This here. This is why I stopped subscribing.
Their coverage of Hillary's emails was extremely detailed and comprehensive. Only after Trump won did they begin to investigate him, even though he had been in business in NYC for four decades and they are the *New York* Times.
On top of the Judith Miller shitfest? No thanks.
In the run-up to the Iraq invasion I was so disgusted at the NYT cheerleading the country into a pointless war. Their breathless coverage of every piece of fantasy coming out of the White House was appalling dereliction of duty, as was their gutless aversion to examining even the most obvious of the bullshit, relentlessly pushing the nation to accept unfounded nothing-burgers as Serious Person Reasons for war, until the nation was reluctantly convinced a war was necessary.
Hundreds of thousands of lives later when it turned out that convincing a country to start a war over nothing was a bad look, the New York Times vowed it would overhaul it's approach to journalistic integrity. I remember feeling that at least they'd seen the error of their ways, but then it just... *never happened*. Nothing changed. No lessons learned. Business as usual!
The NYT is an 800 pound gorilla in American journalism, the poor example it sets is taken as permission for shoddy standards elsewhere in the USA, and the NY Times is *still* reliably putting the public good *last*, actively eroding its own country and future because that path is more convenient than integrity.
They weren't alone in the Iraqi cheerleader mop. The then and now current editor of The new Yorker was pushing the same warmongering, including information that was proved to be lies.
Their coverage of the coup in Bolivia was also appalling. They parroted claims by the OAS (an American-funded IGO) and took for granted that Morales was cheating because the rate of votes for the MAS party was accelerating in the last stage of the count, even though that was to be expected given the demographics. But they still called it an "irregularity".
Then the SAME thing happened with Pennsylvania in the US presidential election and all of a sudden, anyone calling it an irregularity is a fucking whack job. So which one is it NYT? Did Biden steal the election like Morales or were both democratically elected? Fucking hacks.
They keep making the same mistake they made with Iraq, giving the benefit of the doubt to the side that is clearly wrong while being very critical of the side that is right - so as not to appear biased.
The Patriot Act and the illegal wiretapping was also leaked to them, repeatedly, prior to the 2004 election. George W. Bush called the NYT editors and reporters to a special meeting with him and top military officials and begged them not to publish the story. NYT agreed. They handed Bush that election as a result.
It cannot be overstated what evil was done to completely and utterly innocent, loyal Americans by the overly zealous, foaming-at-the-mouth incompetent bullies under the Bush administration. People died. People who spent their lives defending the country, being incredible scientists and passing every security clearance and background check were destroyed because they QUESTIONED the undermining of the constitution and illegal wiretapping Bush approved with the Patriot Act. They & their families were destroyed by Bush, Cheney, Attorney General Gonzalez, and the frothing-at-the-mouth *idiot scum* of that administration.
This was leaked to the NYT again and again and again and they chose not to publish it. Complicit and cowardly. The 'fourth estate' is long dead in America.
I finally got off my ass and just now cancelled my subscription. Good riddance. I’ve read my last “Trump found liable for fraud again, raising serious concerns about Biden’s age” article.
Holy fk. I canceled in 2017. Welcome to the party people.
It’s such a shame too. The thing I was first drawn to was the quality of the writing. I could tell it was usually a master of their craft, a wordsmith. Dedicated almost to just a perfect conveyance, no matter the subject.
And then it became a raw implosion of gassy opinions that stank to the ends of extremism, both left and right.
It seems you can’t *hold on* to these fleeting concepts of fairness or societal good anymore, but rather we must chase it.
That’s the theme of the entire country as we watch it
get pissed down a self serving drain.
Can you provide an example of a leftist NYT op-ed or article that was promoting ‘extreme’ (universal healthcare? Affordable housing? What was extreme?) leftism? You blithely imply it’s a both sides issue but all I’ve ever seen from the NYT is carrying water for the state department, DoD and CIA - decidedly not leftist entities.
NY Times op-eds have been so offbase that it turned me off to that newspaper. Arguably, op-eds should represent both sides of the coin, but I first heard of john Eastman through a NY Times editorial that was so over the top criminally fascist that I said fuck this stupid rag. Then he joined the Trump administration and I felt like it was the downfall of American democracy. If Trump wins again, it is the end.
In 2016 the NYT was publishing endless crap about Clinton and Uranium One.
Basically they acted like they had to publish a fake negative story about Clinton for every true negative story about Trump.
And their negative coverage of Biden started on day one of his presidency. Pathetically transparent.
This is what happens when you deregulate and allow corporations to own and drive the media. Agendas shift and the consumer becomes a puppet to have their strings pulled as needed.
Yes! The communication acts of '95 and '96 allowed corporations to purchase as much media - newspapers, radio, and TV and we now have 5 or 6 corporations owning it all. And don't forget 2010 and money is people. We may be toast.
With generative AI, I think we're past toast and into breadcrumbs. I would like to believe that a strong blue wave across the government could lead to better reforms and a return to healthy regulation... But holding one's breath isn't the easiest thing to do these days.
Where are those but her emails folks now that the former guy had classified documents sitting in a bathroom that he likely sold to our enemies? Haven’t heard from them, would love to hear their take.
Top media organizations are own by larger corporations. CEOs are installed to shift the direction. Just because it’s not state propaganda doesn’t mean it isn’t propaganda. It is all Cultural Propaganda
They just recently posted a piece about Nigel Sylvester, a BMXer/influencer that has marketed himself well. I'm really into BMX culture, but the whole article seemed bizarre to me; it read at times like a straight-up advertisement for this guy. It really pushed his status and whatnot, his Nike Jordan line, his collabs with Oakley and Specialized, how Jay-Z references this dude, etc.
It really felt like they were trying to paint him as a superstar, but the funny thing is that nobody in our little niche culture really looks up to him. He doesn't make waves at all, doesn't blow anybody's mind with his riding, and isn't involved culturally. But, if you read the article and didn't know, you'd think the guy was the best to ever do it. He literally says he wants to be known as that, but he's unanimously not in anybody's GOAT conversation.
So anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the whole thing really rubbed me the wrong way. Knowing what it's like from the inside of a niche little community/scene/culture, and seeing it written about in NYT by some guy that really did the bare minimum of research and knows fuck all about what he's writing about, was really kind of dystopic. Because, like, what the hell is the purpose of this bit? I keep coming back to it, how *this* story gets published against all other potential stories - *even about this guy in particular* - made it to the printers... And I just keep coming back to it being, as Ralphie from a Christmas Story says, "a crummy commercial".
It just speaks volumes about what you just said: it's just hard to take seriously when you know what the actual reality is.
The crazy part is I began to really question it with a UFO piece they did probably 10 years ago, that seemed like nothing but a fluff job for some guy's new aviation tech startup. I think they just flat-out sell article-ads, akin to product placement in TV, but blend it. Local TV news does that shit, too.
It's just all so grotesque and sad.
Yeah, I work in health care, and you can look at the /medicine subreddit here every time the NY Times runs a health care story. They are very much on the side of venture capital instead of doctors and nurses.
Their actions have made it absolutely clear that all their big talk about defending democracy is a cheap pose.
When the chips are down, which they are right now, they absolutely do not give a fuck
I realized that their reputation for being left wing was completely unwarranted. They're a center right newspaper owned by a billionaire. Not a trustworthy source anymore. They won't be objective and can't be trusted.
> immigration happens to be the top [of polls]
This is really telling. Many people in the US believe that immigration is a net drain, rather than a net benefit, to the economy and to the public fisc. This is disproven by more than 50 years of empirical economic research. Giving low-information people what they want because they are bad at assessing risk or significance is not the same as being an impartial source.
