Jkboone1947's Blog

Just another WordPress.com site

NYT Advocacy extension.

leave a comment »

Julian Boone, NYT Advocacy paper:

OF all news publications (news papers) on the American—if not the world—consciousness The New York Times is the most notable and widely read. Which establishes reason to wanting to know what reality this huge audience, and who this audience is for that matter, is being exposed to—what The New York Times is presenting its readers. This is not to suggest that the audience is solely confined to an archetype or stereotype but that the paper has entirely discernable and recognizable themes and biases and ideals that appeal to a certain breed of humanity, readers. Over the years The New York Times has developed a liberal attachment and connotation. Especially espousing this are the people on the opposite end, conservative business oriented people who read the Wall Street Journal. Various aspects of The New York Times are indicative of the purpose and audience of the paper, of which the publication is fully aware. This concept is not a delusion on their part, that they present to the world a progressive and somewhat enlightened reality; it is also not unreasonable to believe that they are proud of such a title. The aspects can be found within and out of the paper itself: its choice of articles, writers, leans, audiences, and general focus on humanity—traits of the liberal guilt, as it were—all of which delineate and reveal a progressive and frankly left leaning reality in which millions participate daily.

AS it concerns the articles as being representational in The New York Times it is not only the stories that are presented, every major publication displays articles that reflect a form of reality on subjects such as Gay rights, feminism, war, abortion, the environment, etc. etc, what is far more important to firmly grasp is the way in which these events are portrayed and the rhetoric used to do so. The Sunday Opinion—Week in Review Section is a hotbed of the liberal agenda, take for instance yesterday’s (October 10, 2010). Stories about the lack of an energy bill (Friedman WK 8), distrusting Facebook politicians (Rich WK 8), religions unsurprising influence on “violence and tolerance” (Kristof WK 9) one espousing a certain distaste for “Townies” (Sosa WK 9) and more: all of which indefinitely portray a singularly liberal reality to an equally liberal and somewhat collegiate audience. Such an appeal, for example, is made by Thomas L. Friedman when he brazenly writes quoting Ryan Lizza’s “As the world Burns,” which appeared in the October 11 issue of the New Yorker concerning the energy bill, “…get as far as they could negotiating the bill before Fox new got wind of the fact that this was a serious process, of the people involved… The second they focus on us, it’s gonna be all cap-and-tax all the time, and it’s gonna become just a disaster… We have to move this along as quickly as possible” (Friedman, Lizza WK 8). Friedman ends his article by adding laconically, “We need to do better.” The fact that this appears in The New York Times is no banal surprise; it is apt and in the spectrum of articles presented that are indicative of the overt liberalism the paper is steeped in, an archetypal example of the contributing aspects.

THE rhetoric that permeates throughout The New York Times is a prodigious exemplification of the left lean the paper takes on, seemingly in the opposition to the right. As it appears, the language is on the cusp of being cynical, derisive, metropolitan, and high-minded; carrying with it the intention of defaming and eviscerating the opinions and ideologies of conservatives by way of incendiary, poignant rhetoric, focused, all the while, like a laser: “…but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion, and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed” (Okrent 1). Not to say Okrent or any others involved advocate that The New York Times is a smearing and hateful publication, more so it must be understood that it is in the pursuit of defending and supplying information for its constituents and readers.

EVEN what was not written by a The New York Times journalist, or in this case the public editor, but was submitted, is thoroughly peppered with anti-conservative persuasion. Coming from an online commentary from the Times concerning the Republican House of Representatives majority: “…with a big enough Republican cushion to free the more pumped up partisans to hold investigations of Obama’s birth certificate.” Quotes such as this are not only a reality within the paper, but are a main-stay and should be considered standard for (The New York Times). Another scathing excerpt appearing in this goes further to attack Republicans specifically, “Tough break about the Senate, though. If only you’d taken the sure Republican pickup in Delaware, instead of falling for the evolution-denying, witchcraft-dabbling Christine O’Donnell.” And later to satirize the BP oil maelstrom and conservative sympathy, “As Representative Joe Barton tried to say, he’s really sorry that BP is being forced to pay for the human and environmental costs of the biggest oil spill in American history” (Egan WK 9). From an outside view it becomes interesting to see that this form of slashing language and diction not only selectively represents The New York Times as a whole, but it means also to illustrate the clear and prevalent divide between the audiences and myriads of people involved and who are entrenched within the socio-political war-ground The New York Times, as a publication, seems to defend and supply a perceptible level of reality.

BUT who is it that the writers and the publication serve? The readers or audience: these are people as liberally identifiable as The New York Times itself, though this is of course the ideal reader—the publication is as of 1996 fully national (Okrent 3), and is read rather widely. There are words closely attached to The New York Times, words such as metropolitan, urban, and more than any, New York. A clear dividing line is cast among the citizenry. “… (If your perspective) is neither urban nor Northwester nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans)” (Okrent 1) But who can be inseparable from The New York Times is the obvious nucleus of New Yorkers, more so Manhattans. Not only this, but that it is suggested that New York, The New York Times, and New Yorkers, alike all share an inseparable, symbiotic relationship—since the nationalization of the paper still 50% of the subscriptions and readers reside in metropolitan New York (Okrent 3).“Living in New York makes a lot of people think that way (recognizes the power of flexibility), and a lot of people who think that way find their way to New York (me, for one). The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists…”

ANY publication or media outlet for that matter is confined within a certain prerogative and obligation towards its constituents and readers, giving them what they want, while simultaneously providing their minds with an informative reality into the surrounding world. A reality that is the reader’s imperative purpose to interpret and choose what aspects and portions one wants to believe; design one’s ideology around in reflection and reaction to the worldly actualities provided by The New York Times’ writing and reporting.  It seems, harkening back, that New York as an entity, so to speak, is firmly entwined within the Times, and therefore imbedded in the consciousness of those who read it, instilling and reaffirming the liberalism within those who are like-minded to this idea and accept this progressive reality presented within The New York Times.

