4 ms·

I'm going to have to defer to you on these specific examples of bias for Trump since I've significantly decreased how often I read it because of its left bias?!

by mhb 7mo ago

I'm going to have to defer to you on these specific examples of bias for Trump since I've significantly decreased how often I read it because of its left bias?!? But isn't its willingness to corrupt its reputation to execute the Pied Piper strategy evidence that they are biased against Trump? They want to capture eyeballs, but they know their audience and NY liberals are the eyes they are targeting. Just read the readers' comments. Maybe there's a difference that we are discussing between the NYT not calling out Trump's prodigious issues enough and their bias on every other topic. N.b., though, the NYT followed all the other MSM sheep in excusing Biden's dementia until they couldn't. > (BTW, I didn't flag your post and in fact tried to vouch for it, but that never seems to work.) Much appreciated.

CamperBob2 7mo ago
But isn't its willingness to corrupt its reputation to execute the Pied Piper strategy evidence that they are biased against Trump? They want to capture eyeballs, but they know their audience and NY liberals are the eyes they are targeting. Just read the readers' comments. What they want is access to whoever is in power, so it's natural enough to suspect that favors and bias will flow in that direction. In early-to-mid 2016, I'm sure they expected HRC to win the election, just as many/most other observers did. There would have been a lot of pre-existing points of contact with her campaign, given that she was one of New York's senators at the time. So the NYT had the motive and means to do her campaign a favor by amplifying the less-viable Republican candidates. It would have seemed harmless enough. Then, when Trump ended up winning, maintaining access meant taking a more Trump-sympathetic stance. With Maggie Haberman in charge of maintaining the relationship, all it cost was their soul. I think it was as simple as that. Classifying individual news outlets as "left-biased" or "right-biased" tends to obscure what (and who) really motivates them. A newspaper or news network without access to power is dead in the water, and political alignment will always come second to that. Otherwise, for example, you'd need another explanation for why the NYT was such a faithful cheerleader for the Iraq war. They couldn't get enough of the neocon Kool-Aid.

by mhb 7mo ago

CamperBob2 7mo ago

But isn't its willingness to corrupt its reputation to execute the Pied Piper strategy evidence that they are biased against Trump? They want to capture eyeballs, but they know their audience and NY liberals are the eyes they are targeting. Just read the readers' comments. What they want is access to whoever is in power, so it's natural enough to suspect that favors and bias will flow in that direction. In early-to-mid 2016, I'm sure they expected HRC to win the election, just as many/most other observers did. There would have been a lot of pre-existing points of contact with her campaign, given that she was one of New York's senators at the time. So the NYT had the motive and means to do her campaign a favor by amplifying the less-viable Republican candidates. It would have seemed harmless enough. Then, when Trump ended up winning, maintaining access meant taking a more Trump-sympathetic stance. With Maggie Haberman in charge of maintaining the relationship, all it cost was their soul. I think it was as simple as that. Classifying individual news outlets as "left-biased" or "right-biased" tends to obscure what (and who) really motivates them. A newspaper or news network without access to power is dead in the water, and political alignment will always come second to that. Otherwise, for example, you'd need another explanation for why the NYT was such a faithful cheerleader for the Iraq war. They couldn't get enough of the neocon Kool-Aid.