5 ms·

I also take issue with this Editorial and agree with the EFF, but this... a mouthpiece for the sitting administration in Washington. They were under Bush, t

• milesskorpen 13y ago
  Their support of the Iraq War was pretty unfortunate, and possibly leads to this characterization.
  • ars 13y ago
    How can a newspaper support anything? Isn't it a number of different journalists, all with different opinions?
    • pyrocat 13y ago
      Hahahahaha
    • SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
      > Isn't a newspaper a number of different journalists, all with different opinions? Not really, no. It's the editor who sets the agenda; often at the bidding of the owners.
• guimarin 13y ago
  Maybe. I used to think a lot of conclusions I had were absurd. I think the NYT has come a long way from the paper storied of old. Also, and I mean this in the most non ad hominem way possible. At what point would you disclose your former and ongoing relationship with the NYT in making a comment like that?
• PilateDeGuerre 13y ago
  >especially for Bush is more than a stretch of reality. I don't necessarily agree with your parent's assertion, but do you not remember the NYT beating the drums of war as loud as anyone in the lead up to Iraq?
  • ryguytilidie 13y ago
    But the guy above you heard that they are a liberal media organization, and a conservative media organization said that, so it must be true that the NYT are a bunch of pinko liberal hippies.
  • sentenza 13y ago
    This was the reason I stopped reading it. You have to remember that "over here" in Europe it was very clear how weak the case for going to war was even before the attack had started. I wonder if Colin Powell knew that he was throwing away his reputation that day. Lately, I have found the Guardian much more informative.
• alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  For Bush's first term, the characterization is only a bit inaccurate. For Bush's second term, it's obviously wildly off the mark. For Obama's time in office, both terms, the NYT has indeed functioned as a de facto press room of the administration.
• wnevets 13y ago
  The NY Times stopped using the word torture to describe what the US was doing because of the Bush Admin. The New York times supported the Iraq War and was the leading the charge for a war with Iran during Bush's second term.
  • smsm42 13y ago
    Supporting certain action of the administration and being a mouthpiece for the administration is a very different thing. Do you think any media org that supports, for example, the killing of Bin Laden, which is commonly attributed to Obama administration, is an Obama mouthpiece? There were many people that supported Iraq War, from many political persuasions. Some regretted it, some didn't. It doesn't mean they all were Bush's mouthpieces, there is place for genuine agreement even in today's politics.
    • wnevets 13y ago
      How do you characterize changing the language reporters are allowed to use in the paper to appease the Bush admin?
      • etherael 13y ago
        Doing their patriotic duty. ;)
      • smsm42 13y ago
        Israel just released 26 terrorists from jail about a week ago to appease Palestinian government. Does it mean the government of Israel is now an agent and mouthpiece of Hamas and PLO?
        • wnevets 13y ago
          The notion that Israel does anything to appease Palestinian is kinda funny.
          • 13y ago
• rhizome 13y ago
  Google "Judy Miller."
• aric 13y ago
  No, the characterization borders on reality. Reality is absurd; I'll give you that.
• mcantelon 13y ago
  NYT protected Bush by sitting on their knowledge of AT&T-facilitated domestic wiretapping. Pretty big story they could have broke. The NYT's usefulness is due to their pretence of being proponents of transparency and democracy.
• revelation 13y ago
  How many more times do they have to write another "anonymous government official said this outrageous thing [1]" article for you to start doubting? 1: that happens to be exactly the government line