3 ms·
As a Non-American, I don't understand the hatred that is found in the article. I understand the author making the point/assumption that the New York Times, due
by rntksi 6y ago
As a Non-American, I don't understand the hatred that is found in the article.
I understand the author making the point/assumption that the New York Times, due to its large influence in the United States, has a pervasive sway in public opinion that goes further than just New York City.
However I don't understand why that would be a bad thing, if it's not a monopoly?
To take a more extreme example, there are bureaus in countries like North Korea (country wide news monopoly) or China (less brutal but monopoly nevertheless by the State) dedicated to controlling the narrative that goes on within the country. Anything that goes out of line is suppressed.
Is the author comparing NYT to that kind of control over the narrative?
If that is not the case, then personally I see how a combination of "free market economy" and "freedom of speech" would mean the ones with resources (power and money) will undubitably have a larger sway in public opinion. That's inherent in the system.
- mc32 6y agoIf the New York Times were taken as seriously as The National Enquirer (which never the less occasionally does journalism), few would care. However, the NYT are taken seriously, take themselves seriously and they have heft and sway it to set the tone of public opinion. Why else would so many do things for shitty pay so one day they climb the ladder and have their own bylines? If the NYT says something they get quoted seriously rather than sarcastically, etc. That’s why it matters.