General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Left's War Against The New York Times
I cancelled my subscription to the NYT a long time ago. The NYT is very biased against Democrats and the NYT coverage of the Clinton tapes helped elect TFG. I am happy with my subscription with the Washington Post and have issues opening articles posted on the NYT due to the clear bias of this paper. It seems that I am not alone This is a long but good article on the NYT
Link to tweet
See https://newrepublic.com/article/146828/lefts-war-new-york-times
Reporter Michael Schmidt was criticized for not asking more follow-up questions during an impromptu sit-down with Trump in December. His colleague Richard Fausset was accused of normalizing a neo-Nazi in his profile of an Ohio white nationalist the month before. Critics frequently charge that the Times is preoccupied with giving a voice to Trump supporters or even just saying something nice about the president, and the paper has openly struggled with how to cover racists. Broader criticisms go to questions of framing and contextwhether news analysis of Trump is too gentle, like when Peter Baker described the presidents reality-show accessibility, or why the Times mobile phone push notifications seem strangely favorable to the White House. And then theres the steady moan about the Times opinion sectionnot just stalwarts like Brooks and Ross Douthat, but Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss, both of whom joined the paper last year from The Wall Street Journal.....
Yet many on the left refuse to forget the Times transgressions over the years, such as when it helped President George W. Bush sell the Iraq War. Many complaints have to do with its coverage of just one Democratic family. As Esquires Charles Pierce wrote in mid-2016, while Hillary Clinton and Trump faced off for the presidency:
The Times obsession with finding somethinganything!it could hang on the Clintons goes all the way back to that moment three editors ago when the paper realized that its big Whitewater scoop was little more than a bag of Arkansas hot air. It has continued through the coverage of the Benghazi nothingburger, the e-mail nothingburger, and now, the Clinton Foundation nothingburger. When it comes to the once and (perhaps) future president of the United States, the Newspaper of Record is the In-and-Out of nothingburgers.
Its a very neurotic relationship American liberals have with The New York Times, and that The New York Times has with American liberals, New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen told me. I think it has a lot to do with the Clintons. Rosen said the paper has always prided itself on challenging Democrats as well as Republicans, which sometimes rankles its core readership (including liberal journalists). He said, I think there is more tension now between the core loyalists of The New York Times and the newsroom, and its because of the political situation.
Of course, many liberal critics blame the current political situation in part on the Times. Willis, a longtime blogger who spent 13 years at Brocks pro-Clinton media watchdog group Media Matters before joining Shareblue, concedes the paper has some of the best reporters there are and does good work. But he insists the Times hates liberals and harbored institutional hatred for Clinton during the campaign, a claim former Times executive editor Jill Abramson has vehemently denied. Willis went so far as to tweet, a few weeks after the 2016 election, that his followers shouldnt subscribe to either the Times or the Post since it only encourages the bastards.
Explicit calls for progressives to pull their money from the Times are surprisingly common now. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, a liberal in good standing with the likes of Tanden, is a prominent example:
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
Link to tweet
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,917 posts)I agree with these comments from this article https://newrepublic.com/article/146828/lefts-war-new-york-times
The Washington Post is just better able to negotiate the Trump era than The New York Times, Rosen said. I dont think the Times is pro-Trump or in Trumps pocket. I think thats grossly misstated and completely wrong. I do think theyve had trouble finding their place in an extraordinary situation.... When I look at the front page of the Washington Post website, its just more willing to completely challenge what the Trump government is doing and contradict it. With the Times you get this more institutional, formal language. Part of the challenge, in his view, is that the Trump administration has so devalued various conventions of the presidency, from the White House press briefing to the exclusive presidential interview. The whole idea that by interviewing him youre finding out about his governing intentions is false with Trump, he said. The noise and bravado he might have in the interview could have nothing to do with what he does tomorrow.... I just think the logic of interviewing Trump has collapsed.
Ben Wikler, the Washington director for the progressive group MoveOn, faults the Times for not having a dedicated reporter covering the left in the way the Posts Dave Weigel does. I love the NYT, and it does amazing work. But unlike every other major outlet, it doesnt have a reporter whose beat includes the left, he tweeted last year. At the Post, @daveweigel has covered the hell out of the resistance, just as he covered the Tea Party. No equiv at the Times. Blind spot. Compounding that blind spot is the way the rest of press takes its cues from the NYT.
lark
(23,199 posts)I've never looked back.
lark
(23,199 posts)dalton99a
(81,707 posts)SergeStorms
(19,205 posts)The WaPo is my news source of record now.
dalton99a
(81,707 posts)in the name of "journalism"
The New York Times is no friend of Democrats or working people. Its allegiance is to Wall Street and the oligarchs.