Works Cited:

Egan, Timothy. Excerpt from “Election Day Foretold,” Week in review New York Times: New York 2010.

Freidman, L. Thomas. “An X-Ray of Dysfunction” Week In Review New York Times: New York 2010.

Okrent, Daniel. “Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” New York Times: New York 2002.

Advertisements

Written by jkboone1947

November 2, 2010 at 3:48 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Final draft of NYT Advocacy paper.

leave a comment »

Julian Boone, NYT Advocacy paper:

OF all news publications (news papers) on the American, if not the world, consciousness The New York Times is the most notable and widely read. It is this that gives reason to wanting to know what reality this huge audience, and who this audience is for that matter, is being exposed to—what The New York Times is presenting its readers. This is not to suggest that the audience is souly confined to an archetype or stereotype but that the paper has entirely discernable and recognizable themes and biases and ideals that appeal to a certain breed of humanity. Over the years The New York Times has developed a liberal attachment and connotation. Especially espousing this are the people on the opposite end, conservative business oriented people who read the Wall Street Journal, who conceivably have a picture of Bill O’Reily and Glen Beck French-kissing under their pillow or displayed loftily over their mantle, but that’s beside the point. Various aspects of The New York Times are indicative of the purpose and audience of the paper, of which the publication is fully aware. It is not a delusion on their part that they present to the world a progressive and somewhat enlightened reality; it is also not unreasonable (reasonable) to believe that they are proud of such a title. The aspects can be found within and out of the paper itself: its choice of articles, writers, leans, audiences, and general focus on humanity—traits of the liberal guilt, as it were—all of which manipulate and reveal a progressive and frankly left leaning reality in which millions participate daily.

AS it concerns the articles as representative in The New York Times it is not only the stories that are presented, every major publication displays articles that reflect a form of reality on subjects such as Gay rights, feminism, war, abortion, the environment, etc. etc, it is far more important to firmly grasp the way in which these events are portrayed and the rhetoric used to do so. The Sunday Opinion—Week in Review Section is a hotbed of the liberal agenda, take for instance yesterday’s (October 10, 2010). Stories about the lack of an energy bill (Friedman WK 8), distrusting Facebook politicians (Rich WK 8), religions unsurprising influence on “violence and tolerance” (Kristof WK 9) one espousing a certain distaste for “Townies” (Sosa WK 9) and more: all of which indefinitely portray a singularly liberal reality to an equally liberal and somewhat collegiate audience. Such an appeal, for example, is made by Thomas L. Friedman when he brazenly writes quoting Ryan Lizza’s “As the world Burns,” which appeared in the October 11 issue of the New Yorker concerning the energy bill,

“…get as far as they could negotiating the bill before Fox new got wind of the fact that this was a serious process, of the people involved… The second they focus on us, it’s gonna be all cap-and-tax all the time, and it’s gonna become just a disaster… We have to move this along as quickly as possible” (Friedman, Lizza WK 8).

Friedman ends his article by adding laconically, “We need to do better.” The fact that this appears in The New York Times is no banal surprise; it is apt and in the spectrum of articles presented that are indicative of the overt liberalism the paper is steeped in, an archetypal example of the contributing aspects.

THE rhetoric that permeates throughout The New York Times is a prodigious exemplification of the left lean the paper takes on, seemingly in the opposition to the right. It is on the cusp of being cynical, derisive, metropolitan, and high-minded; carrying with it the intention of defaming and eviscerating the opinions and ideologies of conservatives by way of incendiary, poignant rhetoric, focused, all the while, like a laser: “…but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion, and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed” (Okrent 1). Not to say pr advocate that The New York Times is a smear and hateful publication, more so it must be understood that it is in the pursuit of defending and supplying information for its constituents.

EVEN what was not written by a The New York Times journalist, or in this case the public editor, but was submitted, is thoroughly peppered with anti-conservative persuasion. Coming from an online commentary from the Times concerning the Republican House of Representatives majority: “…with a big enough Republican cushion to free the more pumped up partisans to hold investigations of Obama’s birth certificate.” Quotes such as this are not only a reality within the paper; are a main-stay and should be considered standard for (The New York Times). Another scathing excerpt appearing in this goes further to attack Republicans specifically, “Tough break about the Senate, though. If only you’d taken the sure Republican pickup in Delaware, instead of falling for the evolution-denying, witchcraft-dabbling Christine O’Donnell.” And later to satirize the BP oil maelstrom and conservative sympathy, “As Representative Joe Barton tried to say, he’s really sorry that BP is being forced to pay for the human and environmental costs of the biggest oil spill in American history” (Egan WK 9). From an outside view it becomes interesting to see that this form of slashing language and diction not only selectively represents The New York Times as a whole, but it means also to illustrate the clear and prevalent divide between the audiences and myriad of people involved and entrenched within the socio-political war-ground The New York Times to whom, as a publication, seems to defend and supply a certain level of reality.

BUT who is it that the writers and the publication serve? The readers or audience: these are people as liberally identifiable as The New York Times itself, though this is of course the ideal reader of course; the publication is as of 1996 fully national (Okrent 3), and is read rather widely. There are words closely attached to The New York Times, words such as metropolitan, urban, and more than any, New York. A clear dividing line is cast among the citizenry. “… (If your perspective) is neither urban nor Northwester nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans)” (Okrent 1) But who can be inseparable from The New York Times is the obvious nucleus of New Yorkers, more so Manhattans. Not only this, but that it is suggested that New York, The New York Times, and New Yorkers, alike all share an inseparable, symbiotic relationship—since the nationalization of the paper still 50% of the subscriptions and readers reside in metropolitan New York (Okrent 3).