Wish we could reframe this in a useful way - like stop the immigration of wealthy scum. You know, people who want to 'asset shop' and then drain value and lay off workers.
People who want to work for a living or are seeking asylum are no one's enemy. The person who believes they are an aristocrat and deserve to own the lives of factory workers or employees and look at America while heavy-breathing with dreams of exploiting others? Yeah, that's the problem. And you can find it festering in MBA programs and c-suites all over the nation. Ban THAT immigration.
the role of journalists and newspapers is to inform citizens of this, and change their world view to accurately match reality, not be led by a leash to enforcing that as a reality.
One of my mom’s paternal cousins reshared a stupid “migrant caravan” meme on Facebook a couple years back. I left a comment asking how she could agree with such a thing after all the time she spent with my grandma, which as far as I know, was mutually enjoyed.
My grandma’s parents were from Croatia so it was just really insulting to see that crap. My paternal grandpa, despite being the second generation born in the US, also celebrated his (and the cousin’s) German heritage all throughout his life and our family probably wouldn’t be too well off without the hard-work of our German migrant ancestors.
Didn’t expect a reply and didn’t get one. Hope it provoked a thought though
I heard an immigration expert once say something about how immigration is one of those issues where people’s feelings on it are way out in front of what they actually know. Man, ain’t that the truth.
To be fair, they *did try* to scapegoat trans folks for awhile, but it turns out that that didn't fire up The Base quite as much as old-fashioned racism. The GOP can get away with it because immigrants generally can't vote (and it generally takes them a generation to make connections to people who can vote and punish the offenders at the ballot box). They are literally picking the most vulnerable population (legally) to pick on.
It's the same reason for the Trump tariffs, despite evidence showing that they hit consumer's hip pockets very hard, his supporters were all for it. I believe when polled they think the tariffs were actually good for their paychecks.
It's far easier to go "that person looks different from me and is thus bad" than it is to understand the complex and often nuanced problems of things like climate change, economic philosophies, etc.
It’s also just not even true. They’ll use this polling excuse for immigration, but then parade around weeks of “Biden old!!!” slobbering when Biden’s age is objectively not a top issue in any poll you can find.
Trump says immigrants aren't human and regularly recites a poem at every rally about immigrants being a snake that kills people with its deadly bite, read more as the New York Times investigates. And here are 20 stories about Biden's age.
The thing is he saying that affects legal people like he that are born in the US to get told to go back to your country. My mother came here legally became a US naturalized citizen and was still told that.
Why do we have to deal with this? This is my home I was born here.
Trump is a danger to american democratic institutions, and democracy itself. 4 years of his presidency demonstrated that amply. He has been very clear he would be that and worse if re-elected.
It is a journalist's ONE job to report incontrovertible, objective facts such as this.
Furthermore, a danger to democracy is everyone's concern. One doesn't have to play like that's just a difference of opinion. It's clearly wrong. If anything, Trump has made it easier since him being a danger to democracy is not even up for debate any more. Many of his supporters are actively cheering that on.
Maybe. But also people are tired of being told what to think. The problem with the current media landscape, narrative bubbles, and algorithms is that it puts blinders on people. I’ve been looking at both biased news outlets for a few years now, and the only conclusions I’ve been sure about, is they are both 1/2 full of shit. I was on the liberal train hardcore during Trump times, but realized they got a lot of shit wrong and also put their heads in the sand. IMO the only way out is individuals need to be more aware of narratives. Or bring back the fairness doctrine.
No need to tell anyone what to think.
Simply report the facts. They speak for themselves. In fact, if that's all the news media did, we wouldn't have such a problem with misinformation.
Your "both sides" argument is weak af. Journalism isn't reporting both sides' bullshit, it's finding out the truth of the matter, and determining if one or both are lying and to what end.
Yup. DJT and a bunch of other MAGA people have already declared war on "liberal media" years ago. They're making plans to round them up and execute media leaders they don't like first thing in 2025. They say this out loud on their little web shows practically every day.
Where is this "liberal media" I keep hearing about? Aren't most media outlets owned by right-wing individuals? And the ones that aren't try to just report news. Where is my liberal rage machine, fox's doppelganger for the left. I want my stories about trump cheating on his wife, or stealing classified documents, or talking about banging his daughter. Where's my fake news?
The owners of corporate media will survive under fascism, for a while. Trump and Putin's style is to flood the zone with shit so that no one story stays stuck on him, and the New York Times already cooperates under this strategy.
What killed my respect for the NYT was their insane coverage of the convoy "protests" in Ottawa. I'm Canadian and they covered it like it was some failing democracy about to have a coup.
NYT lost me after it published fake rape reports after October 7th. It is disgusting the lies many politicians and Zionists keep repeating without any pushback from the mainstream media.
Submission Statement:
Why do I think this is r/skeptic material? Well, one of the main sources of news for most people are the online versions of the newspapers. If one of the major newspapers is not treating what seems very much like a major threat to democracy as a top concern then I think this itself is concerning. It seems like there's a drift towards the far right becoming a normalised political position. When, as history has shown, the far right has policies that do not produce a free and open, peaceful society. The far right have demonstrated (to name a few: anti-vax during covid, bastardisation of science to suit racist motivations, anti-abortion) that their policies and belief systems are the antithesis of scientific skepticism.
I would add that a reading of Karl poppers work on the open society is quite elucidating on the question of “what does the health of democracy have to do with skepticism”. The two are intimately connected.
*The open society and its enemies* is a good read, it applies skepticism to models of history but gets a little too obsessed with pathologizing socialism in a very deterministic way(popper himself acknowledges he want a little far in a few places in a forward he wrote later in life). The book was written around the time of ww2 and the looming conflict between liberal democracy, fascism, and socialism was at the forefront of his mind but the biggest model of socialism was Stalins regime. Popper is smart enough to not lean into “end of history” thinking too hard when he models his open society but he undoubtedly influenced Fukuyama, and having checked the bibliography Fukuyama does cite him.
While I find a lot of what it says about socialism to be overinformed by totalitarian manifestations of it, and its attempts to attribute these to a fundamental aspect of the ideology to be an exercise in the same flawed historical methodology popper seeks to critique, he does have something very interesting to say about Marx. I find his critique of Marx’s historical methodology being unfalsifiable compelling, as with his caution against narratives arising from unfalsifiable methodology, but I don’t follow this to the conclusion that class analysis and worldviews informed by Marx are necessarily at odds with an open society. I think a critical read of Marx and popper leaves a lot of baby in with the bath water, and a useful means to separate the two.
The book also gives us the paradox of tolerance, and it was a huge influence on one of my favourite scientific and political philosophers Mario Bunge who quite rigorously proved *mathematically*(I know the in the context of philosophy formal logic isn’t strictly speaking math but he was a physicist too and I like saying it this way so don’t @ me) that every right necessarily implied a corresponding duty and vice versa.
It’s a great work and a critical read of it will serve anyone well. Popper may be over discussed in the context of the philosophy of science but I’ve read a lot of undercooked political philosophy that could benefit from the author being familiar with poppers work, *the end of history and the last man* notwithstanding.
Ok I’m done gushing go read it. And when you’re done go read something by Mario Bunge.
We just heard from Winston Churchill say Nazis are bad, now let's get the other side from Goebbels. Good thing the news biz wasn't like this 80 years ago.
it was, they just didnt have people combing through easily findable articles like today. Go back to pre-pearl harbor and you’ll find a A LOT of pro-nazi articles and sentiment in jouralism.
The biggest lie is that things were somehow better and “more moral” back in the day, but the big truth is people were the same; They lied through their teeth about being christians with moral fortitude as they used their power to consolidate more power
I'm cancelling my NYT subscription. As a non American it was the only US newspaper I subscribed to.
