Another Vegan Bash in the NYT

[gkleinman]

The NYT seems to bash vegans at each and every chance they can.

 

Here is another 'lovely' article where AGAIN they bash vegans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/dining/13incompatible.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=i+love+you+but+you+eat+meat&st=nyt&oref=slogin

[Aaron]

From the article:

 

For her part, Ms. James has begun eating offal and foie gras, which were once anathema. “We’ve changed each other,â€

[xveganjoshx]

This article is pretty standard for the liberal rag and birdcage liner that is the NY times. And by pretty standard I mean it sucked hard.

Edited February 14, 2008 by xveganjoshx

[tatman6006]

The NYT seems to bash vegans at each and every chance they can.

 

Here is another 'lovely' article where AGAIN they bash vegans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/dining/13incompatible.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=i+love+you+but+you+eat+meat&st=nyt&oref=slogin

 

As for the quote that they provided, we can thank Anthony Bourdain for that one. He's an all-around douchebag.

 

At least it wasn't Nina Planck this time around.

 

I much prefer Ann Coulter's books to line my birdcages with.... they work great to double up as single-ply toilet paper as well... particularly the pages of "How to talk to a liberal if you really have to"

 

Sorry, Josh -- my heart is a bleeding one

Edited February 14, 2008 by tatman6006

[xjohanx]

that article can suck my balls

[CollegeB]

Yeah I'm not surprised about this at all. Didn't the NYT promote going into Iraq at one point? I have recently read they added Bill Kristol to their op-ed team. I suppose it's to further promote government causes, but with different language. Ugh, liberal media.

[xveganjoshx]

 

I much prefer Ann Coulter's books to line my birdcages with.... they work great to double up as single-ply toilet paper as well... particularly the pages of "How to talk to a liberal if you really have to"

 

Sorry, Josh -- my heart is a bleeding one

It's "How to talk to a liberal if you must". LOL.

I haven't read it, or any of her books. I think we can both agree to not like her. She's a hate monger, she claims to be conservative but she's a really bad endorsement of the ideology, being so far from it, and being so hateful and closeminded. Being a conservative isn't about being close-minded, just like being a liberal shouldn't be about being so open minded your brains fall out. The truth is that she is a hatemonger, especially in her social agenda, and to be honest many Christians don't even like her (this doesn't say much when your are on the outside of the christian circle but it does say quite a bit when you are on the inside )

 

And I know your heart is a bleeding one. You don't have to say that twice!

[anastasia]

The culinary camps have become so balkanized that some factions consider interdietary dating taboo

.

 

"camps"? "factions"? Strange vocabulary. I guess the article was too boring without making it seem like everyone with a dietary restriction is some kind of warrior in the midst of an epic conflict.

[xveganjoshx]

The culinary camps have become so balkanized that some factions consider interdietary dating taboo

.

 

"camps"? "factions"? Strange vocabulary. I guess the article was too boring without making it seem like everyone with a dietary restriction is some kind of warrior in the midst of an epic conflict.

 

Hahahaha. Seriously. The melodrama was so forced. OMG YOU CAN'T EAT WHEAT??!!! THE WORLD IS OVER!! lol

[Zack]

Being a conservative isn't about being close-minded, just like being a liberal shouldn't be about being so open minded your brains fall out.

 

haha.

[Jessifly]

surely the word enemy was a typo...

 

epitome

 

that's better

[gkleinman]

Honestly I'm done with the NYT. At least once every 2-3 months they pull crap like this article. I tried to post a reply and it wasn't approved. F Them.

[Bill]

Just to play the devil's advocate, I don't know if it's such a horrible article. Many people do have relationship stresses because of dietary reasons. The articles biggest weakness is not exploring why people have "dietary" prefrences that might be as important to them as a relationship with another human being might. In other words, it doesn't go far enough in exploring why some people may not view animals as simple commodities to be used for human exploitation, but rather, gives the impression that not eating cheese is in the same ballpark as people who are "picky" and don't like spicy food, or something. Because it doesn't do that, it winds up giving the tone that it's mocking these silly, superficial people (which maybe some of them deserve).

 

As far as the NYTimes, I don't really think it's fair to bash the paper. They have hundreds of articles per day, many of which are very good. The magazine goes into depth on a lot of important issues. They are one of the few papers that maintains a wide-spread foreign bureau, and that takes foreign politics seriously. On any given day they will have articles that are offensive to some. Rush Limbaugh always gives daily examples of their supposed "liberal" bias, but then any NYT article that supports his world-view is automatically factual because it's written by "liberals", which he's already proven. Anybody who has a ideological or religious issue that is genuinely important to them will tend to see a pattern of bias, even if that correctly-identified pattern is outweighed by a greater amount of relatively objective reporting, in my opinion.

