4 ms·

NYT has more than "some bias" toward liberal. It has Paul Krugman for regular opinion columnist, for starters, one article from him on today: https://www.nytime

NYT has more than "some bias" toward liberal. It has Paul Krugman for regular opinion columnist, for starters, one article from him on today: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/opinion/inflation-infrastructure-debt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/opinion/inflation-infrast... But these are opinion, so examine one news story from also today: https://www.nytimes.com/article/emotional-labor.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/emotional-labor.html "emotional labor" you never will hear outside of very leftwing area, same with use of term like "partner" or specification of "in heterosexual partnership". These are not noticeable for many readers from urban area but are almost jump off the page to any from, say, more rural background. Coverage clearly is more than "a little" bias.

wolverine876 5y ago
> NYT has more than "some bias" toward liberal. It has Paul Krugman for regular opinion columnist They have opinion columnists from the entire spectrum. Check out the opinion page - it's got everything, and in pretty good balance, from (pretty) far right to (pretty) far left. > "emotional labor" you never will hear outside of very leftwing area, same with use of term like "partner" or specification of "in heterosexual partnership". These are not noticeable for many readers from urban area but are almost jump off the page to any from, say, more rural background. First, this article isn't news; it's a how-to feature. Let's assume it's true that the content is better known in 'leftwing areas'. Does that make it less valuable to readers everywhere? Also, the NYT is there to tell people things they don't already know, the most valuable ideas they can find; should they limit it by some political measure? Dumb it down because you think that people in rightwing areas can't handle something unfamiliar (I'm attributing that to you, because it's not my idea or the NYT's)? A more general and far more important question: Must everything be politicized and restricted accordingly? 'Heterosexual partnership' is in this sentence: In heterosexual partnerships, emotional labor often falls to women, who are generally socialized to take on the emotional lives of others, said Arlie Russell Hochschild, professor emerita at University of California, Berkeley ... Again, must everything be politicized? Can people in rural areas not handle the language? And what words should be used instead - 'marriages' would seem incorrect, not limiting it to heterosexual relationships would seem confusing. ............. One problem with the parent's point is that (very, very broadly) liberalism seeks change and improvement, while conservatism seeks to keep things as they are or were. Naturally, innovations will come from more liberal sources.
- da_big_ghey 5y ago
  Your assessment of "valuable ideas" being these is more bias, showing you are maybe in the NYT target demographic, so I am not surprised that you are finding coverage reasonable. > what words should be used instead - 'marriages' would seem incorrect, not limiting it to heterosexual relationships would seem confusing. Marriages probably the choice in other parts of the country, maybe "romantic relationships". Specify "heterosexual" is only left-wing thing, most others realize that gays are only small part and so do not bother to make mention. Saying "emotional labor often falls to the woman" would be most elegant though because it make implicit the normal man-woman scenario and avoid extra words. > Must everything be politicized Not in necessity but it does show significant bias on NYT. Also this is not all so much political as cultural. > liberalism seeks change and improvement, while conservatism seeks to keep things as they are or were You make a conflation between change and improvement, liberalism seeks the former and sometimes gets the latter. Some liberalism good and represent progress, some pointless and only change for change's sake. Example being push to use "nice words" for things every so many years. Idiot become retard become mentally handicapped become learning disabled... point here is that not every change is good change.

wolverine876 5y ago

> NYT has more than "some bias" toward liberal. It has Paul Krugman for regular opinion columnist They have opinion columnists from the entire spectrum. Check out the opinion page - it's got everything, and in pretty good balance, from (pretty) far right to (pretty) far left. > "emotional labor" you never will hear outside of very leftwing area, same with use of term like "partner" or specification of "in heterosexual partnership". These are not noticeable for many readers from urban area but are almost jump off the page to any from, say, more rural background. First, this article isn't news; it's a how-to feature. Let's assume it's true that the content is better known in 'leftwing areas'. Does that make it less valuable to readers everywhere? Also, the NYT is there to tell people things they don't already know, the most valuable ideas they can find; should they limit it by some political measure? Dumb it down because you think that people in rightwing areas can't handle something unfamiliar (I'm attributing that to you, because it's not my idea or the NYT's)? A more general and far more important question: Must everything be politicized and restricted accordingly? 'Heterosexual partnership' is in this sentence: In heterosexual partnerships, emotional labor often falls to women, who are generally socialized to take on the emotional lives of others, said Arlie Russell Hochschild, professor emerita at University of California, Berkeley ... Again, must everything be politicized? Can people in rural areas not handle the language? And what words should be used instead - 'marriages' would seem incorrect, not limiting it to heterosexual relationships would seem confusing. ............. One problem with the parent's point is that (very, very broadly) liberalism seeks change and improvement, while conservatism seeks to keep things as they are or were. Naturally, innovations will come from more liberal sources.

da_big_ghey 5y ago
Your assessment of "valuable ideas" being these is more bias, showing you are maybe in the NYT target demographic, so I am not surprised that you are finding coverage reasonable. > what words should be used instead - 'marriages' would seem incorrect, not limiting it to heterosexual relationships would seem confusing. Marriages probably the choice in other parts of the country, maybe "romantic relationships". Specify "heterosexual" is only left-wing thing, most others realize that gays are only small part and so do not bother to make mention. Saying "emotional labor often falls to the woman" would be most elegant though because it make implicit the normal man-woman scenario and avoid extra words. > Must everything be politicized Not in necessity but it does show significant bias on NYT. Also this is not all so much political as cultural. > liberalism seeks change and improvement, while conservatism seeks to keep things as they are or were You make a conflation between change and improvement, liberalism seeks the former and sometimes gets the latter. Some liberalism good and represent progress, some pointless and only change for change's sake. Example being push to use "nice words" for things every so many years. Idiot become retard become mentally handicapped become learning disabled... point here is that not every change is good change.