Liberal Media

It came to no surprise to those of us who monitor such things that the New York Times endorsed Barack Obama for President in this last election. But is that enough for us to label this well respected news organization "liberal?" I had some conservative friends support Senator Obama and I wouldn't consider them liberal for that action. Misguided maybe, but not liberal.

Well, recently the New York Times did the research for me. In a celebratory move, the Times created a "Endorsements through the ages" website documenting the candidates for president that they've endorsed since Lincoln.

Thank you, New York Times, I no longer have to exert any energy convincing people that you are a banner holder for the left, you've done it yourself.

Here are some of the things that this website shows us:

Since JFK first ran for President in 1960, the New York Times has endorsed exactly zero Republicans or Independents for President.

Since Woodrow Wilson prevented President Taft from serving a second term in 1912, the New York Times has endorsed 3 non-Democrats. (The supported Wendell Willkie when he ran against FDR's third term (of course, they gave FDR the nod for his fourth term). They backed Dewey against Truman. And they endorsed Ike.) To reiterate, that's nearly 100 years of elections, 3 non-Democratic endorsements.

It should come as no surprise that this institution would back the Northern Republicans during and immediately following the Civil War. Between 1860 (as rumors of war grew) through 1880 (as the war raged through the 1860s and reconstruction through the 1870s) there was an amazing stretch of 6 Republican endorsements, all of whom won the election.

Here are some other interesting statistics this website provides us with:

Since 1884, the candidate the New York Times endorsed has won the election 53% of the time.

Since 1884, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat (or a member of the "National Democratic Party") 81% of the time.

Since 1912, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 88% of the time.

Since 1960, the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat 100% of the time.

When the New York Times has endorsed a Republican, that candidate has won the election 83% of the time.

When the New York Times has endorsed a Democrat, that candidate has won the election 52% of the time.

What does this show us? That the New York Times isn't going to endorse a Republican unless the Democrat is a really bad choice. It also shows us that the New York Times has clearly been descending into a liberal position since the end of the Civil War.

Often times I end my rants with a disclaimer that what you've just read is "Just My Opinion." However, in this case, I've presented only the facts offered by the New York Times itself and the logical conclusions there derived. I think anyone would be hard pressed to attempt to contradict the findings.