“Living in New York makes a lot of people think that way (recognizes the power of flexibility), and a lot of people who think that way find their way to New York (me, for one). The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists…”

ANY publication or media outlet for that matter is confined within a certain prerogative towards its constituents and readers, giving them what they want, while simultaneously providing their minds with a reality. A reality that is the reader’s obligation and purpose to interpret and choose what one want aspects and portions to believe and design one’s ideology around in reflection and reaction to the worldly consciousness provided by The New York Times’ writing and reporting.  It seems, harkening back, that New York as an entity, so to speak, is firmly entwined within the Times, and therefore imbedded in the consciousness of those who read it, instilling and reaffirming the liberalism within those who are like-minded to this idea and accept this progressive reality presented within The New York Times.

Works Cited:

Egan, Timothy. Excerpt from “Election Day Foretold,” Week in review New York Times: New York 2010.

Freidman, L. Thomas. “An X-Ray of Dysfunction” Week In Review New York Times: New York 2010.

Okrent, Daniel. “Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” New York Times: New York 2002.

Written by jkboone1947

October 19, 2010 at 2:59 am

Posted in Uncategorized

NYT Reality advocacy paper:

leave a comment »

Julian Boone, NYT Advocacy paper:

OF all news publications (news papers) on the American, if not the world, consciousness The New York Times is the most notable and widely read. It is this that gives reason to wanting to know what reality this huge audience, and who this audience is for that matter, is being exposed to—what The New York Times is presenting its readers. This is not to suggest that the audience is souly confined to an archetype or stereotype but that the paper has entirely discernable and recognizable themes and biases and ideals that appeal to a certain breed of humanity. Over the years The New York Times has developed a liberal attachment and connotation. Especially espousing this are the people on the opposite end, conservative business oriented people who read the Wall Street Journal, who conceivably have a picture of Bill O’Reily and Glen Beck French-kissing under their pillow or displayed loftily over their mantle, but that’s beside the point. Various aspects of The New York Times are indicative of the purpose and audience of the paper, of which the publication is fully aware. It is not a delusion on their part that they present to the world a progressive and somewhat enlightened reality; it is also not unreasonable (reasonable) to believe that they are proud of such a title. The aspects can be found within and out of the paper itself: its choice of articles, writers, leans, audiences, and general focus on humanity—traits of the liberal guilt, as it were—all of which manipulate and reveal a progressive and frankly left leaning reality in which millions participate daily.

AS it concerns the articles as representative in The New York Times it is not only the stories that are presented, every major publication rants on and on about Gay rights, feminism, war, abortion, the environment, etc. etc, it is far more important to firmly grasp the way in which these events are portrayed and the rhetoric used to do so. The Sunday Opinion—Week in Review Section is a hotbed of the liberal agenda, take for instance yesterday’s (October 10, 2010). Stories about the lack of an energy bill (Friedman WK 8), distrusting Facebook politicians (Rich WK 8), religions unsurprising influence on “violence and tolerance” (Kristof WK 9) one espousing a certain distaste for “Townies” (Sosa WK 9) and more: all of which indefinitely portray a singularly liberal reality to an equally liberal and somewhat collegiate audience. Such an appeal, for example, is made by Thomas L. Friedman when he brazenly writes quoting Ryan Lizza’s “As the world Burns,” which appeared in the October 11 issue of the New Yorker concerning the energy bill,

“…get as far as they could negotiating the bill before Fox new got wind of the fact that this was a serious process, of the people involved… The second they focus on us, it’s gonna be all cap-and-tax all the time, and it’s gonna become just a disaster… We have to move this along as quickly as possible” (Friedman, Lizza WK 8).

Friedman ends his article by adding laconically, “We need to do better.” The fact that this appears in The New York Times is no banal surprise; it is apt and in the spectrum of articles presented that are indicative of the overt liberalism the paper is steeped in, an archetypal example of the contributing aspects.

THE rhetoric that permeates throughout The New York Times is a prodigious exemplification of the left lean the paper takes on, seemingly in the opposition to the right. It is on the cusp of being cynical, derisive, metropolitan, and high-minded; carrying with it the intention of defaming and eviscerating the opinions and ideologies of conservatives by way of incendiary, poignant rhetoric, focused, all the while, like a laser: “…but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion, and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed” (Okrent 1). Not to say pr advocate that The New York Times is a smear and hateful publication, more so it must be understood that it is in the pursuit of defending and supplying information for its constituents.

Even what was not written by a The New York Times journalist, or in this case the public editor, but was submitted, is thoroughly peppered with anti-conservative persuasion. Coming from an online commentary from the Times concerning the Republican House of Representatives majority: “…with a big enough Republican cushion to free the more pumped up partisans to hold investigations of Obama’s birth certificate.” Quotes such as this are not only a reality within the paper; are a main-stay and should be considered standard for (The New York Times). Another scathing excerpt appearing in this goes further to attack Republicans specifically, “Tough break about the Senate, though. If only you’d taken the sure Republican pickup in Delaware, instead of falling for the evolution-denying, witchcraft-dabbling Christine O’Donnell.” And later to satirize the BP oil maelstrom and conservative sympathy, “As Representative Joe Barton tried to say, he’s really sorry that BP is being forced to pay for the human and environmental costs of the biggest oil spill in American history” (Egan WK 9). From an outside view it becomes interesting to see that this form of slashing language and diction not only selectively represents The New York Times as a whole, but it means also to illustrate the clear and prevalent divide between the audiences and myriad of people involved and entrenched within the socio-political war-ground The New York Times to whom, as a publication, seems to defend and supply a certain level of reality.

But who is it that the writers and the publication serve? The readers or audience: these are people as liberally identifiable as The New York Times itself, though this is of course the ideal reader of course; the publication is as of 1996 fully national (Okrent 3), and is read rather widely. There are words closely attached to The New York Times, words such as metropolitan, urban, and more than any, New York. A clear dividing line is cast among the citizenry. “… (If your perspective) is neither urban nor Northwester nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans)” (Okrent 1) But who can be inseparable from The New York Times is the obvious nucleus of New Yorkers, more so Manhattans. Not only this, but that it is suggested that New York, The New York Times, and New Yorkers, alike all share an inseparable, symbiotic relationship—since the nationalization of the paper still 50% of the subscriptions and readers reside in metropolitan New York (Okrent 3).