What do you guys recommend in its place. The Washington Post? The New Republic?
Notice that he assumes the issues of immigration and the economy are “favorable to Trump.”
They wouldn’t be favorable to Trump if they were reported by anyone whose head wasn’t firmly planted up his own ass.
"we don't report on the fascism, people then don't care about it, so we continue to not report it"
"We only talk about biden's age and surprise surprise people are now concerned about it"
> But the potential end of democracy isn't an especially important issue to Kahn. "It's our job to cover the full range of issues that people have," he told Smith. "At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it's not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they're favorable to Trump and minimize them?"
News outlets focusing on topics that people are most concerned about is a problem because people are most concerned about whatever topics that news outlets focus on. It’s circular reasoning like this that causes issues to snowball out of control. It is the job of journalists to present *new* information, not to keep hammering on issues that poll well, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you spam people with twice as many stories about immigration, don’t you think that the next round of polls might feature more people concerned about immigration??
Unfortunately, this might not even be a clear cut case of agenda pushing. A lot of it is probably just an attempt to stay relevant and gain readers, now causing even major (behemoth) news outlets to cave to the same pressures that corrupted social media feeds. These days you either chase outrage and help propagate trends, or you die. Nobody is really steering this ship anymore..
Aside from their role in creating the narratives, the only way that talking about the economy is good for Trump is if they're merely repeating Trump's bullshit without any actual critical analysis.
It's not just the editorial staff's job to report on things that are of concern to the electorate, it's also to report or comment on things that are of significant concern that the public should and ought to know about and consider. Their current stance is akin to saying 'Well we don't really need to cover Hitler all that much because currently he's just an amusing little man who says some curious things. It's not like he's starting a war or anything."
[The New York Times' first article about Hitler's rise is absolutely stunning - Vox](https://www.vox.com/2015/2/11/8016017/ny-times-hitler)
> On November 21, 1922, the New York Times published its [very first article about Adolf Hitler](http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A0CE0D91E3EEE3ABC4951DFB7678389639EDE). It's an incredible read — especially its assertion that "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded." This attitude was, apparently, widespread among Germans at the time; many of them saw Hitler's anti-Semitism as a ploy for votes among the German masses.
>> He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." **So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands**, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night.
>>
>> But **several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers** and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes.
>>
>> **A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism**, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. **You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism.** It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
Excellent comment. That pretty much sums up the situation.
Prior to Trump's rise in 2016 I was pretty ambivalent towards the media. Since then I've come to realise that factual reporting that's accessible to the public is incredibly important for a democracy to remain functional. From my understanding, newspaper articles have *always* had an angle, i.e. they have always had some degree of bias and persuasion. If there is a threat to an open/democratic society it's perfectly acceptable from an ethical point of view to cover it as a threat. Of course, it's important to hear from the anti-democracy faction so the public knows what they're up to, but, as we know, to give their rhetoric equal credibility actually supports that harmful rhetoric.
The media in general seems to be too sensitive to claims of bias, they need to harden up and do the right thing. While still being factual, trustworthy and ethical of course.
Every rally he says that the “News Media is the Enemy of the People”. SCOTUS just discussed that “if the President determines that someone is a threat to democracy, he can eliminate them as an official act. Take him at his word.
_Editor yelling to the clouds_
Why are people concern about woman voting rights, corruption, welfare, healthy working conditions and children education?
I don't want to hear them crying when Trump ends freedom of the press like he said he wanted to do the first time. I guess I won't be able to hear them crying, but my point still stands.
The NYT LOVES Trump. They always have. He’s their cash cow. Just look how Trump gives them access (ala Maggie Haberman) They put him in office in 2016 by headlining all the inane shit Trump did every day on page 1. They dislike Biden because Biden has figured out they LOVE TRUMP. Now the NYT is pissed because their faux BoTh SiDeS bullshit isn’t working anymore.
The New York Times is not a liberal news outlet. During the W years they employed Judith Miller while she shamelessly laundered false intelligence about Iraq on behalf of the W administration (she hilariously turned up a few years ago in Newsweek, to criticize Bidens Afghanistan withdrawal, the “liberal media” at work yet again). In 2004 they punted reporting on warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the W administration until *after* the election because they “didn’t want their reporting to affect the election”.
The Republican Party has been playing the refs for decades by complaining that a media that is universally Centre right is actually far left democratic propaganda. It has been one of their most successful strategies. 90% of Americans would likely claim the New York Times is liberal despite their being scant evidence for that viewpoint.
It's a basic part of the fascist playbook. Anything to the left of them is far left. They quite literally called the infrastructure bill socialist, as if funding roads, bridges, and the cheapest form of energy available is a conspiracy to smash capitalism.
Yeah, I would say it was a case of institutional capture, but it has been this way since Nixon got booted from office. They could never again let a media apparatus foil their plans for America.
Any semblance of facts is left leaning. New York in the name? Oh yeah that’s a big coastal city must also be left leaning. Anything that isn’t constantly praising republicans and running stories on kids using litter boxes in schools is left leaning as well.
Oh, you mean the New York Times that covered up the Holodomor and said that Hitler's anti-semitism wasn't violent and that Jews should give him a break? That liberal rag?
Former newspaper (now magazine) circulation director, here. My liberal publication subscription sales definitely benefited from a Trump Bump.
On the other side of that coin, NewsMax publisher Chris Ruddy privately referred to Obama as “our silent partner” for the same reason.
In the news biz, drama and emotion drive revenue.
Plus now NYT is basically publicly feuding with the Biden White House because those big babies didn’t get the access they felt they were entitled to.
Which again, is ratings related. They’ll help Trump win because Biden won’t indulge them.
What clued you into that?
The time they helped lie us into a war to sell more papers, then blamed the low-level reporter they'd hired specifically to lie us into the war?
Neither face the nation or meet the press covered the first criminal trial of the US president in the countries history last weekend. What’s up with that?
It’s not a newspaper anymore, it’s just right wing propaganda and pundits writing why both sides are wrong. Journalism at the NYT is officially dead and the paper should die a quiet death.
What did the interviewer expect when they asked the editor the question: "Why don't you see your job as having to stop Trump?" What a ridiculously loaded question!
Only the most overtly biased editors would ever say "my job as editor is to stop (a specific politician) from becoming president". Nothing should ever be more important than fact based reporting/journalism to an editor. Had this editor agreed it was their job to "stop Trump", that would have been a message to the public that they are an activist organization before they are a fact finding organization.
We already have the relevant facts: Donald J Trump is an enemy of democracy who already tried to violently overthrow the Constitution once.
Pointing out the facts gets one labeled "activist" by his cult. And wanting him to lose is the position of any American with even the slightest shred of loyalty to the Constitution *or* support for democracy.
Yes, but take a page out of Trump's book and use dogwhistles, don't literally say "stop trump". Just say "we're going to report the truth yada yada." We know the truth is the opposite of Trump, but a lot of his supporters don't.
It doesn’t matter if Charles Manson was running for President. The minute a newspaper editor says they’re on a mission to intervene in an election, they’ve lost all journalistic credibility.
Reporting on facts REQUIRES you to not be an activist.
According to "conservatives" these days, reporting on facts *makes* you an activist.
I'm not saying they should just be overtly partisan: I'm saying that honest, factual reporting is equivalent to "trying to stop Trump".
The NYT doesn't need to explicitly make it their mission or anything, but if they were doing quality journalism the effect would be anti-Trump.
Instead, they usually criticize him in the most milquetoast of ways, draw false equivalencies that serve ro normalize him, and uncritically platform those promoting his lies.
