie Manson's credibility and as the New York Times has none any more in being a laughing stock........one can not hurt what one does not have.
As for me I always consider what I read from them as to be 99.9% opinion sprinkled with 0.1% truth just like Uncle Joseph Goebbels used to make. Hell these guys probably know where Bin Laden is and are making convenient cave delivery of his complimentary subscription to their rag.
These cretins continue to spew the America bad rhetoric all the while fawning over despots and dictators as revolutionaries ala Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe, denying all of the true horror, oppression, and misery that they have unleashed on their own populations.
Given the choice of wiping my rump with leaves or the New York Times on a deserted island, I choose leaves because my rump and I deserve the best.
"I'm just a big fat hairy American Winning Machine!" - Ricky Bobby
I had to say somewhat likely. It's hard to be less credibile
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
I find that the world [of newspaper readers] is divided into two types of people: Those who believe the NYT and those who believe the NYT is full of it.
To echo the sentiments of several of the posts before mine: It's hard to lose credibility when you have so little to begin with. Zero from zero still equals zero.
Although the Times has no credibility with me, it does to some people mainly others in the MSM. This will hurt but only for awhile, so the best choice would be "Temporarily"
Unlikely, or not a chance, either way the NY Times doesn't have any credibility to lose. About the only thing, that should change is, instead of being the paper of record, they should become the tabloid of record.
Does anyone think Rupert Murdoch doesn't have a big smile on his face right now? He wants to make the NY Times #2 and they seem to be doing everything, in their power, to help him accomplish that.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Credibility? You have to
February 21, 2008 - 13:01 ET by bigtimerCredibility? You have to have that to begin with.
LMAO!
Not a chance.
BT, LC, and Helen, I
February 21, 2008 - 13:12 ET by Hunter12BT, LC, and Helen, I agree. I especially like the comparison to Charlie Manson's credibility.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
They have credibility with Leftists
February 21, 2008 - 13:25 ET by mattmIf credibility was measured objectively, the NYT would have long ago lost all of theirs. But it's not.
Credibility in the media is defined by those who populate the media - who have, by consensus, given the NYT the right to determine credibility, as exemplified by their "paper of record" moniker.
This should hurt their credibility, but it will probably just be excused as a minor error based on slopiness (as in the Sandy Berger excuse-making scenario.)
Not a chance
February 21, 2008 - 13:03 ET by Lame CherryIs pretty hard to hurt Charlie Manson's credibility and as the New York Times has none any more in being a laughing stock........one can not hurt what one does not have.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Unlikely...
February 21, 2008 - 13:05 ET by HelenSThose who already consider the New York Times to have no credibility won't be surprise by what they read in it.
Those who think it does have credibility will only cheer this further gouging of the opposition (ah, the righteousness of partisanship!).
Besides, all is fair in politics and war when it's the conservatives, actual or alleged, getting reamed.
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war" - Shakespeare
My Take --
February 21, 2008 - 13:08 ET by mytwocentsIt's like Will Rogers said -
"It's not what you don't know that hurts you. It's what you do know that ain't so.
exactly BT...
February 21, 2008 - 13:17 ET by VT Con Manthey have none to lose.
I went with "unlikely"
February 21, 2008 - 13:18 ET by FastEd'cause I never thought they had any cerd to begin with.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
I went with "not a chance"...
February 21, 2008 - 14:58 ET by Prester John...for the same reason.
It will always remain credible to Hate America first club
February 21, 2008 - 13:26 ET by happyuscitizenAs for me I always consider what I read from them as to be 99.9% opinion sprinkled with 0.1% truth just like Uncle Joseph Goebbels used to make. Hell these guys probably know where Bin Laden is and are making convenient cave delivery of his complimentary subscription to their rag.
These cretins continue to spew the America bad rhetoric all the while fawning over despots and dictators as revolutionaries ala Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe, denying all of the true horror, oppression, and misery that they have unleashed on their own populations.
Given the choice of wiping my rump with leaves or the New York Times on a deserted island, I choose leaves because my rump and I deserve the best.
"I'm just a big fat hairy American Winning Machine!" - Ricky Bobby
Not a chance
February 21, 2008 - 13:29 ET by sentforth5All 1,327 of their readers will believe anything they say.
Not a chance.
February 21, 2008 - 13:33 ET by R D HelmProud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
I had to say somewhat
February 21, 2008 - 13:50 ET by danboI had to say somewhat likely. It's hard to be less credibile
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Unlikely
February 21, 2008 - 14:09 ET by AlabamaI find that the world [of newspaper readers] is divided into two types of people: Those who believe the NYT and those who believe the NYT is full of it.
To echo the sentiments of several of the posts before mine: It's hard to lose credibility when you have so little to begin with. Zero from zero still equals zero.
one choice missing
February 21, 2008 - 16:52 ET by paulnashtnAlthough the Times has no credibility with me, it does to some people mainly others in the MSM. This will hurt but only for awhile, so the best choice would be "Temporarily"
VOTE REPUBLICAN
Cage liner
February 21, 2008 - 17:57 ET by doug1950"Some say" that 85% of all parakeets and parrots that read the NYT think it might hurt their credibility.
or crapability...
February 21, 2008 - 18:46 ET by Chris Normanor crapability...
Mr. Bozell was on FNC
February 21, 2008 - 20:39 ET by KJ_sezMr. Bozell was on FNC earlier today, saying that the NYT was "not fit to line our birdcages". 8)
So, if the last fitting use for the NYT is no longer viable, why keep publishing the damn thing?
not a freaking chance
February 21, 2008 - 20:47 ET byNYT does this stuff every week
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Unlikely
February 21, 2008 - 22:17 ET by pbthinkerUnlikely, or not a chance, either way the NY Times doesn't have any credibility to lose. About the only thing, that should change is, instead of being the paper of record, they should become the tabloid of record.
Does anyone think Rupert Murdoch doesn't have a big smile on his face right now? He wants to make the NY Times #2 and they seem to be doing everything, in their power, to help him accomplish that.
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.
Will the NYT lose
February 22, 2008 - 01:02 ET by fitzfongWill the NYT lose credibility? Hell, no! It's still the most absorbant "bathroom tissue" on the market today.
Polly
February 22, 2008 - 08:05 ET by catnamedjakeParrots can't read! silly!