“Living in New York makes a lot of people think that way (recognizes the power of flexibility), and a lot of people who think that way find their way to New York (me, for one). The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists…”

Any publication or media outlet for that matter is confined within a certain prerogative towards its constituents and readers, giving them what they want, while simultaneously providing their minds with a reality. A reality that is the reader’s obligation and purpose to interpret and choose what one want aspects and portions to believe and design one’s ideology around in reflection and reaction to the worldly consciousness provided by The New York Times’ writing and reporting.  It seems, harkening back, that New York as an entity, so to speak, is firmly entwined within the Times, and therefore imbedded in the consciousness of those who read it, instilling and reaffirming the liberalism within those who are like-minded to this idea and accept this progressive reality presented within The New York Times.       

Works Cited:

Egan, Timothy. Excerpt from “Election Day Foretold,” Week in review New York Times: New York 2010.

Freidman, L. Thomas. “An X-Ray of Dysfunction” Week In Review New York Times: New York 2010.

Okrent, Daniel. “Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” New York Times: New York 2002.

 

Julian Boone, NYT Advocacy paper:

OF all news publications (news papers) on the American, if not the world, consciousness The New York Times is the notable and widely read. It is this that gives reason to wanting to know what reality this huge audience, and who this audience is for that matter, is being exposed to—what The New York Times is presenting its readers. This is not to suggest that the audience is souly confined to an archetype or stereotype but that the paper has entirely discernable and recognizable themes and biases and ideals that appeal to a certain breed of humanity. Over the years The New York Times has developed a liberal attachment and connotation. Especially espousing this are the people on the opposite end, conservative business oriented people who read the Wall Street Journal, who conceivably have a picture of Bill O’Reily and Glen Beck French-kissing under their pillow or displayed loftily over their mantle, but that’s beside the point. Various aspects of The New York Times are indicative of the purpose and audience of the paper, of which the publication is fully aware. It is not a delusion on their part that they present to the world a progressive and somewhat enlightened reality; it is also not unreasonable (reasonable) to believe that they are proud of such a title. The aspects can be found within and out of the paper itself: its choice of articles, writers, leans, audiences, and general focus on humanity—traits of the liberal guilt, as it were—all of which manipulate and reveal a progressive and frankly left leaning reality in which millions participate daily.

AS it concerns the articles as representative in The New York Times it is not only the stories that are presented, every major publication rants on and on about Gay rights, feminism, war, abortion, the environment, etc. etc, it is far more important to firmly grasp the way in which these events are portrayed and the rhetoric used to do so. The Sunday Opinion—Week in Review Section is a hotbed of the liberal agenda, take for instance yesterday’s (October 10, 2010). Stories about the lack of an energy bill (Friedman WK 8), distrusting Facebook politicians (Rich WK 8), religions unsurprising influence on “violence and tolerance” (Kristof WK 9) one espousing a certain distaste for “Townies” (Sosa WK 9) and more: all of which indefinitely portray a singularly liberal reality to an equally liberal and somewhat collegiate audience. Such an appeal, for example, is made by Thomas L. Friedman when he brazenly writes quoting Ryan Lizza’s “As the world Burns,” which appeared in the October 11 issue of the New Yorker concerning the energy bill,

“…get as far as they could negotiating the bill before Fox new got wind of the fact that this was a serious process, of the people involved… The second they focus on us, it’s gonna be all cap-and-tax all the time, and it’s gonna become just a disaster… We have to move this along as quickly as possible” (Friedman, Lizza WK 8).

Friedman ends his article by adding laconically, “We need to do better.” The fact that this appears in The New York Times is no banal surprise; it is apt and in the spectrum of articles presented that are indicative of the overt liberalism the paper is steeped in, an archetypal example of the contributing aspects.

THE rhetoric that permeates throughout The New York Times is a prodigious exemplification of the left lean the paper takes on, seemingly in the opposition to the right. It is on the cusp of being cynical, derisive, metropolitan, and high-minded; carrying with it the intention of defaming and eviscerating the opinions and ideologies of conservatives by way of incendiary, poignant rhetoric, focused, all the while, like a laser: “…but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion, and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed” (Okrent 1). Not to say pr advocate that The New York Times is a smear and hateful publication, more so it must be understood that it is in the pursuit of defending and supplying information for its constituents.

Even what was not written by a The New York Times journalist, or in this case the public editor, but was submitted, is thoroughly peppered with anti-conservative persuasion. Coming from an online commentary from the Times concerning the Republican House of Representatives majority: “…with a big enough Republican cushion to free the more pumped up partisans to hold investigations of Obama’s birth certificate.” Quotes such as this are not only a reality within the paper; are a main-stay and should be considered standard for (The New York Times). Another scathing excerpt appearing in this goes further to attack Republicans specifically, “Tough break about the Senate, though. If only you’d taken the sure Republican pickup in Delaware, instead of falling for the evolution-denying, witchcraft-dabbling Christine O’Donnell.” And later to satirize the BP oil maelstrom and conservative sympathy, “As Representative Joe Barton tried to say, he’s really sorry that BP is being forced to pay for the human and environmental costs of the biggest oil spill in American history” (Egan WK 9). From an outside view it becomes interesting to see that this form of slashing language and diction not only selectively represents The New York Times as a whole, but it means also to illustrate the clear and prevalent divide between the audiences and myriad of people involved and entrenched within the socio-political war-ground The New York Times to whom, as a publication, seems to defend and supply a certain level of reality.

But who is it that the writers and the publication serve? The readers or audience: these are people as liberally identifiable as The New York Times itself, though this is of course the ideal reader of course; the publication is as of 1996 fully national (Okrent 3), and is read rather widely. There are words closely attached to The New York Times, words such as metropolitan, urban, and more than any, New York. A clear dividing line is cast among the citizenry. “… (If your perspective) is neither urban nor Northwester nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans)” (Okrent 1) But who can be inseparable from The New York Times is the obvious nucleus of New Yorkers, more so Manhattans. Not only this, but that it is suggested that New York, The New York Times, and New Yorkers, alike all share an inseparable, symbiotic relationship—since the nationalization of the paper still 50% of the subscriptions and readers reside in metropolitan New York (Okrent 3).