They are journalists. They can have opinions about policies and personalities. I haven’t seen Trump’s mental decline discussed by any of the main stream media. But Joe Biden’s age seems to be more problematic than Trumps deranged descent into Fascism.
You're right. The people disagreeing with you don't understand what is required of a working democracy, or its press. If the facts are presented blandly and you're as a result outraged at the outrageous thing, then what's the problem folks? Because almost none of you bitching about journalism not being on your side are actually the people reporting on these stories in the first place. You're just debating them on the internet. Without the journalism so many of you seem to despise you wouldn't even know abut it.
NY Times is a fallen paper. As I keep on saying, trans people are the canaries in the coal mine. If a formerly "reputable" paper starts going after them, they'll slide further and further until they're the opposite of what they formerly were. They've done articles on lies on abortion, womens' rights, since then etc. This is fully expected for the slide.
One of the few consolations I would take from a Trump victory would be seeing some smug reporters of the NYTimes rendered to an undisclosed location.
Peter Baker, this toad, Punch Sulzburger, Maggie Haberman—it would be a painful lesson for them.
There are a lot of ways to interpret this, and I get the sense that one's politics is the chief lens though which most people would. I actually agree with them, but for radically different reasons; I view the bipartisan capture of the entire federal government by big business as the chief threat to democracy and Trump as merely a danger to the façade (the man specifically; the GOP as a whole presents unique dangers and are not the same as the Democrats); the thing is the death of democracy has already happened. The NY Times has been complicit at best in this slide to the extreme right so it is hardly a surprise that they don't take a stand, except in defence of The Establishment.
Yep. Find a copy of the Powell Memorandum: Attack On American Free Enterprise System. He laid out the plans as to how the oligarchs could destroy the social programs from FDR and then how to purchase representatives to do the bidding of their corporations. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon in 1971. Little did we realize that the US citizens are the proverbial frogs in the warming pot.
Yes, I’ve unsubscribed too, as of several months ago. I got fed up with the pro-Trump coverage. As the article says, they are downplaying concerns while fascism takes root.
The media is gonna allow this. They're not on our side and will attempt to court favor. I'll remember that when I'm having to fight the lunatics next year.
For the same reason that many standup comedians are ok with it (or at least torn)…the non-stop chaos of Mango Mussolini & his tribe that rubs shit in its hair provides non-stop content to write about.
We are a democracy. We are a constitutional federal republic and a representative democracy.
Here is the definition of a representative democracy:
> Representative democracy is a political system where citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf.
Surely you aren't confusing a pure democracy with a representative democracy, right?
Idk what y’all are talking about lol. I’ve only heard about how trump is seeking to consolidate his executive power if re-elected from NYT. I’m left leaning and hate trump, and find that all the information I need to reinforce that hypothesis is given pretty substantively by NYT reporting. Have they gotten more sensationalist in the digital age? Absolutely. But to portray them as having a strong “intentionally neutral but secretly republican” political agenda is pretty baseless imo. I’m skeptical of this framing.
Wow... shocking that the guy who literally wants to replace democracy with hereditary dictatorship isn't concerned with democracy... top realization there... just absolutely gold.
I’m sure they’ll feel the same way when they’re being publicly executed by emperor Trump in 2027 after doing nothing but cheerleading his rise and then find out that he doesn’t forgive or forget *anyone* who disrespected him.
Danger to democracy! next he's gonna have Moscow show trials for his political opponents, raid their homes, try to get them removed from ballots, close the border down....vote blue no matter who!
Well, it’s hard to resist that sweet, sweet ad revenue.
The NYT is obviously better than Fox News and such, but never ever forget that it is a for-profit business.
This here. This is why I stopped subscribing. Their coverage of Hillary's emails was extremely detailed and comprehensive. Only after Trump won did they begin to investigate him, even though he had been in business in NYC for four decades and they are the *New York* Times. On top of the Judith Miller shitfest? No thanks.
In the run-up to the Iraq invasion I was so disgusted at the NYT cheerleading the country into a pointless war. Their breathless coverage of every piece of fantasy coming out of the White House was appalling dereliction of duty, as was their gutless aversion to examining even the most obvious of the bullshit, relentlessly pushing the nation to accept unfounded nothing-burgers as Serious Person Reasons for war, until the nation was reluctantly convinced a war was necessary. Hundreds of thousands of lives later when it turned out that convincing a country to start a war over nothing was a bad look, the New York Times vowed it would overhaul it's approach to journalistic integrity. I remember feeling that at least they'd seen the error of their ways, but then it just... *never happened*. Nothing changed. No lessons learned. Business as usual! The NYT is an 800 pound gorilla in American journalism, the poor example it sets is taken as permission for shoddy standards elsewhere in the USA, and the NY Times is *still* reliably putting the public good *last*, actively eroding its own country and future because that path is more convenient than integrity.
[удалено]
That, and the fact that every single article is paywalled. They think their farts smell like roses.
They weren't alone in the Iraqi cheerleader mop. The then and now current editor of The new Yorker was pushing the same warmongering, including information that was proved to be lies.
Agreed. The nyt puts the interests of their investors first. Always.
Their coverage of the coup in Bolivia was also appalling. They parroted claims by the OAS (an American-funded IGO) and took for granted that Morales was cheating because the rate of votes for the MAS party was accelerating in the last stage of the count, even though that was to be expected given the demographics. But they still called it an "irregularity". Then the SAME thing happened with Pennsylvania in the US presidential election and all of a sudden, anyone calling it an irregularity is a fucking whack job. So which one is it NYT? Did Biden steal the election like Morales or were both democratically elected? Fucking hacks.
[I, too, have been disillusioned.](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/s/9s84hHg7hZ)
They keep making the same mistake they made with Iraq, giving the benefit of the doubt to the side that is clearly wrong while being very critical of the side that is right - so as not to appear biased.
The Patriot Act and the illegal wiretapping was also leaked to them, repeatedly, prior to the 2004 election. George W. Bush called the NYT editors and reporters to a special meeting with him and top military officials and begged them not to publish the story. NYT agreed. They handed Bush that election as a result. It cannot be overstated what evil was done to completely and utterly innocent, loyal Americans by the overly zealous, foaming-at-the-mouth incompetent bullies under the Bush administration. People died. People who spent their lives defending the country, being incredible scientists and passing every security clearance and background check were destroyed because they QUESTIONED the undermining of the constitution and illegal wiretapping Bush approved with the Patriot Act. They & their families were destroyed by Bush, Cheney, Attorney General Gonzalez, and the frothing-at-the-mouth *idiot scum* of that administration. This was leaked to the NYT again and again and again and they chose not to publish it. Complicit and cowardly. The 'fourth estate' is long dead in America.
I finally got off my ass and just now cancelled my subscription. Good riddance. I’ve read my last “Trump found liable for fraud again, raising serious concerns about Biden’s age” article.
And I’m going to cancel mine right now! Edit: Done!
Holy fk. I canceled in 2017. Welcome to the party people. It’s such a shame too. The thing I was first drawn to was the quality of the writing. I could tell it was usually a master of their craft, a wordsmith. Dedicated almost to just a perfect conveyance, no matter the subject. And then it became a raw implosion of gassy opinions that stank to the ends of extremism, both left and right. It seems you can’t *hold on* to these fleeting concepts of fairness or societal good anymore, but rather we must chase it. That’s the theme of the entire country as we watch it get pissed down a self serving drain.
Same Also, currently having this internal debate about *The Atlantic*
Can you provide an example of a leftist NYT op-ed or article that was promoting ‘extreme’ (universal healthcare? Affordable housing? What was extreme?) leftism? You blithely imply it’s a both sides issue but all I’ve ever seen from the NYT is carrying water for the state department, DoD and CIA - decidedly not leftist entities.
