The notion that the editorial policy of the New York Times is slanted against men is beyond debate.

Just a few days ago, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough invited author Warren Farrell to appear on his show. Farrell cited a March 13, 1998 NYT article on cancer deaths that carried the headline, "Women are Still Particularly at Risk." Problem is, men have a cancer death risk that is 50% higher than women's.

This anti-male bias has been documented in the Times' health reporting, its Book Review Section, and its overall coverage of gender issues.

But most don't realize how this anti-male slant at the Times has poisoned the perceptions of men at countless other newspapers around the country.

The reason is that the New York Times is not just a family-owned newspaper. It is a vast media empire with annual revenues of over $3 billion.

In addition to its flagship newspaper, the NY Times Company owns the Boston Globe, the International Herald Tribune, and 16 other newspapers. The Company also controls 8 TV stations and 2 radio stations around the country (www.nytco.com/company-othersites.html).

The NYT News Service distributes the contents of its newspaper to more than 650 clients worldwide. And then there's the New York Times Syndicate, which distributes news and columns to more than 2,000 media outlets.

But there's more -- the NYT is to journalism what Harvard University is to higher education. So when owner Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. makes a misandric remark like, "If white men were not complaining, it would be an indication we weren't succeeding and making the inroads that we are," people sit up and take notice.

So the media now find it socially acceptable to depict men as scofflaws and scumbags.

One 2000 study by the National Fatherhood Initiative analyzed how fathers were portrayed in 102 shows during prime time television. Each show that included a father as a central, recurring character was rated in terms of how the father came across -- as an inept Homer Simpson or as a wise Father Knows Best.

Among the 102 shows, only 4 presented the father as involved and competent. Thus, in prime time TV, fathers usually did not exist. And when they did appear, they were depicted as morons, deadbeats, abusers, or worse.

On the silver screen, masculine characters fare no better. According to an article in the July/August 2002 issue of American Enterprise, movies routinely portray men as "insecure, hesitant, angst-ridden, self-centered, and ineffectual."

And now, even TV advertisements have jumped on the bandwagon.

Car ads show brash women who know more about car maintenance and repair than their timid boyfriends. And for weeks, Progressive Insurance ran that awful ad showing a girl kicking a man in the groin -- all very humorous, of course.

Tucker Carlson, co-host of CNN's Crossfire program, recently commented that men are portrayed in TV ads as "dim, lazy, pompous and incompetent, sometimes loveable, but fundamentally ridiculous."

And those hateful Hallmark greeting cards? Well, that's a whole separate column.

You have to believe this steady diet of anti-male programming has taken its toll on how the public at large views men. So why have men stood by placidly in the face of these arrogant taunts?

Carlson came up with one explanation: "maybe because complaining is one thing men don't do a lot of."

Carey Roberts