6 ms·

The NYT? Really? I would agree if you were describing Huffington Post or various other left-wing rags, but the NYT is pretty far from a Democratic Propaganda

The NYT? Really? I would agree if you were describing Huffington Post or various other left-wing rags, but the NYT is pretty far from a Democratic Propaganda paper.

ThomPete 10y ago
The NYT takes sides all the time. That shouldn't come as a surprise.
dictum 10y ago
I wouldn't call it propaganda, but as a foreigner it was amusing to read the NYT front page on election day. There was no attempt at neutrality whatsoever. (The NYT has no obligation to be neutral and I'm not complaining about their editorial position. They have a right to take sides. It is still useful to keep their previous positions in mind when analyzing what they're saying now.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
MK999 10y ago
12 Trump hit pieces in one day alone. More like establishment propaganda paper, I don't think they would have given Jeb Bush or Rubio such a hard time.
- jimbokun 10y ago
  Which of those pieces are you saying are inaccurate or untrue?
- lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
  How, I wonder, do you report on a candidate, who we have a recording bragging about sexual assault, and avoid a "hit piece"? To make a derogatory article attacking trump literally all you have to do is quote what he's said on the record; No editorializing necessary.
  - tomp 10y ago
    Even labeling lewd sexualised comments ("locker talk") as "bragging about sexual assault" is bias. People have different ways of communicating that not everyone might agree with, but what you're doing is trivialising the victims of actual sexual assault.
    - lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
      I refer you to the department of justice's definition of sexual assault [0]. "Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient." Grabbing by the genitals, yeah I think that covers it. Personal definitions of lewdness aside, you don't get to change the laws.
      - tomp 10y ago
        > without the explicit consent of the recipient Which is what you assumed. Groupies exist for a reason - they want to get with the target of their admiration.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Veen 10y ago
  Would you have liked them balanced with 12 pro-Trump pieces or 12 anti-Hillary pieces? Sometimes things are true. Saying they're true isn't bias. It makes no sense to have "balance" when what that means is publishing a non-true thing in order to balance out the true thing you just said. It's true that Donald Trump is lying, feckless fool. That doesn't need balancing. We can argue all day about why people voted for him, why they rejected the incumbent elite, why they wanted a change, and so on. But that doesn't really change the facts.
  - lake99 10y ago
    > It's true that Donald Trump is lying, feckless fool. Lying? Sure. Feckless fool? Not a fact. > But that doesn't really change the facts. You mean, facts like Hillary arming radicals and destroying governments? Or facts like Clinton getting millions of dollars from major banks? Or facts like Clinton wiping email servers? There were floodlights on the liar, but a crook sneaked in behind them. Rampant editorializing drove people away from the media. People suspected a collusion between media houses and the Clinton campain. Wikileaks confirmed those suspicions. What do they do? CNN tell its viewers that it's illegal to read or download stuff from Wikileaks.
    - Pokepokalypse 10y ago
      He's a feckless fool. Campaigns on deporting ALL illegal immigrants and building a wall. Says (on 60 minutes, this is not fake, he said it): he's only going to deport illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. This is exactly Obama's policy. He just won an election, and he's pushing the status-quo. Again, on ACA repeal, he was VERY CLEAR in the debate: "repeal and replace Obamacare" (just not clear on "replace" with what). On 60 minutes, he's walking that back and talking about the parts he'll keep. Trump is feckless. And a fool. And Hillary may have armed radicals, but you look at photos of McCain shaking their hands. This policy will not change under a Trump administration, I guarantee it. Because he will do whatever this Republican congress wants. This is also true for Trade deals.
      - lake99 10y ago
- eggie 10y ago
  What if these aren't establishment propagandists, but are regular people who are seriously concerned? What should they do? What would the right response of the paper be to a demagogue? In retrospect, fake news might have been the most effective thing. But they're part of the establishment so they won't allow themselves to do that.
- usefulcat 10y ago
  I agree they probably wouldn't have been as critical of Bush or Rubio, because it's unlikely that either of those two would have provided them with anywhere near as much material to be critical of.
gthtjtkt 10y ago
> the NYT is pretty far from a Democratic Propaganda paper. If that's true, why did the New York Times just apologize for their abysmal coverage of this election cycle? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reader...
- dkfmn 10y ago
  This isn't an apology. At best it's a promise to do better in the future.
- tomschlick 10y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3nRgEZTm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3nRgEZTm8 MSNBC laying into the NYT after the election for not accepting reality & criticizing people who said Trump even had the slightest chance at winning.
- jimbokun 10y ago
  Which part of that is the apology?
swalsh 10y ago
NYT is not a great paper, it's not the worst, but it has issues. It has been demonstrated in the past that they change or skip coverage of important stories in order to maintain access. Often when they do have important stories they get buried in the paper while the front page exposes something significantly less meaningful. Basically, I do trust that what they write is true, but I don't trust them to always write it...

