I found the NYT right wing and bothsideism bias so pervasive that I cancelled my subscription. They are no longer the vaunted news source of past eras. Is this the result of hereditary ownership and editorship?
WAPO is on my cancellation bubble right now for the same reasons. Bezos says many things about being hands off, but his oligarchic leadership and hiring decisions are leading to more biased “reporting.”
The NYT cancellation process was difficult. It took five notices of cancellation and a couple of phone calls over three or four weeks and they still tried to charge my card two or three times until I asked the card provider to treat them as a fraudster.
I'm a lot happier with more modern publications, even ones that have more of an institutional model, just because there's more willingness on the part of the authors and publishers to own what they're saying. Newspaper editorial board members spend too much time hiding behind each other to actually speak with any credibility.
I'm thinking of substacks, basically; some similar things like Lawfare that grew out of the old blogosphere. Even the biggest groups top out at like half a dozen people plus occasional guests, which means they very rarely bother to speak in an "institutional voice" the way newspapers tend to.
Reading this, I'm reminded of something the late Hunter S. Thompson said while writing for ROLLING STONE: "The NY TIMES is a Newspaper of Record—and when you're a Newspaper of Record rather than of Advocacy, you don't want to upset those who make the record."
The TIMES has always, to a greater or lesser extent, wanted to be a part of The Smart Set, and rub elbows with those in power. It took them until the start of WWII to even start to acknowledge that Hitler was neither a Statesman nor a Politician who One Could Courteously Disagree With, but a Dictator With an Insatiable Appetite for Domination...and a fanatical loathing for Jews, which both the Ochs and Sulzberger families were.
Their blindness was undoubtedly aided by Hitler being rabidly anticommunist, something the wealthy capitalists who owned and ran the TIMES saw as a bulwark against that beastly Russian peasant Joseph Stalin—or at least, an attack dog they thought they could hurl at him! You see that mindset repeated with their kid-glove treatment of Donald Trump against a suddenly-"progressive" Joe Biden, who might even ::horrors!:: raise their taxes a few percent!
This was the treatment they gave Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, and people shrugged it off because it was seen as lefties complaining about their preferred candidate not being showered with praise. This was certainly true in specific examples, but it does speak to a broader context of corporate media having a pro-status quo bias.
It's one thing to have a debate on the merits and flaws of progressive policies, but these papers just accept Republican talking points as de facto reality (focusing only on the costs of social programs and neglecting their benefits, using Red Scare rhetoric, etc.). For as much as conservatives complain about "liberal media bias," American publications bend over backwards to treat them with kiddy gloves. Just watch Ben Shapiro's infamous interview on the BBC and how much he was completely flustered with just minimal pushback from the host (who is a Tory).
"This was the treatment they gave Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, and people shrugged it off because it was seen as lefties complaining about their preferred candidate not being showered with praise."
The Times did the same with Bill Clinton throughout the 1990s and Al Gore in 1999-2000 and Howard Dean in 2004 and John Kerry in 2004 and ... so on. Way back in 2006 or so I wrote a piece for Media Matters noting that the Times generally gave every prominent politician to the left of John McCain shabby treatment while falling all over itself to praise, say, George W. Bush (and of course John McCain) ... and that each time, a whole bunch of people to the left of John McCain ignored or excused the shabby treatment because the politician in question wasn't their favorite. Bill Clinton was too centrist or ... Bill Clinton-y, so some very liberal folks didn't mind the Times' horribly slanted coverage of him ... Howard Dean was too strident and progressive, so some moderates didn't mind shabby treatment of him. Etc Etc.
One reason the Times' lousy coverage persists is those factional responses remain: Clinton Democrats aren't unhappy enough about lousy coverage of Sanders/AOC/Etc; Sanders Dems aren't unhappy enough about lousy coverage of Clinton/Biden/Etc. Instead of everyone to the left of John McCain being rightly pissed at the NYT pretty much all of the time, factions take turns. This isn't the biggest reason the Times' lousy coverage persists -- the biggest reason is that it's what the Sulzbergers want and have always wanted. But it doesn't help.
