DU online gathering place for people who hate the Bush administration?

[NAO]

That's how the NYT described DU in a recent article. Many people here discussed whether they dismissed us a tin-foil hatters, but no one seemed to contest this rather brutal, extremely biased marginalizing description of DU in the third sentence of the article. Calling us "an online gathering place for people who hate" is most definitely a nasty slur.

Just using the word "hate" associates us with the worst elements in human society - "hate groups", "terrorists hate our freedom", "people who know nothing other than hate".

Is that description really professional or becoming of the major media in the United States? They could have said, "an online gathering place for people who are harshly critical of the Bush Administration". That would have been less than complete, but at least not a blatant slur.

Does the NYT refer to the Heritage Foundation as "a think tank for people who HATE left-leaning policies"?

Do they refer to James Dobsons Focus on the Family as "people who HATE homosexuals and secular humanists"?

Did the refer to the Swift Boat Vets as "disgruntled soldiers who HATE John Kerry"?

I think it is a serious slam for them to print, in the NYT, that DU is a "place for people who HATE the Bush Administration."

Why does the NYT hate us?

[candy]

1. I didn't see the article,but agree with what you said.

Who wrote the article? Makes a difference!

[NAO]

5. Excerpt, LINK to NYT article

Myths Run Wild in Blog Tsunami Debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/03/international/worldspecial4/03bloggers.html

As the horror of the South Asian tsunami spread and people gathered online to discuss the disaster on sites known as Web logs, or blogs, those of a political bent naturally turned the discussion to their favorite topics.

To some in the blogosphere, it simply had to be the government's fault.

On Democratic Underground, a blog for open discussion and an online gathering place for people who hate the Bush administration (www.democraticunderground.com), a participant asked, "Since we know that the atmosphere has become contaminated by all the atomic testing, space stuff, electronic stuff, earth pollutants, etc., is it logical to wonder if: Perhaps the 'bones' of our earth where this earthquake spawned have also been affected?"

*******

In early versions of the article, they linked to the conservative blogs that were ridiculing DU, but the did NOT link to DU, which was purportedly the subject of the article. They changed it and added a link to DU only after being called on it. Bias runs deep in the MSM.

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Title and author

COMMUNICATIONS
Myths Run Wild in Blog Tsunami Debate
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

[candy]

17. Thanks for the link---the end of the article was quite---

complimentary to DU,though.

God knows why he used the word "hate" in his earlier description.

[BlueFlu]

15. John Schwartz, a Times' tech writer' n/t

[candy]

18. Thanks n/t

[Bronco69]

2. Look for more of it.

The corporate media machine will continue to slander us because that's the only way they know how to get others to drink the Kool Aid. If they just keep calling us evil, people will sooner or later jump on board and start to believe it.

[Sandpiper]

3. Because most DUers think the NYT is a shill for the powerful

And has turned into a lapdog rather than a watchdog.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Did you expect a fair assessment from the NY Times? Their days of fair

and accurate reporting are far behind them...and show no signs of returning. Virtually all of their reporters are paid stooges of the Bushites. The only fair hearing you might expect is on the editorial page...and don't expect it from the likes of Safire or Brooks on the OPED pages!!

[proudbluestater]

6. I think they need a piece of my mind

Thanks for the link. Imagine spending resources to write about "blogs" (duh, doesn't even know what he's talking about. This is a freaking FORUM), but no resources can be spared to write about a stolen election. Oh, that's right, that might require them to actually WORK.

I am only mildly surprised that the NYTimes has sunk so low. Our MSM has been reduced to mainly propaganda-pushing recently.

I don't see the site as a hate site at all, but it would further the regime's cause to label us as such, should they decide in the future that we don't have the right to gather here.

If they were being brutally honest, I wonder what they'd call the Freeper site?

Overwhelmingly, the hate comes from the right and they have ALL the mainstream avenues open to them to spout it 24/7. We have a forum. Wow, how threatening are we? Better we gather here than pollute the "public" airwaves with our opinions. The public airwaves no longer belong to the public, dontcha know. They belong to Michael Powell.

[Pirate Smile]

12. Here you go - thread with almost 300 posts and a link to the article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1116859

[VioletLake]

7. The New York Times is worthless now.

The Bush administration turns everything it touches to shit.

[CrispyQ]

9. I didn't read the article, but you make excellent points.

You should compose a LTTE with exactly the examples you cited above.

[moggie12]

10. See DU Lounge post below your post

Maybe it's because of things like someone just posted in the DU Lounge about five seconds before your post (subject heading was something like, "What's your opinion?". All the person wrote in the post was, "Do you think Bush is more of an 'asshole', an 'asswipe' (gave a few more choices I won't repeat). Most people write very intelligent, thoughtful comments, but NYT might be getting a bad impression of the site from some of the more "vent-ful" ones.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. There are plenty of disgusting, disrespectful, hateful posts on the

Repugnant blogs as well....but they don't call them hate blogs. They are called "politically conservative" blogs.

[tanyev]

11. I find it interesting that the NYT

is even bothering to slur us negatively. Not so very long ago, they would not have deigned to notice DU. Maybe we are hitting a nerve somewhere.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. The letter I just sent to the the letters & public editor of the NY TIMES

Another example of your "fair and accurate reporting"?

"Democratic Underground, a blog for open discussion and an online gathering place for people who hate the Bush administration"
vs
"Wizbang, a politically conservative blog"

Now you want to know why so many people who were once you baseof subscribers are cancelling their subscriptions?

[NAO]

14. HATE is such a harsh label...and marginalizes

As I said in the original post, "hate" is a very harsh label. It would never be applied to various right wing causes, even when applicable, (eg Swift Boat Vets, Free Republic, Ann Coulter)

Imagine a review in the NYT Review of Books, "Ann Coulter, an author who HATES liberals". Everyone KNOWS that's literally true, she makes hateful statements on public record all the time, but she would never be referred to as "a hater", nor would her books be described as being written for "people who HATE liberals".

Don't we at DU deserve at least as much respect as Ann Coulter?

[Imalittleteapot]

19. Notice that there are over 62,000 of us and more to

come to DU thanks to the NYT and the like that bash DU.