“Living in New York makes a lot of people think that way (recognizes the power of flexibility), and a lot of people who think that way find their way to New York (me, for one). The Times has chosen to be an unashamed product of the city whose name it bears, a condition magnified by the been-there-done-that irony afflicting too many journalists…”

Any publication or media outlet for that matter is confined within a certain prerogative towards its constituents and readers, giving them what they want, while simultaneously providing their minds with a reality. A reality that is the reader’s obligation and purpose to interpret and choose what one want aspects and portions to believe and design one’s ideology around in reflection and reaction to the worldly consciousness provided by The New York Times’ writing and reporting.  It seems, harkening back, that New York as an entity, so to speak, is firmly entwined within the Times, and therefore imbedded in the consciousness of those who read it, instilling and reaffirming the liberalism within those who are like-minded to this idea and accept this progressive reality presented within The New York Times.       

Written by jkboone1947

October 12, 2010 at 3:46 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Absolute Final: As Worlds Collide.

leave a comment »

As Worlds Collide:

A Textual Analysis of the “Wars Hot & Cold” subsection of the OP-ED section in the September 26 ed. of the New York Times.

The New York Times is known pervasively as the “Paper of Record,” this is indubitably reinforced by its nearly infallible credibility and relevance and national pertinence. But for this printed chronicle, which is highly venerable, there is a marring title as being also the paper of the liberal and leftist side of the country. This title is not accusatory by any means, moreover one of considerable aptness; and in reading the paper one can derive a sense of pride from the writers and editors concerning this branding, so to speak. The socio-political dichotomy, as it concerns media, of right and left, liberal and conservative {The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal} is apparent and entirely unambiguous in the country. This persisting dichotomy of the nation and {printed} news’ effect and identification upon each side is often marked by many defining and politically charged subjects that each side’s convictions tend not to waver upon. War—among religion, abortion, gay rights; the list is benumbing—is one of these points of stark difference. As being the Liberal paper, The New York Times has an obvious opinion on war, and as seen in the Op-Ed subsection of the fortieth anniversary edition called “Wars Hot and Cold” a literal manifestation occurs that, through the forms of rhetoric, careful selection, and the political “cartoons” that appear within the articles presented, which all serve as a means of persuasion, reveal the liberal and definably leftist lean.

The articles that this sub-section of which are compiled—with the exception of four pieces, there are sixteen articles, with discernibly conservative intentions—minimally vary in style, audience, motive, and means, falling within the same basic aforesaid ideology. A synopsis of the articles as a whole: some directly focus upon US nationalism and imperialism, democratization of the east and South America, Communism, China, Détente (a contribution from Nixon none the less), all of which critical. Another permeating subject is the Vietnam war, all taking a negative approach, except for one (one of the few right leaning articles) that is contradicted by events after it was submitted, which goes even further to explain the role and bias of The new York Times. Some pervasive techniques within the articles are the author’s uses of emotion along with credibility—which will be further explained later.  But not only do the articles successfully portray this liberal bias, it is also apparent in all the other aspects that sometimes go unnoticed, cartoons seem to have such an effect, and to point out all the other subtle nuances would only serve to benumb and bore the reader with monotony.

Political cartoons, albeit sometimes downplay the severity of what they are attempting to satirize, can be a useful, if not indelible, tool of persuasion upon the reader.  As well they appear as a clear indicator to the publication’s overall standpoint on the certain subject, in this case war and international conflict over the past forty years. Cartoons of this matter usually mean to satirize a certain institution or person, such as with the Ralph Steadman illustration appearing on page seven, titled SALT—with a dash of…: which depicts a congregation of large-headed and gapped mouthed {diplomats} clinging to missiles, spiders have adorned their mouths with webs, all as a means of symbolism to attack these men’s cooperative stagnation. A more emotionally charged illustration is Sam Weber’s Blowback in Africa which depicts a AK-47 clutching man somewhat stalking, but with a skull shaped wind-up pin lodged in his upper back, as if to create this man in the image of a drone, or something inanimate.

The emotions evoked by these cartoons, whether in Steadman’s case satirical humor, or in Weber’s, empathetically driven sadness, all serve as to influence a more than likely liberal audience into associating these images with war. In doing so accomplish a sort of mental and emotional following behind the publication’s intentions, which are in short, anti-war, this being discernable through the fact that these illustrations appear and were selected by the editor.

Although, cartoons are a viable and effective means towards persuasion, they lack context, substance, and leave much of the underlying interpretation to those who look at and study them. It is of course the articles within that are truly indicative of a publication’s ideology. Wartime media is often thick with persuasion and rhetoric, these selections being no exception. The articles with the most easily discernable lean often make an attempt at the audience’s pathos and emotional strings, as in Ron Kovic’s story, “The Paralyzing Bullet,” appearing Jan. 31, 1978—after the Vietnam War had ended—when he describes a bullet wound in lurid detail, and evokes a sense of realism in the war, bringing the horrid memories and realities closer to home, as it were. But contrast to the aforesaid story, is Arthur Schlesinger’s opinion piece entitled “Our central American Misadventure.” In this article the rhetoric relies mostly on authoritative and somewhat condescending tone, being a p Schlesinger, Arthur Pulitzer prize winner in both history and biography perhaps qualify Schlesinger to be somewhat derisive and still maintain a certain level of credibility. He writes: “we plunge on, idiotically confident of our own infallibility,” and more leaning in the direction of an emotional appeal,           ” Let us rid ourselves of the superpower fallacy before the superpower fallacy rids us of more American lives, American Influence and American Credibility.” {Schlesinger 7}

It becomes all too apparent when reading this section the rhetorical and persuasive lean the New York Times attempts to attain, and that is one of a liberalistic and or left direction. In “Wars Hot & Cold” of the Op-ED section the compilation of articles and political cartoons present this idea forthrightly. Controversy breeds division, and war being an extremely incendiary subject matter the dividing line is clearly established within the New York Times. By way of meticulous selection of articles and scathing, slashing emotionally and credibly driven rhetoric it succeeds in protecting the aforesaid views and values from being swallowed whole by the opposition—this particular section of the New York Times is something of an archetypal selection that divulges such an idea. It is as if the Times is a bastion of liberalism, creating in itself a venerable representation for its comparatively liberal minded and humanistic audiences.