I will never forget those idiotic stories about George Bush in the Times, praising him like a toddler who was able to speak a whole sentence. Like when he ABSURDLY put a moratorium on using stem cells, damning an entire vein of scientific research to pander to people who were enemies of science, except for the stem cells already in use.
This was supposedly ‘a great compromise,’ not a totally absurd cave-in to people who did not even believe in the theory of evolution. They created, and mastered, the method of ‘no truth’ journalism where the truth was not significant in any way because you were supposedly ‘being objective’ by ignoring all facts and simply reporting what people happened to FEEL about something.
Now they are opting for fascism. They want it so badly it’s palpable.
Exactly regarding Bernie! Thanks to hers and the MSM's lies and abuse of Bernie Sanders, I went from "I can hold my nose and vote for Hillary" (she has NEVER been my first choice, and every "accomplishment" her cult brags about reeks of a padded resume) to "I wouldn't vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if the choice were between her and Satan—except they're on the same side!" (Trump was never even in the running for me—I still look at him and go, "WHY? Is Vermin Supreme sitting this election out? How STUPID do you have to be to support him...?")
Again, I agree about the MSM's bending the knee to Corporate NeoLiberalism, and have to wonder just what snowflakes the American Right are to whine about a "Liberal bias" in the media.
I long ago canceled my subscription to that right wing bird cage liner, so you’ll just have to convince someone else, and there are way too many still. But then again, there are many “good” people on the Space Nazis social media platform previously known as Twitter, and on the platform owned by professional congressional liar Zuckerberg, so really, yawn.
I found the NYT right wing and bothsideism bias so pervasive that I cancelled my subscription. They are no longer the vaunted news source of past eras. Is this the result of hereditary ownership and editorship?
WAPO is on my cancellation bubble right now for the same reasons. Bezos says many things about being hands off, but his oligarchic leadership and hiring decisions are leading to more biased “reporting.”
The NYT cancellation process was difficult. It took five notices of cancellation and a couple of phone calls over three or four weeks and they still tried to charge my card two or three times until I asked the card provider to treat them as a fraudster.
I'm a lot happier with more modern publications, even ones that have more of an institutional model, just because there's more willingness on the part of the authors and publishers to own what they're saying. Newspaper editorial board members spend too much time hiding behind each other to actually speak with any credibility.
Any examples?
I'm thinking of substacks, basically; some similar things like Lawfare that grew out of the old blogosphere. Even the biggest groups top out at like half a dozen people plus occasional guests, which means they very rarely bother to speak in an "institutional voice" the way newspapers tend to.
Thank you.
Your bank can cancel payments.
I canceled also for the very same reason.
Cancelled my scrip and not looking back. 👍🏼
Reading this, I'm reminded of something the late Hunter S. Thompson said while writing for ROLLING STONE: "The NY TIMES is a Newspaper of Record—and when you're a Newspaper of Record rather than of Advocacy, you don't want to upset those who make the record."
The TIMES has always, to a greater or lesser extent, wanted to be a part of The Smart Set, and rub elbows with those in power. It took them until the start of WWII to even start to acknowledge that Hitler was neither a Statesman nor a Politician who One Could Courteously Disagree With, but a Dictator With an Insatiable Appetite for Domination...and a fanatical loathing for Jews, which both the Ochs and Sulzberger families were.
Their blindness was undoubtedly aided by Hitler being rabidly anticommunist, something the wealthy capitalists who owned and ran the TIMES saw as a bulwark against that beastly Russian peasant Joseph Stalin—or at least, an attack dog they thought they could hurl at him! You see that mindset repeated with their kid-glove treatment of Donald Trump against a suddenly-"progressive" Joe Biden, who might even ::horrors!:: raise their taxes a few percent!