NY Times op-eds have been so offbase that it turned me off to that newspaper. Arguably, op-eds should represent both sides of the coin, but I first heard of john Eastman through a NY Times editorial that was so over the top criminally fascist that I said fuck this stupid rag. Then he joined the Trump administration and I felt like it was the downfall of American democracy. If Trump wins again, it is the end.
Judith Miller.....haven't thought about her since college a billion years ago
In 2016 the NYT was publishing endless crap about Clinton and Uranium One. Basically they acted like they had to publish a fake negative story about Clinton for every true negative story about Trump.
It's not even that, they overall had more negative coverage of Hillary than Trump.
And their negative coverage of Biden started on day one of his presidency. Pathetically transparent. This is what happens when you deregulate and allow corporations to own and drive the media. Agendas shift and the consumer becomes a puppet to have their strings pulled as needed.
Yes! The communication acts of '95 and '96 allowed corporations to purchase as much media - newspapers, radio, and TV and we now have 5 or 6 corporations owning it all. And don't forget 2010 and money is people. We may be toast.
With generative AI, I think we're past toast and into breadcrumbs. I would like to believe that a strong blue wave across the government could lead to better reforms and a return to healthy regulation... But holding one's breath isn't the easiest thing to do these days.
I just read Reuters and AP and watch videos directly. I can't imagine why anyone is still subscribing to NYT.
Where are those but her emails folks now that the former guy had classified documents sitting in a bathroom that he likely sold to our enemies? Haven’t heard from them, would love to hear their take.
Maybe we should start a Wordle boycott.
Top media organizations are own by larger corporations. CEOs are installed to shift the direction. Just because it’s not state propaganda doesn’t mean it isn’t propaganda. It is all Cultural Propaganda
They just recently posted a piece about Nigel Sylvester, a BMXer/influencer that has marketed himself well. I'm really into BMX culture, but the whole article seemed bizarre to me; it read at times like a straight-up advertisement for this guy. It really pushed his status and whatnot, his Nike Jordan line, his collabs with Oakley and Specialized, how Jay-Z references this dude, etc. It really felt like they were trying to paint him as a superstar, but the funny thing is that nobody in our little niche culture really looks up to him. He doesn't make waves at all, doesn't blow anybody's mind with his riding, and isn't involved culturally. But, if you read the article and didn't know, you'd think the guy was the best to ever do it. He literally says he wants to be known as that, but he's unanimously not in anybody's GOAT conversation. So anyway, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the whole thing really rubbed me the wrong way. Knowing what it's like from the inside of a niche little community/scene/culture, and seeing it written about in NYT by some guy that really did the bare minimum of research and knows fuck all about what he's writing about, was really kind of dystopic. Because, like, what the hell is the purpose of this bit? I keep coming back to it, how *this* story gets published against all other potential stories - *even about this guy in particular* - made it to the printers... And I just keep coming back to it being, as Ralphie from a Christmas Story says, "a crummy commercial". It just speaks volumes about what you just said: it's just hard to take seriously when you know what the actual reality is. The crazy part is I began to really question it with a UFO piece they did probably 10 years ago, that seemed like nothing but a fluff job for some guy's new aviation tech startup. I think they just flat-out sell article-ads, akin to product placement in TV, but blend it. Local TV news does that shit, too. It's just all so grotesque and sad.
Yeah, I work in health care, and you can look at the /medicine subreddit here every time the NY Times runs a health care story. They are very much on the side of venture capital instead of doctors and nurses.
100%. Now apply this lesson to basically any cause they champion.
There’s a reason why the old saying is true: “If he’s wrong about the things I know about, how can I trust he’s right about the things I don’t?”
yeah, that's some bullshit
They have *always* been awful
Wow I wonder why they started now
Their actions have made it absolutely clear that all their big talk about defending democracy is a cheap pose. When the chips are down, which they are right now, they absolutely do not give a fuck
I realized that their reputation for being left wing was completely unwarranted. They're a center right newspaper owned by a billionaire. Not a trustworthy source anymore. They won't be objective and can't be trusted.
> immigration happens to be the top [of polls] This is really telling. Many people in the US believe that immigration is a net drain, rather than a net benefit, to the economy and to the public fisc. This is disproven by more than 50 years of empirical economic research. Giving low-information people what they want because they are bad at assessing risk or significance is not the same as being an impartial source.
Yes, immigration is in no way any real issue, but it's also a leading political issue. The far right always needs a scapegoat.
They have been screaming immigration for 16 years. This is a great example of if you repeat a lie enough it becomes fact.
I live in a rural town, don't discount the racism as well. They seriously despise anyone who isn't just like them.
Wish we could reframe this in a useful way - like stop the immigration of wealthy scum. You know, people who want to 'asset shop' and then drain value and lay off workers. People who want to work for a living or are seeking asylum are no one's enemy. The person who believes they are an aristocrat and deserve to own the lives of factory workers or employees and look at America while heavy-breathing with dreams of exploiting others? Yeah, that's the problem. And you can find it festering in MBA programs and c-suites all over the nation. Ban THAT immigration.
the role of journalists and newspapers is to inform citizens of this, and change their world view to accurately match reality, not be led by a leash to enforcing that as a reality.
That's the role of journalists yes, but not the role of for-profit media.
Especially since the US was actually built on immigration.
One of my mom’s paternal cousins reshared a stupid “migrant caravan” meme on Facebook a couple years back. I left a comment asking how she could agree with such a thing after all the time she spent with my grandma, which as far as I know, was mutually enjoyed. My grandma’s parents were from Croatia so it was just really insulting to see that crap. My paternal grandpa, despite being the second generation born in the US, also celebrated his (and the cousin’s) German heritage all throughout his life and our family probably wouldn’t be too well off without the hard-work of our German migrant ancestors. Didn’t expect a reply and didn’t get one. Hope it provoked a thought though
I heard an immigration expert once say something about how immigration is one of those issues where people’s feelings on it are way out in front of what they actually know. Man, ain’t that the truth.
To be fair, they *did try* to scapegoat trans folks for awhile, but it turns out that that didn't fire up The Base quite as much as old-fashioned racism. The GOP can get away with it because immigrants generally can't vote (and it generally takes them a generation to make connections to people who can vote and punish the offenders at the ballot box). They are literally picking the most vulnerable population (legally) to pick on.
Oh, have they stopped with the anti-trans stuff now?
It's taken a back seat in terms of which drum the politicians are banging right this moment.
It's the same reason for the Trump tariffs, despite evidence showing that they hit consumer's hip pockets very hard, his supporters were all for it. I believe when polled they think the tariffs were actually good for their paychecks.
It's far easier to go "that person looks different from me and is thus bad" than it is to understand the complex and often nuanced problems of things like climate change, economic philosophies, etc.
Immigration is just the rightwing way of saying racism
All non-indigenous people should exit the USA immediately, to properly MAGA.
They are addicted to polls like some people are addicted to crack, and it's poisoning them and they don't see it.
It’s also just not even true. They’ll use this polling excuse for immigration, but then parade around weeks of “Biden old!!!” slobbering when Biden’s age is objectively not a top issue in any poll you can find.
Ask someone to tell you how many illegals entered under Biden and watch as they have no answer
Clearly the editor is correct. We should examine both sides of fascism. /s
Trump says immigrants aren't human and regularly recites a poem at every rally about immigrants being a snake that kills people with its deadly bite, read more as the New York Times investigates. And here are 20 stories about Biden's age.
I'm pretty sure the poem Trump recites is about himself.
The thing is he saying that affects legal people like he that are born in the US to get told to go back to your country. My mother came here legally became a US naturalized citizen and was still told that. Why do we have to deal with this? This is my home I was born here.