The NYT? Really? I would agree if you were describing Huffington Post or various other left-wing rags, but the NYT is pretty far from a Democratic Propaganda paper.

ThomPete 10y ago

The NYT takes sides all the time. That shouldn't come as a surprise.

dictum 10y ago

I wouldn't call it propaganda, but as a foreigner it was amusing to read the NYT front page on election day. There was no attempt at neutrality whatsoever. (The NYT has no obligation to be neutral and I'm not complaining about their editorial position. They have a right to take sides. It is still useful to keep their previous positions in mind when analyzing what they're saying now.)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

MK999 10y ago

12 Trump hit pieces in one day alone. More like establishment propaganda paper, I don't think they would have given Jeb Bush or Rubio such a hard time.

jimbokun 10y ago
Which of those pieces are you saying are inaccurate or untrue?
lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
How, I wonder, do you report on a candidate, who we have a recording bragging about sexual assault, and avoid a "hit piece"? To make a derogatory article attacking trump literally all you have to do is quote what he's said on the record; No editorializing necessary.
- tomp 10y ago
  Even labeling lewd sexualised comments ("locker talk") as "bragging about sexual assault" is bias. People have different ways of communicating that not everyone might agree with, but what you're doing is trivialising the victims of actual sexual assault.
  - lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
    I refer you to the department of justice's definition of sexual assault [0]. "Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient." Grabbing by the genitals, yeah I think that covers it. Personal definitions of lewdness aside, you don't get to change the laws.
    - tomp 10y ago
      > without the explicit consent of the recipient Which is what you assumed. Groupies exist for a reason - they want to get with the target of their admiration.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Veen 10y ago
Would you have liked them balanced with 12 pro-Trump pieces or 12 anti-Hillary pieces? Sometimes things are true. Saying they're true isn't bias. It makes no sense to have "balance" when what that means is publishing a non-true thing in order to balance out the true thing you just said. It's true that Donald Trump is lying, feckless fool. That doesn't need balancing. We can argue all day about why people voted for him, why they rejected the incumbent elite, why they wanted a change, and so on. But that doesn't really change the facts.
- lake99 10y ago
  > It's true that Donald Trump is lying, feckless fool. Lying? Sure. Feckless fool? Not a fact. > But that doesn't really change the facts. You mean, facts like Hillary arming radicals and destroying governments? Or facts like Clinton getting millions of dollars from major banks? Or facts like Clinton wiping email servers? There were floodlights on the liar, but a crook sneaked in behind them. Rampant editorializing drove people away from the media. People suspected a collusion between media houses and the Clinton campain. Wikileaks confirmed those suspicions. What do they do? CNN tell its viewers that it's illegal to read or download stuff from Wikileaks.
  - Pokepokalypse 10y ago
    He's a feckless fool. Campaigns on deporting ALL illegal immigrants and building a wall. Says (on 60 minutes, this is not fake, he said it): he's only going to deport illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. This is exactly Obama's policy. He just won an election, and he's pushing the status-quo. Again, on ACA repeal, he was VERY CLEAR in the debate: "repeal and replace Obamacare" (just not clear on "replace" with what). On 60 minutes, he's walking that back and talking about the parts he'll keep. Trump is feckless. And a fool. And Hillary may have armed radicals, but you look at photos of McCain shaking their hands. This policy will not change under a Trump administration, I guarantee it. Because he will do whatever this Republican congress wants. This is also true for Trade deals.
    - lake99 10y ago
eggie 10y ago
What if these aren't establishment propagandists, but are regular people who are seriously concerned? What should they do? What would the right response of the paper be to a demagogue? In retrospect, fake news might have been the most effective thing. But they're part of the establishment so they won't allow themselves to do that.
usefulcat 10y ago
I agree they probably wouldn't have been as critical of Bush or Rubio, because it's unlikely that either of those two would have provided them with anywhere near as much material to be critical of.

gthtjtkt 10y ago

> the NYT is pretty far from a Democratic Propaganda paper. If that's true, why did the New York Times just apologize for their abysmal coverage of this election cycle? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reader...

dkfmn 10y ago
This isn't an apology. At best it's a promise to do better in the future.
tomschlick 10y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3nRgEZTm8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY3nRgEZTm8 MSNBC laying into the NYT after the election for not accepting reality & criticizing people who said Trump even had the slightest chance at winning.
jimbokun 10y ago
Which part of that is the apology?

swalsh 10y ago

NYT is not a great paper, it's not the worst, but it has issues. It has been demonstrated in the past that they change or skip coverage of important stories in order to maintain access. Often when they do have important stories they get buried in the paper while the front page exposes something significantly less meaningful. Basically, I do trust that what they write is true, but I don't trust them to always write it...