3 ms·

I find it facinating how liberal mainstream media (MSM), such as The New York Times (NYT), positions itself as an opponent to xenophobia and corporate dominance

I find it facinating how liberal mainstream media (MSM), such as The New York Times (NYT), positions itself as an opponent to xenophobia and corporate dominance in America domestically. However, when it comes to international affairs, it seems to shift its stance. It does not hesitate to support individuals abroad who may be racist, xenophobic, and corrupt businessmen or politicians, as long as they appear to challenge countries the US views as adversaries. Here, Alexei Navalny, whom the NYT has elevated, was known for his far-right ultra-nationalist and Islamophobic views [1]. Similarly, Apple Daily, a Hong Kong tabloid whose owner, Jimmy Lai (Lai Chee-ying), was praised by the NYT as a democracy fighter, published a front-page ad that derogatorily called Chinese mainlanders locusts [2], among countless articles that incited hatred toward Chinese mainlanders. In 2019, there were numerous incidents where mainlanders were attacked because they don't speaking Cantonese, including a Japanese individual mistaken for a Chinese mainlander [3]. In context of this, the showing of symbol Pepe the Frog in Hong Kong is a dog whistle for the alt-right (acompany calls like "President trump please save us"). However NYT believes in this case, pepe the frog, means love somehow. [4] Last, but the most glaring example of this would be the Ukrainian neo-nazi problem, which I think everyone knows how this topic is treated differently after Russia was designated as one of the main advasary of US. It is not journalism but propaganda (maybe even a good one) if you choose to only present one side, and conveniently avoid the other instead of striving for a more nuanced and balanced view. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/08/amnesty-international-employee-sacked-alexei-navalny https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/08/amnesty-intern... [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-16828134 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-16828134 [3]: https://mothership.sg/2019/11/news-hong-kong-japanese-man-protesters-beaten-up/ https://mothership.sg/2019/11/news-hong-kong-japanese-man-pr... [4]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/world/asia/hong-kong-protest-pepe-frog.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/world/asia/hong-kong-prot...

derelicta 3y ago
It's fascinating because its also expected in a way. MSM defends capitalist interests because they are owned by capitalists. The said capitalists just wish China would also go through the same violent balkanisation that cursed the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia because it would significantly weaken a successful socialist experiment.
fancyfredbot 3y ago
It's a straightforward case of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" isn't it? The values of NYT are so opposed to those of Putin's Russia or Xi's China that they support those standing against those views uncritically. It's a fairly rational thing to do, even if it is hypocritical. Any port in a storm, to use yet another metaphor. In the US I think you'd say that prevailing views are more closely aligned to the NYT and this affords them some ability to be more critical.
CogitoCogito 3y ago
The NYT isn't consistently anti-Chinese (by which I mean anti-PRC). They refuse, for example, to refer to the ROC as a country even though the NYC could of course do so (and which it obviously is). They play games and refer to it as an "island Democracy" or use other terminology to avoid stating the truth. I've always presumed this is a purposeful policy to make the PRC happy (or at least avoid its wrath when it comes to preserving advertising dollars and access). I've left many short comments on NYT's articles asking why they refuse to refer to the ROC as a country given, but they simply never publish it. That said, sure in broad strokes I think the NYT tends to promote fairly mainstream American imperial interests.
- wildrhythms 3y ago
  That stance is simply in line with the U.S. State Department, which also does not consider ROC (Taiwan) a country, which just reinforces the point that you're replying to: the NYT, like the rest of the MSM, is just carrying water for the capitalist American hegemonic status quo.
  - CogitoCogito 3y ago
    Good point. Yeah I think you're right and I just didn't see the big picture. Seems totally consistent with the NYT's general support of American foreign policy in general.
refurb 3y ago
It's not really that complicated. People are complex. If you think the only people fighting for democratic rights should be the ultra-pure in contemporary political views ("let he who is without sin cast the first stone"), well, you're going to quickly run out of people to talk about or support. Look at the human beings who were great leaders - Martin Luther King Jr was an adulterer, Churchill held racist ideas, Gandi loved to test his will by sleeping next to prepubescent girls. It's possible to support a person because they are doing great things, without automatically agreeing to everything they believe or do.
- WiSaGaN 3y ago
  Definitely, should a reputable media (at least ten years ago NYT was reputable) report this complexity and nuances about these people or about the situations so that readers can get a complete view?
  - refurb 3y ago
    I agree with you there. Media today (not exclusive to NYT) does a terrible job of actually reporting on things. As you said, everything is viewed through a preordained set of assumptions that are unspoken and changing and often contain contradictions. I'm not saying anything new, but most news today are opinion pieces disguised as news. But then again, it always has been.
squigz 3y ago
What exactly is the "Ukrainian neo-nazi problem"?
- emchammer 3y ago
  Putin uses this term to refer an amalgamation of history concerning Russian territory, with an axis roughly going through a 1654 peace treaty, and capped by the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The latter was signed only a week before Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Russians harbor their own type of bitterness about the 1920s-1940s National Socialists which is not well-reflected in the Western/American/Jewish perspective. If you move past the embarassment of Tucker Carlson's "Why is history relevant?", Putin makes a certain case, if propagandized, from a long-term Russian perspective. It is worthwhile to look up all the events he cites. https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/tucker-carlson-interviews-vladimir-putin-transcript https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/tucker-carlson-intervie...
  - testrun 3y ago
    Putin conveniently forgets that the USSR was the other side of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The USSR invaded Poland two weeks after the Germans did. Google the Ukraine Nazi problem and there are good sources debunking this nonsense. And by the way, Putin lies through his teeth anyway. He said before the invasion of Ukraine that it is not going to happen. Google that too.
- khokhol 3y ago
  A mild annoyance within Ukrainian politics. But in reality, bearing no connection to the problem that Putin makes it out to be. A bogeyman basically. Per the Wikipedia definition: The bogeyman (/ˈboʊɡimæn/; also spelled or known as bogyman, bogy, bogey, and, in North American English, also boogeyman)[1] is a mythical creature used by adults to frighten children into good behaviour.