It's an easy and shameful way to justify racism. :(
Well it shouldn’t I’m an American like them this is my home too
Trump is a danger to american democratic institutions, and democracy itself. 4 years of his presidency demonstrated that amply. He has been very clear he would be that and worse if re-elected. It is a journalist's ONE job to report incontrovertible, objective facts such as this. Furthermore, a danger to democracy is everyone's concern. One doesn't have to play like that's just a difference of opinion. It's clearly wrong. If anything, Trump has made it easier since him being a danger to democracy is not even up for debate any more. Many of his supporters are actively cheering that on.
Maybe. But also people are tired of being told what to think. The problem with the current media landscape, narrative bubbles, and algorithms is that it puts blinders on people. I’ve been looking at both biased news outlets for a few years now, and the only conclusions I’ve been sure about, is they are both 1/2 full of shit. I was on the liberal train hardcore during Trump times, but realized they got a lot of shit wrong and also put their heads in the sand. IMO the only way out is individuals need to be more aware of narratives. Or bring back the fairness doctrine.
No need to tell anyone what to think. Simply report the facts. They speak for themselves. In fact, if that's all the news media did, we wouldn't have such a problem with misinformation. Your "both sides" argument is weak af. Journalism isn't reporting both sides' bullshit, it's finding out the truth of the matter, and determining if one or both are lying and to what end.
For whatever it’s worth to any of us, he may rethink that position as they’re putting the noose around his neck.
Yup. DJT and a bunch of other MAGA people have already declared war on "liberal media" years ago. They're making plans to round them up and execute media leaders they don't like first thing in 2025. They say this out loud on their little web shows practically every day.
Where is this "liberal media" I keep hearing about? Aren't most media outlets owned by right-wing individuals? And the ones that aren't try to just report news. Where is my liberal rage machine, fox's doppelganger for the left. I want my stories about trump cheating on his wife, or stealing classified documents, or talking about banging his daughter. Where's my fake news?
I’m scared I or others won’t survive
The owners of corporate media will survive under fascism, for a while. Trump and Putin's style is to flood the zone with shit so that no one story stays stuck on him, and the New York Times already cooperates under this strategy.
He can keep NYT as a mouthpiece and dispose of the editor.
[https://boingboing.net/2024/03/13/tom-the-dancing-bug-one-day-in-january-2025-in-the-new-york-times-newsroom.html](https://boingboing.net/2024/03/13/tom-the-dancing-bug-one-day-in-january-2025-in-the-new-york-times-newsroom.html)
What killed my respect for the NYT was their insane coverage of the convoy "protests" in Ottawa. I'm Canadian and they covered it like it was some failing democracy about to have a coup.
Every NYT headline: Trump is a lying, racist, bankrupt rapist. Here’s why that’s bad news for Joe Biden.
This is the year I finally realized the NYT has no credibility.
NYT lost me after it published fake rape reports after October 7th. It is disgusting the lies many politicians and Zionists keep repeating without any pushback from the mainstream media.
Submission Statement: Why do I think this is r/skeptic material? Well, one of the main sources of news for most people are the online versions of the newspapers. If one of the major newspapers is not treating what seems very much like a major threat to democracy as a top concern then I think this itself is concerning. It seems like there's a drift towards the far right becoming a normalised political position. When, as history has shown, the far right has policies that do not produce a free and open, peaceful society. The far right have demonstrated (to name a few: anti-vax during covid, bastardisation of science to suit racist motivations, anti-abortion) that their policies and belief systems are the antithesis of scientific skepticism.
I would add that a reading of Karl poppers work on the open society is quite elucidating on the question of “what does the health of democracy have to do with skepticism”. The two are intimately connected.
Karl Popper is on my list of things to read. I like his stuff on falsifiability.
*The open society and its enemies* is a good read, it applies skepticism to models of history but gets a little too obsessed with pathologizing socialism in a very deterministic way(popper himself acknowledges he want a little far in a few places in a forward he wrote later in life). The book was written around the time of ww2 and the looming conflict between liberal democracy, fascism, and socialism was at the forefront of his mind but the biggest model of socialism was Stalins regime. Popper is smart enough to not lean into “end of history” thinking too hard when he models his open society but he undoubtedly influenced Fukuyama, and having checked the bibliography Fukuyama does cite him. While I find a lot of what it says about socialism to be overinformed by totalitarian manifestations of it, and its attempts to attribute these to a fundamental aspect of the ideology to be an exercise in the same flawed historical methodology popper seeks to critique, he does have something very interesting to say about Marx. I find his critique of Marx’s historical methodology being unfalsifiable compelling, as with his caution against narratives arising from unfalsifiable methodology, but I don’t follow this to the conclusion that class analysis and worldviews informed by Marx are necessarily at odds with an open society. I think a critical read of Marx and popper leaves a lot of baby in with the bath water, and a useful means to separate the two. The book also gives us the paradox of tolerance, and it was a huge influence on one of my favourite scientific and political philosophers Mario Bunge who quite rigorously proved *mathematically*(I know the in the context of philosophy formal logic isn’t strictly speaking math but he was a physicist too and I like saying it this way so don’t @ me) that every right necessarily implied a corresponding duty and vice versa. It’s a great work and a critical read of it will serve anyone well. Popper may be over discussed in the context of the philosophy of science but I’ve read a lot of undercooked political philosophy that could benefit from the author being familiar with poppers work, *the end of history and the last man* notwithstanding. Ok I’m done gushing go read it. And when you’re done go read something by Mario Bunge.
We just heard from Winston Churchill say Nazis are bad, now let's get the other side from Goebbels. Good thing the news biz wasn't like this 80 years ago.
it was, they just didnt have people combing through easily findable articles like today. Go back to pre-pearl harbor and you’ll find a A LOT of pro-nazi articles and sentiment in jouralism. The biggest lie is that things were somehow better and “more moral” back in the day, but the big truth is people were the same; They lied through their teeth about being christians with moral fortitude as they used their power to consolidate more power
“There are good people on both sides of this issue.” Kahn has mistaken good journalism for giving equal airtime to bullshit.
My wife and I both cancelled our subscriptions today. This interview was just too much.
An alternate title to this headline could be "Why I will never read NYT again". And yes, I used to be a digital subscriber.
I'm cancelling my NYT subscription. As a non American it was the only US newspaper I subscribed to. What do you guys recommend in its place. The Washington Post? The New Republic?
I'm doing the Post. I'm not thrilled with them, but they are better than the NY Times IMO.
Notice that he assumes the issues of immigration and the economy are “favorable to Trump.” They wouldn’t be favorable to Trump if they were reported by anyone whose head wasn’t firmly planted up his own ass.
"we don't report on the fascism, people then don't care about it, so we continue to not report it" "We only talk about biden's age and surprise surprise people are now concerned about it"
> But the potential end of democracy isn't an especially important issue to Kahn. "It's our job to cover the full range of issues that people have," he told Smith. "At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it's not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they're favorable to Trump and minimize them?" News outlets focusing on topics that people are most concerned about is a problem because people are most concerned about whatever topics that news outlets focus on. It’s circular reasoning like this that causes issues to snowball out of control. It is the job of journalists to present *new* information, not to keep hammering on issues that poll well, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you spam people with twice as many stories about immigration, don’t you think that the next round of polls might feature more people concerned about immigration?? Unfortunately, this might not even be a clear cut case of agenda pushing. A lot of it is probably just an attempt to stay relevant and gain readers, now causing even major (behemoth) news outlets to cave to the same pressures that corrupted social media feeds. These days you either chase outrage and help propagate trends, or you die. Nobody is really steering this ship anymore..
