General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLie of the century by NYT chief WH correspondent
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-001542191. The paper legitimized Hunter Biden allegations that never showed a scintilla of evidence, pushed by Fox "News" and Trump supporters. Why? In what way was this fit for the NYT to print?
2. Publisher A.G. Sulzberger essentially claims that until he gets a sit-down interview with Biden, Biden is presumed to be unfit to be president due to nothing other than his age. This is reflected in their coverage.
3. The paper treats Trump with kid gloves to the extent that there's a widely followed account called "NYT Pitchbot" devoted to their soft coverage of Trump and their negative coverage of Biden.
But oh no, the Times isn't putting their thumb on the scale... and for the pettiest of reasons to boot. The Times doesn't care about America's future, that much is clear.
onecaliberal
(32,928 posts)dalton99a
(81,636 posts)and has always been thus
Cha
(297,799 posts)dalton99a
(81,636 posts)The Wall Street Journal puts its bullshit and propaganda in the editorial section
The New York Times puts its bullshit and propaganda on the front page as NEWS
Ishoutandscream2
(6,664 posts)Recommended
betsuni
(25,686 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(33,484 posts)lastlib
(23,322 posts)they're putting their whole damn fist! And calling it fucking news!
dalton99a
(81,636 posts)brooklynite
(94,789 posts)Evidence?
littlemissmartypants
(22,839 posts)It appears to be a general hypothetical statement.
NanaCat
(1,301 posts)Whitewater
Troopergate
Filegate
Travelgate
Al Gore 'inventing the internet'
Iraq having WMDs
Swift Boat lies
Benghazi
Hillary's emails
Clinton Cash
And not to mention ignoring the many crimes TSF carried out right under their very noses but that they somehow couldn'tever see. Repeatedly.
Maybe you don't know what credible evidence looks like, but the rest of us do.
OMGWTF
(3,980 posts)IbogaProject
(2,845 posts)They have a history of occasionally producing skewed reports. A simple one was the false claim that LSD broke chromosomes, their cited the opposite and the retraction was stuck deep on a quiet day. It still gets cited even though it's false.
Here is a selected list.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies
Here is the guy who basically wrote fiction.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair#:~:text=Jayson%20Thomas%20Blair%20(born%20March,and%20plagiarism%20in%20his%20stories.&text=Columbia%2C%20Maryland%2C%20U.S.
enki23
(7,790 posts).
2naSalit
(86,837 posts)Lost all credibility with me a couple years ago. I don't think much of Susan Glasser either.
thenelm1
(855 posts)I immediately change the channel. Completely worthless.
brooklynite
(94,789 posts)Using Politico to allege the Times as politically biased?
BWdem4life
(1,703 posts)brooklynite
(94,789 posts)Cha
(297,799 posts)DENVERPOPS
(8,862 posts)everyone I know has cancelled their on line subscription to the NYT this past month............
maxsolomon
(33,432 posts)Or they're putting their thumbs on the scale already, but for Trump?
#3: NYT Pitchbot account isn't exclusively a reaction to their Trump coverage - which is consistently negative and not "kid glove". It's a parody of how they "play it down the middle".
But don't let that stand in the way of today's 10th DU OP rant about the NYT.
Bev54
(10,078 posts)maxsolomon
(33,432 posts)I just did a search on the NYT for "Biden Age". Most articles that come up are Op-Eds, from French, Bruni, Blow, and guest columnists. Only French's was negative and that's little surprise.
All news reporting is clustered around the Hur Report release: Feb 8, 9, 10, and then on March 8 & 9 had articles about Trump attacking Biden's age. Probably legitimate to address his age then, since Hur made a BFD about it.
Bev54
(10,078 posts)and tiviolized Trump's crime wave and Russian connections. That is putting his thumb on the scale.
JoseBalow
(2,514 posts)malthaussen
(17,217 posts)And if it weren't for hyperbole, rags like the NYT would have nothing to say.
-- Mal
malaise
(269,216 posts)That is all
PortTack
(32,809 posts)maxsolomon
(33,432 posts)Because my wife likes the Sunday Magazine.
brooklynite
(94,789 posts)My wife and I have had a 7-day subscription since 1979. Still top of the line news reporting. Whether I like the story or not.
JHB
(37,163 posts)...horseshit rumor about Clinton spread around Little Rock by the same people who, years earlier, had been part of the white Citizens Council crowd, and other assorted grifters and opportunists.
brooklynite
(94,789 posts)JHB
(37,163 posts)What part of that amounted to a respected news organization being led by its own pretensions to serve as a vehicle for a smear campaign?
It was a phenomena hardly restricted to the NYT. Recall the New Republic's "Clinton suck-up watch".
soldierant
(6,938 posts)Because he believees (as do too many others) that making "both sides" look, if not the same, at least equivalent, is being "fair."
He doesn't realize that kind of fairness is not his job. The job of a journalist is to report the truth.
That is what we need to eliminate in jouralism, not just him. He's just one of many.
ramen
(792 posts)I've seen a quote from a reporter alleging this but no reaction from the subject and no confirmation or denial from them.
Wild blueberry
(6,670 posts)Not a journalist.
hay rick
(7,648 posts)The article on Sulzberger:
Sulzberger is living in the past. The Times may be first in reach and influence for its elite readership, but those same readers have a plethora of other sources available.