4 ms·

Here is one example of a broad topic where NYT's bias is very clear - immigration. Articles on this topic over the past year: https://www.google.com/search?q=im

Here is one example of a broad topic where NYT's bias is very clear - immigration. Articles on this topic over the past year: https://www.google.com/search?q=immigrants+site:nytimes.com&tbs=qdr:y https://www.google.com/search?q=immigrants+site:nytimes.com&... What I have observed is that NYT's coverage slants heavily towards supporting immigration, both legal and illegal. For illegal immigration, they run stories which tend to evoke maximum sympathy (DACA, impact on women / young kids / old people etc). Even for a story involving all sorts of people, they will use photos or anecdotes which will evoke stronger sympathies (example: [1]). Also take a look at the kind of opinion columns they run - you will easily find someone supporting illegal immigration or asylum every few months. But you will rarely see them printing opinions from the other side of this debate, i.e. people opposing illegal immigration. And this is an obvious slant on a topic where Americans are evenly divided, if not leaning more against illegal immigration [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/us/asylum-migrants-mexican-border.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/us/asylum-migrants-mexica... [2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx

sangnoir 6y ago
That appears to be confirmation bias - the NYT also put out sympathetic articles on anti-immigration people of the "a day in the life of a friendly neighborhood racist" type.
adamsea 6y ago
> supporting immigration, both legal and illegal. I'm not sure how to assess or interpret what you're saying. What does it mean to "support immigration"? I'm pretty sure you're not literally suggesting that absolutely zero people be allowed to move to the U.S. It'd be helpful if you could explain what "supporting immigration" means to you in this context. Otherwise it's all too easy for people to make their own (usually negative, often untrue) assumptions. For the record, I'll say that I don't think folks illegally crossing the border should be treated the way they've been - especially with regards to the inhumane and immoral, and probably illegal camps that both adults and children were (are?) put in. Obviously that's only one part of a much broader conversation, and, I want to give you the opportunity to explain what you mean, and not jump to conclusions. Lastly, my own belief is "the view from nowhere" is impossible. We're all biased, consciously or otherwise, and I believe it's valuable to aspire to a self-awareness of that bias as I think "removing it" is a logical impossibility. What I think is important for news organizations which aspire to trustworthiness to do, is, provide transparency, accountability, fact-checking, and overall thoughtfulness. Obviously some of these things are not easily quantifiable. But, the humanities have centuries of experience in assessing and analyzing texts written by people. Philosophy is an example of one humanistic field which has its own procedures for analyzing more "qualitative" works, for example. I'm a big fan of valuing expertise. Just as you'd want an experienced software developer making decisions about application development, I think it's valuable to turn to experts in written discourse - humanists of all stripes, the oft-maligned liberal arts - for direction in how to analyze texts. Basically what I'm saying is if we're going to do this, let's do this for real ;). Otherwise, it's not reasoned, informed discussion/debate/analysis - it's just a reactive sharing of beliefs.

sangnoir 6y ago

That appears to be confirmation bias - the NYT also put out sympathetic articles on anti-immigration people of the "a day in the life of a friendly neighborhood racist" type.

adamsea 6y ago

> supporting immigration, both legal and illegal. I'm not sure how to assess or interpret what you're saying. What does it mean to "support immigration"? I'm pretty sure you're not literally suggesting that absolutely zero people be allowed to move to the U.S. It'd be helpful if you could explain what "supporting immigration" means to you in this context. Otherwise it's all too easy for people to make their own (usually negative, often untrue) assumptions. For the record, I'll say that I don't think folks illegally crossing the border should be treated the way they've been - especially with regards to the inhumane and immoral, and probably illegal camps that both adults and children were (are?) put in. Obviously that's only one part of a much broader conversation, and, I want to give you the opportunity to explain what you mean, and not jump to conclusions. Lastly, my own belief is "the view from nowhere" is impossible. We're all biased, consciously or otherwise, and I believe it's valuable to aspire to a self-awareness of that bias as I think "removing it" is a logical impossibility. What I think is important for news organizations which aspire to trustworthiness to do, is, provide transparency, accountability, fact-checking, and overall thoughtfulness. Obviously some of these things are not easily quantifiable. But, the humanities have centuries of experience in assessing and analyzing texts written by people. Philosophy is an example of one humanistic field which has its own procedures for analyzing more "qualitative" works, for example. I'm a big fan of valuing expertise. Just as you'd want an experienced software developer making decisions about application development, I think it's valuable to turn to experts in written discourse - humanists of all stripes, the oft-maligned liberal arts - for direction in how to analyze texts. Basically what I'm saying is if we're going to do this, let's do this for real ;). Otherwise, it's not reasoned, informed discussion/debate/analysis - it's just a reactive sharing of beliefs.