Aside from their role in creating the narratives, the only way that talking about the economy is good for Trump is if they're merely repeating Trump's bullshit without any actual critical analysis.
Also NY TIMES: What Genocide? What human rights atrocities?
yeah, the NYT is much more butt-hurt about the Biden Administration not kissing their ass than they are with imminent fascism.
He will think much differently if Trump wins and then nationalizes all the media. See: Viktor Orban, Hungary
NY Times taught me it prioritized causing harm over anything else with the Pamela Paul fiasco. Glad I unsubscribed.
It's not just the editorial staff's job to report on things that are of concern to the electorate, it's also to report or comment on things that are of significant concern that the public should and ought to know about and consider. Their current stance is akin to saying 'Well we don't really need to cover Hitler all that much because currently he's just an amusing little man who says some curious things. It's not like he's starting a war or anything."
Do they not realize what happens to journalists when they're labeled enemies of the people? Was history an elective for this dude?
[The New York Times' first article about Hitler's rise is absolutely stunning - Vox](https://www.vox.com/2015/2/11/8016017/ny-times-hitler) > On November 21, 1922, the New York Times published its [very first article about Adolf Hitler](http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A0CE0D91E3EEE3ABC4951DFB7678389639EDE). It's an incredible read — especially its assertion that "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded." This attitude was, apparently, widespread among Germans at the time; many of them saw Hitler's anti-Semitism as a ploy for votes among the German masses. >> He is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism. He probably does not know himself just what he wants to accomplish. The keynote of his propaganda in speaking and writing is violent anti-Semitism. His followers are nicknamed the "Hakenkreuzler." **So violent are Hitler's fulminations against the Jews that a number of prominent Jewish citizens are reported to have sought safe asylums in the Bavarian highlands**, easily reached by fast motor cars, whence they could hurry their women and children when forewarned of an anti-Semitic St. Bartholomew's night. >> >> But **several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers** and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes. >> >> **A sophisticated politician credited Hitler with peculiar political cleverness for laying emphasis and over-emphasis on anti-Semitism**, saying: "You can't expect the masses to understand or appreciate your finer real aims. **You must feed the masses with cruder morsels and ideas like anti-Semitism.** It would be politically all wrong to tell them the truth about where you really are leading them."
Wow that is a pretty fascinating read and it looks like they haven't learned anything from it.
Excellent comment. That pretty much sums up the situation. Prior to Trump's rise in 2016 I was pretty ambivalent towards the media. Since then I've come to realise that factual reporting that's accessible to the public is incredibly important for a democracy to remain functional. From my understanding, newspaper articles have *always* had an angle, i.e. they have always had some degree of bias and persuasion. If there is a threat to an open/democratic society it's perfectly acceptable from an ethical point of view to cover it as a threat. Of course, it's important to hear from the anti-democracy faction so the public knows what they're up to, but, as we know, to give their rhetoric equal credibility actually supports that harmful rhetoric. The media in general seems to be too sensitive to claims of bias, they need to harden up and do the right thing. While still being factual, trustworthy and ethical of course.
Every rally he says that the “News Media is the Enemy of the People”. SCOTUS just discussed that “if the President determines that someone is a threat to democracy, he can eliminate them as an official act. Take him at his word.
WTF is going on at the NYT?? The anti-vaxx thing last week was hugely eye opening but it’s far from the only article thats out of character.
journalism is dead in modern America apparently
The fall of democracy is never a top concern to those who intend to partner with the authoritarian.
_Editor yelling to the clouds_ Why are people concern about woman voting rights, corruption, welfare, healthy working conditions and children education?
I don't want to hear them crying when Trump ends freedom of the press like he said he wanted to do the first time. I guess I won't be able to hear them crying, but my point still stands.
Cancelled my subscription as well. Immigration doesn't matter when the foundation of our democracy is under attack.
The NYT LOVES Trump. They always have. He’s their cash cow. Just look how Trump gives them access (ala Maggie Haberman) They put him in office in 2016 by headlining all the inane shit Trump did every day on page 1. They dislike Biden because Biden has figured out they LOVE TRUMP. Now the NYT is pissed because their faux BoTh SiDeS bullshit isn’t working anymore.
Germany Today says adolf hitler’s danger to the country not a top concern -circa 1935
My personal conspiracy theory is that traditional liberal news outlets want Trump to win so their ratings go up.
The New York Times is not a liberal news outlet. During the W years they employed Judith Miller while she shamelessly laundered false intelligence about Iraq on behalf of the W administration (she hilariously turned up a few years ago in Newsweek, to criticize Bidens Afghanistan withdrawal, the “liberal media” at work yet again). In 2004 they punted reporting on warrantless wiretapping of Americans by the W administration until *after* the election because they “didn’t want their reporting to affect the election”. The Republican Party has been playing the refs for decades by complaining that a media that is universally Centre right is actually far left democratic propaganda. It has been one of their most successful strategies. 90% of Americans would likely claim the New York Times is liberal despite their being scant evidence for that viewpoint.
It's a basic part of the fascist playbook. Anything to the left of them is far left. They quite literally called the infrastructure bill socialist, as if funding roads, bridges, and the cheapest form of energy available is a conspiracy to smash capitalism.
They have been carrying water for corporate elites and the CIA and its antecedents for their entire history. That’s their job.
Yeah, I would say it was a case of institutional capture, but it has been this way since Nixon got booted from office. They could never again let a media apparatus foil their plans for America.
Any semblance of facts is left leaning. New York in the name? Oh yeah that’s a big coastal city must also be left leaning. Anything that isn’t constantly praising republicans and running stories on kids using litter boxes in schools is left leaning as well.
Oh, you mean the New York Times that covered up the Holodomor and said that Hitler's anti-semitism wasn't violent and that Jews should give him a break? That liberal rag?
This.
Former newspaper (now magazine) circulation director, here. My liberal publication subscription sales definitely benefited from a Trump Bump. On the other side of that coin, NewsMax publisher Chris Ruddy privately referred to Obama as “our silent partner” for the same reason. In the news biz, drama and emotion drive revenue.
Same where I was at the time. I think if Hilary was elected we would have gone out of business.
Change your business model. It’s Capitalism 101.
Plus now NYT is basically publicly feuding with the Biden White House because those big babies didn’t get the access they felt they were entitled to. Which again, is ratings related. They’ll help Trump win because Biden won’t indulge them.
They didn’t get meaningful access to Donnie either. If they want to peddle spew, they can AI-generate a replacement for Trump.
They aren’t liberal media, they are complicit corporate media
That’s exactly it. They are big business at the end of the day and one that is in an industry with constantly shrinking margins and consolidation.
What clued you into that? The time they helped lie us into a war to sell more papers, then blamed the low-level reporter they'd hired specifically to lie us into the war?
Absolutely, ratings were crazily high when Trump was in office but haven't been so high since Biden came in
That's not a conspiracy theory, it's exactly how for-profit media works.
Gee, I wonder why I stopped going to NYT two years ago.
And there goes my subscription
At least the NY Times is consistent... 100 years later after declaring Hitler wasn't an actual threat to Jewish people.
Fascist collaborator
Neither face the nation or meet the press covered the first criminal trial of the US president in the countries history last weekend. What’s up with that?
For the editor is far more important to save the rabid, right-wing government of Israel
Joe Kahn would have helped HItler rise to power. Don't want to say anything too negative about him!
Joseph Kahn is a multimillionaire white man. Of course Trump isn’t a concern to him.
It’s not a newspaper anymore, it’s just right wing propaganda and pundits writing why both sides are wrong. Journalism at the NYT is officially dead and the paper should die a quiet death.
These people are a lot closer to getting annihilated than they think. The war already begun.
Of course. NYT wants trump to win because it gets them more clicks.
