Talk:The Mining Journal

Neo-Conservative?

Calling a daily newspaper slanted requires some serious substantiation, it seems to me. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

780 478-6175 208.98.223.123 (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Where would one like to start? Any reason why "guest" commentators are universally the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Charles Krauthammer, Michael Novak? Any reason why we don't see folks of other persuasions similarly so "honored?" This week's op-ed alone? How about a simple excerpt from but one of this week's editorials...

...."Not long after Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, we predicted that his stances on some foreign policy issues would change.

Fortunately, we were right. We hope his personal evolution from dogmatic liberalism to realistic pragmatism continues even accelerates...."

On and on. The selection of content? Years and years...how about the "controversial" appointment of an Episcopalian bishop who practices - hold on to your hats - meditation?

It is so replete with slant and bias that it would require volumes just to enumerate the daily tirade. If truly interested, it's easy enough to investigate - just take a look. Then do it for awhile, and determine the unmitigated slant in the by-lines chosen, and editorials made. Bloopyoop (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

That's all a lot of WP:OR, and while we're talking about Forrester, at the moment it seems pretty likely that he's going to fail to get the necessary consents, not that that's germane. Give me a citation, OK? Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Response:

What's germane is that the paper is heavily, narrowly circumscribed by neo-conservative thought - which includes a rightist, politically-charged "christian conservative" bias. The notion that an Episcopal dignitary can practice zen meditation isn't new - see Thomas Merton ([[1]])- to see the possibility both worlds can, and do co-exist, outside the confines of bigotry; zen is a practice, and not a religion. This is much in line with contemplative Christianity, as Merton details by example a good part of his life. Nevertheless, despite a long tradition of such admixture, this drummed up "controversy" by the Journal is but one example among many.

I'm sorry; but to also call it "No original research" is utterly inaccurate, since I'm referring to excerpts from the paper itself. I find it equally odd you're asking for a citation, when it's easy enough to do it yourself - which is what I've asked you to do, look it up in the paper. Do the search - "Forrester"; I don't need to do what you can do in a few moments.

Beyond, I've raised a legitimate question as to the Journal's choice of AP commentators. Do you deny what has already been said - that the Journal's "guest columnists" include neo-conservative proselytes - Krauthammer and Co., but curiously absent are their antipode commentators?

A posting from today's (5/29) letter to the editor is telling.

First, an excerpt from the editorial in question:

But the reality of politics is that the divide involves Americans who pay taxes and those who do not. Pollsters have begun paying attention to those two Americas. Some polls found that Americans who paid no income taxes last year were much more likely to support then-candidate Barack Obama, a Democrat, than his Republican rival, John McCain.

A new poll by, this one involving the respected Zogby firm, reinforces that point. According to the poll, non-taxpayers are much more likely than taxpayers to support President Obama's initiatives.

The percentage of voters who do not pay income taxes has been estimated at anywhere from 30 percent to nearly 50 percent. The Zogby poll uses the lower number.

Obviously, a political divide between those who pay for government and those who do not is a problem. Some in Congress still seem more interested in capitalizing on it than worrying about a potential backlash from those who pay the bills, however. That needs to change if we as a nation are to avoid a major and potentially dangerous schism.

Now, the letter to the editor:

I find it interesting that in the May 17 editorial, "Haves and have nots easy to see," The Mining Journal feigns concern of a potential dangerous schism developing in America while providing half-truths and innuendo that fan the flames of just such a schism. They base their concern on a recent poll by "the respected Zogby firm." For some reason, The Mining Journal left out the fact that the poll was commissioned by the conservative-leaning O'Leary Report. Was this information left out of the editorial because it might have suggested some bias in the poll? The poll included questions such as: Which of the following do you think is a better economic system: (a) A system in which the public or the state have ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods or (b) A system in which wealth and the means of producing wealth are privately owned and controlled rather than state owned or controlled with the state regulating them. Because of the bias, O'Leary decided that (a) reflected President Obama's view, although the president has continued to express in word and action no desire to nationalize production or distribution.

The letter is correct. The Mining Journal editorial fails to note the gross bias of the poll - essentially, the poll is asking if socialism or capitalism is better, which is loaded with slant, bias, and decided ideological bent - elementary polling construction would toss such a poll as a ridiculously biased attempt to gain a straw-man answer. More, the Journal blithely states "the respected Zogby firm reinforces [that] point."

Now, here's what the Wall Street Journal - not exactly known for leftist propaganda - had to say re: the Zogby poll - on yet another instance when Zogby was being paid by a neo-conservative interest to do a push-poll:

During a campaign, pollsters can build credibility by forecasting election results accurately. Afterward, they can build revenue by using that credibility to attract private clients. These private surveys often have an agenda, and their numbers can’t be tested against an objective standard, such as votes. Such surveys can test pollsters’ standards of conduct. Zogby International recently conducted a survey for a critic of president-elect Barack Obama and then, together with the sponsor, interpreted the numbers from the survey in a misleading fashion.

Yet the Mining Journal cynically attempts to pass such biased polling off as a kind of ideology-neutral, legitimate measure, because it serves the Journal's biased, partisan slant.

Typical of the Mining Journal; on and on. This citation is just an example from today. It is a daily thing, so to simply ask for more citations - beyond what I've already provided - would be to ask for a reprinting of the Journal, as an ongoing testament, throughout its history.

Now, I've already provided a few examples, out of the customary slant of the Journal. You are free to ignore them, or dispute them - but it's pretty difficult to dispute what is actually in print, is it not?

The contention - that the Journal is a partisan paper, with neo-conservative bias, stands. Bloopyoop (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)