The New York Times OP-ED Section Sep. 26, 2010 pgs 6-7:

Arafat, Yasir. “The Palastinian Vision of Peace,” The New York Times: Feb. 3,

2002.

Binyan, Liu. “China in Revolt,” The New York Times: May 4, 1989.

Brodsky, Joseph. “Balkan Excuses,” The New York Times: Aug. 14, 1983.

Gorbachev, Mikhail. “Making Peace with Reagan,” The New York Times: June 7,

2004.

Halberstam, David. “A Quagmire Widens,” The New York Times: Feb. 25, 1971.

Havel, Vaclav. “A Cost to Freedom,” The New York Times: July 14, 1991.

Jr. McCain, John S. “Winning Vietnam,” The New York Times: Sep. 28, 1972.

Jr. Schlesinger, Arthur. “Our Central American Misadventure,” The New York Times

June 17, 1987.

Kennan, George F. “No party Toppled the Soviets,” The New York Times: Oct. 28,

1992.

Kovic, Ron. “The Paralyzing Bullet” The New York Times: Jan. 31, 1978.

Milosz, Czeslaw. “Poland Takes on an Empire,” The New York Times: Dec. 18, 1981

Mbeki, Thabo. “Aid for Apartheid,” The New York Times: July 18, 1983.

Meir, Golda. “Israel’s Reality,” The New York Times: Jan. 14, 1976.

Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I. “Is the Third World War Over?” The New York Times:                                     June 22, 1975.

Nixon, Richard M. “How to Think about Détente,” The New York Times: Aug. 18,

1982.

Powell, Colin. “How to use Military Force,” The New York Times: Oct. 8, 1992.

Written by jkboone1947

October 10, 2010 at 11:29 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Julian Boone Advocacy prop.

leave a comment »

Julian Boone, NYT Advocacy proposal:

 

We as a society are in the throes of media’s output, any media, whether it is television, radio, the internet, (as if that’s not a total over generalization) newsprint, etc. And it is because of this prodigious influence media has on people that makes it so important to discern what angle, what edge, what lean one’s media is directed, in a sense what reality is being presented to those engaging in said media. The New York Times is not only a branch of printed news media it is a monolith of the country’s insight in current events. It’s a big deal, so to speak. As it is such, it must be approached carefully when attempting to decipher the Times’ true angle and audience. The information to do so is there, within the paper itself, in every section it screams an overt purpose, an obvious portrayal of reality—it just takes a keen eye to recognize it. Among many others I have engaged with The New York Times: read it, pondered it, written about it, have found a reasonable conception of its intended audience, style, purpose, and representation of “reality.” In all, and in short, The New York Times seems to me to be a reality presented to and by, as if to appease and inform, Democratic, metropolitan, humanistic, liberalistic people of higher education, a clear juxtaposition to that of the Wall Street Journal which serves people of the same quality (and lifestyle) but different ideologically and professionally. It is this that I propose to be The New York Times’ true expression of reality.

 

Written by jkboone1947

October 7, 2010 at 2:39 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Final: As Worlds Collide: A Textual Analysis of the “Wars Hot & Cold” subsection of the OP-ED section in the September 26 ed. of the New York Times.

leave a comment »

As Worlds Collide:

A Textual Analysis of the “Wars Hot & Cold” subsection of the OP-ED section in the September 26 ed. of the New York Times.

The New York Times is known pervasively as the “Paper of Record,” this is indubitably reinforced by its nearly infallible credibility and relevance and national pertinence. But for this printed chronicle, which is highly venerable, there is a marring title as being also the paper of the liberal and leftist side of the country. This title is not accusatory by any means, moreover one of considerable aptness; and in reading the paper one can derive a sense of pride from the writers and editors concerning this branding, so to speak. The socio-political dichotomy, as it concerns media, of right and left, liberal and conservative {The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal} is apparent and entirely unambiguous in the country. And it is the media, and more so the news, one receives and selectively picks what to believe, that in, many senses, dictates and manipulates their malleable and impressionable personal biases and ideologies. Think of it as if we’re all being barraged by careful and tactical persuasion if not guidance, not to say this is detrimental. Harkening back to the persisting dichotomy of the nation and {printed} news’ effect and identification upon each side there are many defining and politically charged subjects that each side’s convictions do not waver upon. War—among religion, abortion, gay rights; the list is benumbing—is one of these points of stark difference. As being the Liberal paper, The New York Times has an obvious opinion on war, and as seen in the Op-Ed subsection of the fortieth anniversary edition called “Wars Hot and Cold” a literal manifestation occurs that, through the forms of rhetoric, careful selection, and the political “cartoons” that appear within the articles presented, reveal the liberal and definably leftist lean—which is, to say the least, overt.

The articles that this sub-section of which is contrived—with the exception of four pieces, there are sixteen articles, with discernibly conservative intentions—minimally vary in style, audience, motive, and means but fall within the same basic aforesaid ideology. A synopsis of the articles as a whole: some directly focus upon US nationalism and imperialism, democratization of the east, all critical. Another permeating subject is the Vietnam war, all taking a negative approach, except for one (one of the few right leaning articles) that is contradicted by events after it was submitted, which goes even further to explain the role and bias of The new York Times. But not only do the articles successfully portray this bias, it is also apparent in all the other aspects that sometimes go unnoticed, cartoons seem to have such an effect, and to point out all the other subtle nuances would only serve to benumb and bore the reader with monotony.