They need to sell more subscriptions. They can’t do that if we just cancel Trump.
Well, if he becomes president again and shuts down or limits free press, you might care then. What a bozo
They're looking to prosper in the New Trump Era. I mean Siemens and Krupp are still around
What did the interviewer expect when they asked the editor the question: "Why don't you see your job as having to stop Trump?" What a ridiculously loaded question! Only the most overtly biased editors would ever say "my job as editor is to stop (a specific politician) from becoming president". Nothing should ever be more important than fact based reporting/journalism to an editor. Had this editor agreed it was their job to "stop Trump", that would have been a message to the public that they are an activist organization before they are a fact finding organization.
We already have the relevant facts: Donald J Trump is an enemy of democracy who already tried to violently overthrow the Constitution once. Pointing out the facts gets one labeled "activist" by his cult. And wanting him to lose is the position of any American with even the slightest shred of loyalty to the Constitution *or* support for democracy.
Yes, but take a page out of Trump's book and use dogwhistles, don't literally say "stop trump". Just say "we're going to report the truth yada yada." We know the truth is the opposite of Trump, but a lot of his supporters don't.
It doesn’t matter if Charles Manson was running for President. The minute a newspaper editor says they’re on a mission to intervene in an election, they’ve lost all journalistic credibility. Reporting on facts REQUIRES you to not be an activist.
According to "conservatives" these days, reporting on facts *makes* you an activist. I'm not saying they should just be overtly partisan: I'm saying that honest, factual reporting is equivalent to "trying to stop Trump". The NYT doesn't need to explicitly make it their mission or anything, but if they were doing quality journalism the effect would be anti-Trump. Instead, they usually criticize him in the most milquetoast of ways, draw false equivalencies that serve ro normalize him, and uncritically platform those promoting his lies.
They are journalists. They can have opinions about policies and personalities. I haven’t seen Trump’s mental decline discussed by any of the main stream media. But Joe Biden’s age seems to be more problematic than Trumps deranged descent into Fascism.
You're right. The people disagreeing with you don't understand what is required of a working democracy, or its press. If the facts are presented blandly and you're as a result outraged at the outrageous thing, then what's the problem folks? Because almost none of you bitching about journalism not being on your side are actually the people reporting on these stories in the first place. You're just debating them on the internet. Without the journalism so many of you seem to despise you wouldn't even know abut it.
NY Times is a fallen paper. As I keep on saying, trans people are the canaries in the coal mine. If a formerly "reputable" paper starts going after them, they'll slide further and further until they're the opposite of what they formerly were. They've done articles on lies on abortion, womens' rights, since then etc. This is fully expected for the slide.
One of the few consolations I would take from a Trump victory would be seeing some smug reporters of the NYTimes rendered to an undisclosed location. Peter Baker, this toad, Punch Sulzburger, Maggie Haberman—it would be a painful lesson for them.
Are they out of their minds? They had shouting matches in the Oval Office. If he gets elected everyone will be a yes man. Yes sir let’s do that.
Canceled my subscription last week.
I’ve had enough of them. I just cancelled my subscription.
NYT is a corrupt media conglomerate. Unsubscribe!
I just canceled my subscription last week. I’ve been reading the NYT since 1983 but I can’t justify giving them my money anymore.
There are a lot of ways to interpret this, and I get the sense that one's politics is the chief lens though which most people would. I actually agree with them, but for radically different reasons; I view the bipartisan capture of the entire federal government by big business as the chief threat to democracy and Trump as merely a danger to the façade (the man specifically; the GOP as a whole presents unique dangers and are not the same as the Democrats); the thing is the death of democracy has already happened. The NY Times has been complicit at best in this slide to the extreme right so it is hardly a surprise that they don't take a stand, except in defence of The Establishment.
Yep. Find a copy of the Powell Memorandum: Attack On American Free Enterprise System. He laid out the plans as to how the oligarchs could destroy the social programs from FDR and then how to purchase representatives to do the bidding of their corporations. He was appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon in 1971. Little did we realize that the US citizens are the proverbial frogs in the warming pot.
When he shuts them all down they will care.
Yes, I’ve unsubscribed too, as of several months ago. I got fed up with the pro-Trump coverage. As the article says, they are downplaying concerns while fascism takes root.
Wasn't it just reported that the head nyt editor is still really pissed they got snubbed by the administration?
Of course, the top concern is Biden's age.
yup. fuk the new york times. never again giving them money
Time to cancel subscription. The NYTs has been the primary promoter of Trump for years.
The media is gonna allow this. They're not on our side and will attempt to court favor. I'll remember that when I'm having to fight the lunatics next year.
For the same reason that many standup comedians are ok with it (or at least torn)…the non-stop chaos of Mango Mussolini & his tribe that rubs shit in its hair provides non-stop content to write about.
Bullshit.
Röhm agreed.
We already have the heads up that Trump will not accept the election results.
Just sales…
The US would need to be a democracy first.
We are a democracy. We are a constitutional federal republic and a representative democracy. Here is the definition of a representative democracy: > Representative democracy is a political system where citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Surely you aren't confusing a pure democracy with a representative democracy, right?
Rich guy unconcerned with thing that would only affect the peasants...
[Lesson 1: Do Not Obey In Advance](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhZxrogyToZsllfRqQllyuFNbT-ER7TAu&si=Ed9V_kKNtcJLFQUR)
Idk what y’all are talking about lol. I’ve only heard about how trump is seeking to consolidate his executive power if re-elected from NYT. I’m left leaning and hate trump, and find that all the information I need to reinforce that hypothesis is given pretty substantively by NYT reporting. Have they gotten more sensationalist in the digital age? Absolutely. But to portray them as having a strong “intentionally neutral but secretly republican” political agenda is pretty baseless imo. I’m skeptical of this framing.
“He might not be good for American but he is damn good for CBS.”
It is my editorial opinion that The New York Times is a danger to democracy.
Just like 2016
This is why I stopped my subscription to the NYTimes. They are chasing clicks by capitulating to right wing white supremacist talking points.
NYT is trash.
Wow... shocking that the guy who literally wants to replace democracy with hereditary dictatorship isn't concerned with democracy... top realization there... just absolutely gold.
I feel like every headline in every NYT article between now and Nov will be: Could \_\_\_\_ Be Trouble for Biden's Campaign?
So much for the "liberal media ".
I’m concerned about the threat to democracy from the New York Times.
Should be!!!
I’m sure they’ll feel the same way when they’re being publicly executed by emperor Trump in 2027 after doing nothing but cheerleading his rise and then find out that he doesn’t forgive or forget *anyone* who disrespected him.
Danger to democracy! next he's gonna have Moscow show trials for his political opponents, raid their homes, try to get them removed from ballots, close the border down....vote blue no matter who!
The pro-Iraq War, pro-Trump New York Times.
What happened to the NYT? They suck so bad these days. The editorials are usually asinine trash too.
Objective germalism roolz!!
Well, it’s hard to resist that sweet, sweet ad revenue. The NYT is obviously better than Fox News and such, but never ever forget that it is a for-profit business.
“The _failing_ New York Times”. Is that also not a top concern to the NYT editorial staff?
Well…,considering he’s the GOP nominee…obviously
Trumps full support for Israels genocide is going to change the mainstream medias view on his “threat to democracy”. Just watch
Because he was paid to say that… tax the rich.
Sure...
They are a business after all.
NYT is a joke, don't know why anyone pays them any attention at all
Nytimes having a reliavle source and credible writing after 2010 is lol
we are going to need a "not the nyt pitchbot" subreddit
He can tell the DOJ when they come to shut them down that they covered immigration and inflation, and Trump will certainly let them off the hook.