Grasswire2
(13,575 posts)It's the FAILING New York Times.
Cha
(298,049 posts)Central. Pounded the Drums for War on Iraq via Judy Miller and as is written helped tfg(who calls them FAKE NEWS) get elected.
They're an Enemy of the State.
Good to hear the WP is into Reality and not making up shit about "both sides".
dalton99a
(81,707 posts)Cha
(298,049 posts)he's a fucking traitor to the country.
peggysue2
(10,852 posts)Yes, how do you get to a bothsiderism argument if you can't give a positive spin on racism?
Reminds me of the Texas argument about providing both sides in all things, as in the Holocaust. What is the opposing side? It didn't happen? As for writing about racists? How about this--they love their dogs.
Sound familiar. It should.
This is nothing more than excusing access journalism despite the damage it has done to the country. It's lazy and irresponsible.
Want to spend your future groveling at the feet of authoritarians? This is the way you do it. Of course, the title of 'journalist' will end, quickly replaced with 'stenographer.'
Remember all those chants of: Enemy of the People.
That was a specific warning, even for those working at the NYTs.
dalton99a
(81,707 posts)I guess they ran out of synonyms in the thesaurus
AJT
(5,240 posts)and I told them why
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I confess when things really heat up I've ended up resubscribing because of all the world-class investigative journlism articles I couldn't see. Then dump again for cause after the election or whatever.
I remember reading the NYT's Halloween 2016 "summary" of the Trump-Russia investigation that inferred it found nothing and was wrapping up, when the complete opposite was true. A week before election day. I remember being confused by the oddly very vague content that seemed to contradict its previous reporting but wasn't sophisticated enough to become immediately suspicious.
The WaPo reported the big story that the NYT had "hidden the lede," journalism speak for massive corruption and betrayal intended to deceive the nation and thus help throw the election to tRump and the Republicans.
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)they just love their damn pay wall's ! journalist wanna be's ! editor in chief need's to be suspended for acting like he know's what he is doing ?
bucolic_frolic
(43,501 posts)Question everything you see and hear
reACTIONary
(5,796 posts)... I subscribe to both, and read both every day. Both are excellent, high end journalism.
brooklynite
(94,985 posts)mrsadm
(1,198 posts)of Jan. 6 videos; they said they analyzed 3000 videos to do the collection. I found it amazing.
Edit to add link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/14/insider/video-capitol-riot.html
Jon King
(1,910 posts)NY Times seems to anger both sides.
Sympthsical
(9,193 posts)"The NYT is too biased. You know what I need? The paper owned and controlled by the second richest man in the world. I know he'll tell me the truth!"
Or, you know, laterally read for sources and glean information from many places with many different reporters and views.
But that's, well, work.
Let's just go, "Fake News!" and get that horseshoe into a more aesthetically pleasing circle.
NNadir
(33,586 posts)...an environmentalist. This is laughable.
While I agree with much he says about the New York Times, which often features science reporting almost as bad as his, this is a black kettle criticizing the pot.
A fun illustration of Moulitsas's credibility is how all of his front pagers fell over themselves praising Jim Hansen's work on climate change until Jim Hansen told a truth they didn't like.
They like "science" over a Daily Kos when it supports their biases but there aren't many people over there who have ever opened a science book. I believe their science editor - last I looked - was a stockbroker or something like that.
PatrickforB
(14,604 posts)I don't hate the times. It has some good articles, and good opinion pieces. But, of course, I am enough of a policy wonk to read with a critical eye.
BaronChocula
(1,637 posts)It's everyone who is more deferential to the Old White Establishment than to the truth. The NYT is stricken with the same fear that grips elected gopper officials; The last thing they want to do is pushback against the OWE.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)The New York Times was founded in 1851 and has been a household name in the United States for decades. The newspaper has adapted well to changes in the media industry, and between the first quarters of 2014 and 2019, paid subscribers to The New York Times digital only news product increased from 799 thousand to almost 2.86 million.
New York Times - weekday circulation 2020 | Statista
www.statista.com/statistics/273503/average-paid-weekday-circulation-of-the-new-york-times/
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)But in the whole balance of things, I don't reward bad behavior, so no subscription.
If I really want to read a Times article, I just use my library card or archive dot org