Political cartoons, albeit sometimes downplay the severity of what they are attempting to satirize, can be a useful, if not indelible, tool of persuasion upon the reader.  As well they appear as a clear indicator to the publication’s overall standpoint on the certain subject, in this case war and international conflict over the past forty years. Cartoons of this matter usually mean to satirize a certain institution or person, such as with the Ralph Steadman illustration (illustrations at top of page) appearing on page seven, titled SALT—with a dash of…: which depicts a congregation of large-headed and gaped mouthed {diplomats} clinging to missiles, spiders have adorned their mouths with webs, all as a means of symbolism to attack these men’s cooperative stagnation. A more emotionally charged illustration is Sam Weber’s Blowback in Africa which depicts a AK-47 clutching man somewhat stalking, but with a skull shaped wind-up pin lodged in his upper back, as if to create this man in the image of a drone, or something inanimate.

The emotions evoked by these cartoons, whether in Steadman’s case satirical humor, or in Weber’s, empathetically driven sadness, all serve as to influence a more than likely liberal audience into associating these images with war. In doing so accomplish a sort of mental and emotional following behind the publication’s intentions, which are in short, anti-war, this being discernable through the fact that these illustrations appear and were selected by the editor.

Although, cartoons are a viable and effective means towards persuasion, they lack context, substance, and leave much of the underlying interpretation to those who look at and study them. It is of course the articles within that are truly indicative of a writer’s and or publication’s ideology. Wartime media is often thick with persuasion and rhetoric, these selections being no exception. The articles with the most easily discernable lean often make an attempt at the audience’s pathos and emotional strings, as in Ron Kovic’s story, “The Paralyzing Bullet,” appearing Jan. 31, 1978—after the Vietnam War had ended—when he describes a bullet wound in lurid detail, and evokes a sense of realism in the war, bringing the horrid memories and realities closer to home, as it were. But contrast to the aforesaid story, is Arthur Schlesinger’s opinion piece entitled “Our central American Misadventure.” In this article the rhetoric relies mostly on authoritative and somewhat condescending tone, being a p Schlesinger, Arthur Pulitzer prize winner in both history and biography perhaps qualify Schlesinger to be somewhat derisive and still maintain a certain level of credibility. He writes: “we plunge on, idiotically confident of our own infallibility,” and more leaning in the direction of an emotional appeal,           ” Let us rid ourselves of the superpower fallacy before the superpower fallacy rids us of more American lives, American Influence and American Credibility.” {Schlesinger 7}

It becomes all too apparent when reading this section the rhetorical and persuasive lean the New York Times attempts to attain, and that is one of a liberalistic and or left direction. The compilation of articles and political cartoons present this idea forthrightly. Controversy breeds division, and war being an extremely incendiary subject matter the dividing line is clearly established within the New York Times. By way of meticulous selection of articles and scathing, slashing rhetoric, as if only to protect the aforesaid views and values from being swallowed whole by the opposition—this particular section of the New York Times is something of an archetypal selection that divulges such an idea. It is as if the Times is a bastion of liberalism, creating in itself a legitimate and venerable representation for its comparatively liberally minded and humanistic audiences.

The New York Times OP-ED Section Sep. 26, 2010 pgs 6-7:

Arafat, Yasir. “The Palastinian Vision of Peace,” The New York Times: Feb. 3,

2002.

Binyan, Liu. “China in Revolt,” The New York Times: May 4, 1989.

Brodsky, Joseph. “Balkan Excuses,” The New York Times: Aug. 14, 1983.

Gorbachev, Mikhail. “Making Peace with Reagan,” The New York Times: June 7,

2004.

Halberstam, David. “A Quagmire Widens,” The New York Times: Feb. 25, 1971.

Havel, Vaclav. “A Cost to Freedom,” The New York Times: July 14, 1991.

Jr. McCain, John S. “Winning Vietnam,” The New York Times: Sep. 28, 1972.

Jr. Schlesinger, Arthur. “Our Central American Misadventure,” The New York Times

June 17, 1987.

Kennan, George F. “No party Toppled the Soviets,” The New York Times: Oct. 28,

1992.

Kovic, Ron. “The Paralyzing Bullet” The New York Times: Jan. 31, 1978.

Milosz, Czeslaw. “Poland Takes on an Empire,” The New York Times: Dec. 18, 1981

Mbeki, Thabo. “Aid for Apartheid,” The New York Times: July 18, 1983.

Meir, Golda. “Israel’s Reality,” The New York Times: Jan. 14, 1976.

Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I. “Is the Third World War Over?” The New York Times:                                     June 22, 1975.

Nixon, Richard M. “How to Think about Détente,” The New York Times: Aug. 18,

1982.

Powell, Colin. “How to use Military Force,” The New York Times: Oct. 8, 1992.

Written by jkboone1947

October 5, 2010 at 2:52 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Draft One: As Worlds Collide: A Textual Analysis of the “Wars Hot & Cold” subsection of the OP-ED section in the September 26 ed. of the New York Times.

leave a comment »

 

As Worlds Collide:

A Textual Analysis of the “Wars Hot & Cold” subsection of the OP-ED section in the September 26 ed. of the New York Times.

The New York Times is known pervasively as the “Paper of Record,” this is indubitably reinforced by its nearly infallible credibility and relevance and national pertinence. But for this printed chronicle, which is highly venerable, there is a marring title as being also the paper of the liberal and leftist side of the country. This title is not accusatory by any means, moreover one of considerable aptness; and in reading the paper one can derive a sense of pride from the writers and editors concerning this branding, so to speak. The socio-political dichotomy, as it concerns media, of right and left, liberal and conservative {The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal} is apparent and entirely unambiguous in the country. And it is the media, and more so the news, one receives and selectively picks what to believe, that in, many senses, dictates and manipulates their malleable and impressionable personal biases and ideologies. Think of it as if we’re all being barraged by careful and tactical persuasion if not guidance, not to say this is detrimental. Harkening back to the persisting dichotomy of the nation and {printed} news’ effect and identification upon each side there are many defining and politically charged subjects that each side’s convictions do not waver upon. War—among religion, abortion, gay rights; the list is benumbing—is one of these points of stark difference. As being the Liberal paper, The New York Times has an obvious opinion on war, and as seen in the Op-Ed subsection of the fortieth anniversary edition called “Wars Hot and Cold” a literal manifestation occurs that, through the forms of rhetoric, careful selection, and the political “cartoons” that appear within the articles presented, reveal the liberal and definably leftist lean—which is, to say the least, overt.