This was the treatment they gave Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, and people shrugged it off because it was seen as lefties complaining about their preferred candidate not being showered with praise. This was certainly true in specific examples, but it does speak to a broader context of corporate media having a pro-status quo bias.
It's one thing to have a debate on the merits and flaws of progressive policies, but these papers just accept Republican talking points as de facto reality (focusing only on the costs of social programs and neglecting their benefits, using Red Scare rhetoric, etc.). For as much as conservatives complain about "liberal media bias," American publications bend over backwards to treat them with kiddy gloves. Just watch Ben Shapiro's infamous interview on the BBC and how much he was completely flustered with just minimal pushback from the host (who is a Tory).
"This was the treatment they gave Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020, and people shrugged it off because it was seen as lefties complaining about their preferred candidate not being showered with praise."
The Times did the same with Bill Clinton throughout the 1990s and Al Gore in 1999-2000 and Howard Dean in 2004 and John Kerry in 2004 and ... so on. Way back in 2006 or so I wrote a piece for Media Matters noting that the Times generally gave every prominent politician to the left of John McCain shabby treatment while falling all over itself to praise, say, George W. Bush (and of course John McCain) ... and that each time, a whole bunch of people to the left of John McCain ignored or excused the shabby treatment because the politician in question wasn't their favorite. Bill Clinton was too centrist or ... Bill Clinton-y, so some very liberal folks didn't mind the Times' horribly slanted coverage of him ... Howard Dean was too strident and progressive, so some moderates didn't mind shabby treatment of him. Etc Etc.
One reason the Times' lousy coverage persists is those factional responses remain: Clinton Democrats aren't unhappy enough about lousy coverage of Sanders/AOC/Etc; Sanders Dems aren't unhappy enough about lousy coverage of Clinton/Biden/Etc. Instead of everyone to the left of John McCain being rightly pissed at the NYT pretty much all of the time, factions take turns. This isn't the biggest reason the Times' lousy coverage persists -- the biggest reason is that it's what the Sulzbergers want and have always wanted. But it doesn't help.
I will never forget those idiotic stories about George Bush in the Times, praising him like a toddler who was able to speak a whole sentence. Like when he ABSURDLY put a moratorium on using stem cells, damning an entire vein of scientific research to pander to people who were enemies of science, except for the stem cells already in use.
This was supposedly ‘a great compromise,’ not a totally absurd cave-in to people who did not even believe in the theory of evolution. They created, and mastered, the method of ‘no truth’ journalism where the truth was not significant in any way because you were supposedly ‘being objective’ by ignoring all facts and simply reporting what people happened to FEEL about something.
Now they are opting for fascism. They want it so badly it’s palpable.
Exactly regarding Bernie! Thanks to hers and the MSM's lies and abuse of Bernie Sanders, I went from "I can hold my nose and vote for Hillary" (she has NEVER been my first choice, and every "accomplishment" her cult brags about reeks of a padded resume) to "I wouldn't vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if the choice were between her and Satan—except they're on the same side!" (Trump was never even in the running for me—I still look at him and go, "WHY? Is Vermin Supreme sitting this election out? How STUPID do you have to be to support him...?")
Again, I agree about the MSM's bending the knee to Corporate NeoLiberalism, and have to wonder just what snowflakes the American Right are to whine about a "Liberal bias" in the media.
The New York Times is a major part of the CORRUPT LAME-STREAM MEDIA.
Cancelled my subscription a year ago.
DJT is definitely a racist!!!
NYT is a poor substitute for toilet paper.
Full stop
Trash is trash...and yes, the NYT is now, and has long been hypocritical, Right-wing trash...with bitchin' recipes, don'tchaknow??
I long ago canceled my subscription to that right wing bird cage liner, so you’ll just have to convince someone else, and there are way too many still. But then again, there are many “good” people on the Space Nazis social media platform previously known as Twitter, and on the platform owned by professional congressional liar Zuckerberg, so really, yawn.
Can we start a GoFundMe to yeet Rufo into the Sun, please?