 

Of course, they have had a bad string of unfavorable/biased vegan-related articles, and that should take away from the overall reputation of the paper. But still, I think its pretty good.

[tatman6006]

Just to play the devil's advocate, I don't know if it's such a horrible article. Many people do have relationship stresses because of dietary reasons. The articles biggest weakness is not exploring why people have "dietary" prefrences that might be as important to them as a relationship with another human being might. In other words, it doesn't go far enough in exploring why some people may not view animals as simple commodities to be used for human exploitation, but rather, gives the impression that not eating cheese is in the same ballpark as people who are "picky" and don't like spicy food, or something. Because it doesn't do that, it winds up giving the tone that it's mocking these silly, superficial people (which maybe some of them deserve).

 

As far as the NYTimes, I don't really think it's fair to bash the paper. They have hundreds of articles per day, many of which are very good. The magazine goes into depth on a lot of important issues. They are one of the few papers that maintains a wide-spread foreign bureau, and that takes foreign politics seriously. On any given day they will have articles that are offensive to some. Rush Limbaugh always gives daily examples of their supposed "liberal" bias, but then any NYT article that supports his world-view is automatically factual because it's written by "liberals", which he's already proven. Anybody who has a ideological or religious issue that is genuinely important to them will tend to see a pattern of bias, even if that correctly-identified pattern is outweighed by a greater amount of relatively objective reporting, in my opinion.

 

Of course, they have had a bad string of unfavorable/biased vegan-related articles, and that should take away from the overall reputation of the paper. But still, I think its pretty good.

 

Plus -- we know that Rush Limbaugh isn't biased at ALL

 

But then again, damn that liberal media! It's so pervasive! I mean, every time I turn on Fox News I have to be bombarded with all of that liberal hippy claptrap... oh wait... never mind....

[gkleinman]

Just to play the devil's advocate, I don't know if it's such a horrible article....

 

I disagree. While it's not the worse Vegan bash from the NYT it is decidedly anti vegan, opening with that quote from AB and making jabs at veg life at several turns.

 

As far as the NYTimes, I don't really think it's fair to bash the paper. They have hundreds of articles per day, many of which are very good. .

 

Yes and No. The paper isn't crap, but the way they deal with Vegans is. Not only do they often publish articles decidedly focused on attacking Vegans they prohibit publishing any letters to the editors with dissenting opinions. This is one of the ONLY categories which the NYT seems hell bent on removing any discourse over and for that I think it IS fair to bash them as a paper.

 

 

Anybody who has a ideological or religious issue that is genuinely important to them will tend to see a pattern of bias, even if that correctly-identified pattern is outweighed by a greater amount of relatively objective reporting, in my opinion .

 

I don't have any illusions that any publication is bias free. I'm ok with bias, I'm not ok with the way the NYT consistently and irresponsibly attacks being Vegan. It's an axe they have to grind and it goes beyond being fair or balanced in their reporting. No publication is unimpeachable and I feel the NYT is unwilling to do the bare minimum and enable the voice of dissent to be heard in response to their reporting.

[Bill]

Yes and No. The paper isn't crap, but the way they deal with Vegans is. Not only do they often publish articles decidedly focused on attacking Vegans they prohibit publishing any letters to the editors with dissenting opinions. This is one of the ONLY categories which the NYT seems hell bent on removing any discourse over and for that I think it IS fair to bash them as a paper.

 

I agree, gkleinman. It's pretty horrible that they wouldn't allow your reply to go through too.

[SwoleNSexified]

lets be real about this though, listen to the vegans that this paper is bashing

 

Ben Abdalla, 42, a real estate agent in Boca Raton, Fla., said he preferred to date fellow vegetarians because meat eaters smell bad and have low energy.

 

Lisa Romano, 31, a vegan and school psychologist in Belleville, N.Y., said she recently ended a relationship with a man who enjoyed backyard grilling. He had no problem searing her vegan burgers alongside his beef patties, but she found the practice unenlightened and disturbing.

 

So many people who become vegan fail to understand that there is no rule that states that when you become vegan you also have to become a pretentious, intolerant, elitist douchebag.

 

Now, if this is the only kind of vegan that the NY Times is going to talk about then it's obvious that their agenda is to make people think that all vegans are like this and that's not cool, but with that having been said, it's not the papers fault if people believe this, it's the people for allowing themselves to be brainwashed.

 

Personally, I couldn't care less what people think about vegans, my opinion of them doesn't change regardless of their eating habits (with the possible exception of extreme cases) and if they're worth my while to associate with, their opinion of me won't be dependent on my eating habits either.

[xSkotx]

Weòò, Id say that the NYT either looked for such douchebags to use words as "unenlightened", or just put those words in their mouths. Either way, they fail.