The articles that this sub-section of which is contrived—with the exception of four pieces, there are sixteen articles, with discernibly conservative intentions—minimally vary in style, audience, motive, and means but fall within the same basic aforesaid ideology. A synopsis of the articles as a whole: some directly focus upon US nationalism and imperialism, democratization of the east, all critical. Another permeating subject is the Vietnam war, all taking a negative approach, except for one (one of the few right leaning articles) that is contradicted by events after it was submitted, which goes even further to explain the role and bias of The new York Times. But not only do the articles successfully portray this bias, it is also apparent in all the other aspects that sometimes go unnoticed, cartoons seem to have such an effect, and to point out all the other subtle nuances would only serve to benumb and bore the reader with monotony.

Political cartoons, albeit sometimes downplay the severity of what they are attempting to satirize, can be a useful, if not indelible, tool of persuasion upon the reader.  As well they appear as a clear indicator to the publication’s overall standpoint on the certain subject, in this case war and international conflict over the past forty years. Cartoons of this matter usually mean to satirize a certain institution or person, such as with the Ralph Steadman illustration (illustrations at top of page) appearing on page seven, titled SALT—with a dash of…: which depicts a congregation of large-headed and gaped mouthed {diplomats} clinging to missiles, spiders have adorned their mouths with webs, all as a means of symbolism to attack these men’s cooperative stagnation. A more emotionally charged illustration is Sam Weber’s Blowback in Africa which depicts a AK-47 clutching man somewhat stalking, but with a skull shaped wind-up pin lodged in his upper back, as if to create this man in the image of a drone, or something inanimate.

The emotions evoked by these cartoons, whether in Steadman’s case satirical humor, or in Weber’s, empathetically driven sadness, all serve as to influence a more than likely liberal audience into associating these images with war. In doing so accomplish a sort of mental and emotional following behind the publication’s intentions, which are in short, anti-war, this being discernable through the fact that these illustrations appear and were selected by the editor.

Although, cartoons are a viable and effective means towards persuasion, they lack context, substance, and leave much of the underlying interpretation to those who look at and study them. It is of course the articles within that are truly indicative of a writer’s and or publication’s ideology. Wartime media is often thick with persuasion and rhetoric, these selections being no exception. The articles with the most easily discernable lean often make an attempt at the audience’s pathos and emotional strings, as in Ron Kovic’s story, “The Paralyzing Bullet,” appearing Jan. 31, 1978—after the Vietnam War had ended—when he describes a bullet wound in lurid detail, and evokes a sense of realism in the war, bringing the horrid memories and realities closer to home, as it were. But contrast to the aforesaid story, is Arthur Schlesinger’s opinion piece entitled “Our central American Misadventure.” In this article the rhetoric relies mostly on authoritative and somewhat condescending tone, being a p Schlesinger, Arthur Pulitzer prize winner in both history and biography perhaps qualify Schlesinger to be somewhat derisive and still maintain a certain level of credibility. He writes: “we plunge on, idiotically confident of our own infallibility,” and more leaning in the direction of an emotional appeal,           ” Let us rid ourselves of the superpower fallacy before the superpower fallacy rids us of more American lives, American Influence and American Credibility.” {Schlesinger 7}

It becomes all too apparent when reading this section the rhetorical and persuasive lean the New York Times attempts to attain, and that is one of a liberalistic and or left direction. The compilation of articles and political cartoons present this idea forthrightly. Controversy breeds division, and war being an extremely incendiary subject matter the dividing line is clearly established within the New York Times. By way of meticulous selection of articles and scathing, slashing rhetoric, as if only to protect the aforesaid views and values from being swallowed whole by the opposition—this particular section of the New York Times is something of an archetypal selection that divulges such an idea. It is as if the Times is a bastion of liberalism, creating in itself a legitimate and venerable representation for its comparatively liberally minded and humanistic audiences.

The New York Times OP-ED Section Sep. 26, 2010 pgs 6-7:

Arafat, Yasir. “The Palastinian Vision of Peace,” The New York Times: Feb. 3,

2002.

Binyan, Liu. “China in Revolt,” The New York Times: May 4, 1989.

Brodsky, Joseph. “Balkan Excuses,” The New York Times: Aug. 14, 1983.

Gorbachev, Mikhail. “Making Peace with Reagan,” The New York Times: June 7,

2004.

Halberstam, David. “A Quagmire Widens,” The New York Times: Feb. 25, 1971.

Havel, Vaclav. “A Cost to Freedom,” The New York Times: July 14, 1991.

Jr. McCain, John S. “Winning Vietnam,” The New York Times: Sep. 28, 1972.

Jr. Schlesinger, Arthur. “Our Central American Misadventure,” The New York Times

June 17, 1987.

Kennan, George F. “No party Toppled the Soviets,” The New York Times: Oct. 28,

1992.

Kovic, Ron. “The Paralyzing Bullet” The New York Times: Jan. 31, 1978.

Milosz, Czeslaw. “Poland Takes on an Empire,” The New York Times: Dec. 18, 1981

Mbeki, Thabo. “Aid for Apartheid,” The New York Times: July 18, 1983.

Meir, Golda. “Israel’s Reality,” The New York Times: Jan. 14, 1976.

Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I. “Is the Third World War Over?” The New York Times:                                     June 22, 1975.

Nixon, Richard M. “How to Think about Détente,” The New York Times: Aug. 18,

1982.

Powell, Colin. “How to use Military Force,” The New York Times: Oct. 8, 1992.

 

Written by jkboone1947

September 28, 2010 at 4:55 am

Posted in Uncategorized