tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post108924462432621928..comments2024-03-26T12:23:35.307-05:00Comments on The Buck Stops Here: The New York Times on Welfare ReformStuart Buckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05731724396708879386noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1094588845828532452004-09-07T15:27:00.000-05:002004-09-07T15:27:00.000-05:00I used this work in my own analysis of Welfare Ref...I used this work in my own analysis of Welfare Reform, including history and politics and the effects on teen birth rates, poverty and much, much more. I also include a large number of charts and graphs. I appreciate the information that this page gave me. I wish I had Lexis! Thanks again! Travis<br />http://www.neoperspectives.com/welfare.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1089406432498737182004-07-09T15:53:00.000-05:002004-07-09T15:53:00.000-05:00Unless I'm mistaken, except for the Herbert articl...Unless I'm mistaken, except for the Herbert articles, these are all on even numbered pages, which in the NYT indicates that they are unsigned items written by Times staff under the direction of the editorial page editor. The opposition pieces appear on odd numbered pages, which comprise the right hand side of the two page editorial layout. RRRyanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1089397209462306292004-07-09T13:20:00.000-05:002004-07-09T13:20:00.000-05:00The editorial desk is not responsible for writing ...The editorial desk is not responsible for writing op-eds. Op-ed is short of opposite of the editorial page. That is, these are the views of certain individual commentators, not the paper itself. In this context, a paper such as the Times is only responsible for what it publishes as an official editorial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1089386505517796692004-07-09T10:21:00.000-05:002004-07-09T10:21:00.000-05:00"If you would like to investigate these articles f..."If you would like to investigate these articles further, you will find that they are OP-ED pieces. While the NYT has discretion to publish them, this bashing only really lends itself to the biases of certain readers." No further investigation is necessary: in this very blog, every NYT quotation is clearly noted as coming from the editorial desk. And how is it "bashing" to point out that the Times now calls a "no-brainer" what it railed and railed against at the time. Talk about the biases of certain readers. Geesh. ELC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1089309054244822342004-07-08T12:50:00.000-05:002004-07-08T12:50:00.000-05:00Maybe the Times then meant draconian in a good way...Maybe the Times then meant draconian in a good way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1089296325001042842004-07-08T09:18:00.000-05:002004-07-08T09:18:00.000-05:00Isn't "Much of the partisan angst and philosophica...Isn't "Much of the partisan angst and philosophical conflict that marked the original passage dissipated...", the NYT nuanced way of saying "we were against it before we were for it"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1089286544722721612004-07-08T06:35:00.000-05:002004-07-08T06:35:00.000-05:00In the foucauldian view of the world, there is no ...In the foucauldian view of the world, there is no verifiable truth and there is no "real" history. What one does at the moment is all that matters (unless you are an enemy of the paper). <br /><br />Therefore, the NYTimes is being internally consistent by reinventing its position where it suits their needs. No problem!KCFleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00124201866124646626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1089260312517011002004-07-07T23:18:00.000-05:002004-07-07T23:18:00.000-05:00Are you sure the Times backed down on Libya in our...Are you sure the Times backed down on Libya in our reality? Or are you from some neighboring dimension where they're capable of admitting that they made a mistake?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1089258736274592942004-07-07T22:52:00.000-05:002004-07-07T22:52:00.000-05:00Give the Times its due; when Libya agreed to give ...Give the Times its due; when Libya agreed to give up its weapons of mass destruction, the Times wrote a magnanimous editorial that frankly conceded that the paper's editors had attacked the Bush administration's approach, but that in this case, the Bushies had been right. I had to pinch myself to make sure I was awake. But it proves that the Timesfolk will occasionally own up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1089256550876856752004-07-07T22:15:00.000-05:002004-07-07T22:15:00.000-05:00Great catch. As a former Clintonite, I remember th...Great catch. As a former Clintonite, I remember the wailing and knashing of teeth.<br /><br />When you are wrong you should say so, explicitly and openly. I think admitting to hysteria would be enough. Even for the Newspaper of Record™.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1089256408891109072004-07-07T22:13:00.000-05:002004-07-07T22:13:00.000-05:00Where the Times is concerned, a back-handed admiss...Where the Times is concerned, a back-handed admission of error is the best you're going to get.<br /><br />Still, isn't renewal stalled because certain troglodytes in the Senate remain as opposed to welfare reform today - and therefore won't permit a vote on reauthorization - as they were back when they were echoing the Times circa 1996?<br /><br />If that's the case, why is that a failure of the "Republican Congress"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3152270.post-1089252400669466102004-07-07T21:06:00.000-05:002004-07-07T21:06:00.000-05:00Much as I love a good NYT bashing, I think you are...Much as I love a good NYT bashing, I think you are being unfair. The Times editorial seems to say that in 2004 renewal of welfare reform is a no-brainer.<br /><br />In 1996 the Times published many scare stories about the soon-to-be, then recently-enacted welfare reform. Now we know just how wrong they were.<br /><br />Perhaps the editorial calling renewal of welfare reform "a no-brainer" is a back-handed way of the Times apologizing and saying, "Boy, were we ever wrong! But we've learned a lot in eight years."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com