derelicta 3y ago

It's fascinating because its also expected in a way. MSM defends capitalist interests because they are owned by capitalists. The said capitalists just wish China would also go through the same violent balkanisation that cursed the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia because it would significantly weaken a successful socialist experiment.

fancyfredbot 3y ago

It's a straightforward case of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" isn't it? The values of NYT are so opposed to those of Putin's Russia or Xi's China that they support those standing against those views uncritically. It's a fairly rational thing to do, even if it is hypocritical. Any port in a storm, to use yet another metaphor. In the US I think you'd say that prevailing views are more closely aligned to the NYT and this affords them some ability to be more critical.

CogitoCogito 3y ago

The NYT isn't consistently anti-Chinese (by which I mean anti-PRC). They refuse, for example, to refer to the ROC as a country even though the NYC could of course do so (and which it obviously is). They play games and refer to it as an "island Democracy" or use other terminology to avoid stating the truth. I've always presumed this is a purposeful policy to make the PRC happy (or at least avoid its wrath when it comes to preserving advertising dollars and access). I've left many short comments on NYT's articles asking why they refuse to refer to the ROC as a country given, but they simply never publish it. That said, sure in broad strokes I think the NYT tends to promote fairly mainstream American imperial interests.

wildrhythms 3y ago
That stance is simply in line with the U.S. State Department, which also does not consider ROC (Taiwan) a country, which just reinforces the point that you're replying to: the NYT, like the rest of the MSM, is just carrying water for the capitalist American hegemonic status quo.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  Good point. Yeah I think you're right and I just didn't see the big picture. Seems totally consistent with the NYT's general support of American foreign policy in general.

refurb 3y ago

It's not really that complicated. People are complex. If you think the only people fighting for democratic rights should be the ultra-pure in contemporary political views ("let he who is without sin cast the first stone"), well, you're going to quickly run out of people to talk about or support. Look at the human beings who were great leaders - Martin Luther King Jr was an adulterer, Churchill held racist ideas, Gandi loved to test his will by sleeping next to prepubescent girls. It's possible to support a person because they are doing great things, without automatically agreeing to everything they believe or do.

WiSaGaN 3y ago
Definitely, should a reputable media (at least ten years ago NYT was reputable) report this complexity and nuances about these people or about the situations so that readers can get a complete view?
- refurb 3y ago
  I agree with you there. Media today (not exclusive to NYT) does a terrible job of actually reporting on things. As you said, everything is viewed through a preordained set of assumptions that are unspoken and changing and often contain contradictions. I'm not saying anything new, but most news today are opinion pieces disguised as news. But then again, it always has been.

squigz 3y ago

What exactly is the "Ukrainian neo-nazi problem"?

emchammer 3y ago
Putin uses this term to refer an amalgamation of history concerning Russian territory, with an axis roughly going through a 1654 peace treaty, and capped by the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The latter was signed only a week before Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Russians harbor their own type of bitterness about the 1920s-1940s National Socialists which is not well-reflected in the Western/American/Jewish perspective. If you move past the embarassment of Tucker Carlson's "Why is history relevant?", Putin makes a certain case, if propagandized, from a long-term Russian perspective. It is worthwhile to look up all the events he cites. https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/tucker-carlson-interviews-vladimir-putin-transcript https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/tucker-carlson-intervie...
- testrun 3y ago
  Putin conveniently forgets that the USSR was the other side of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The USSR invaded Poland two weeks after the Germans did. Google the Ukraine Nazi problem and there are good sources debunking this nonsense. And by the way, Putin lies through his teeth anyway. He said before the invasion of Ukraine that it is not going to happen. Google that too.
khokhol 3y ago
A mild annoyance within Ukrainian politics. But in reality, bearing no connection to the problem that Putin makes it out to be. A bogeyman basically. Per the Wikipedia definition: The bogeyman (/ˈboʊɡimæn/; also spelled or known as bogyman, bogy, bogey, and, in North American English, also boogeyman)[1] is a mythical creature used by adults to frighten children into good behaviour.