522
submitted 4 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 174 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The NYT Strikes me as an organization that would rather attempt to continue to exist under Trump than try to fight the rising fascist tide he's riding.

They've always been that high on themselves, and they've always been pragmatists to the point of standing for nothing except their own gravitas.

[-] WatDabney@sopuli.xyz 109 points 4 months ago

They're sort of like the old Italian man in Catch-22:

"I was a fascist when Mussolini was on top, and I am an anti-fascist now that he has been deposed. I was fanatically pro-German when the Germans were here to protect us against the Americans, and now that the Americans are here to protect us against the Germans I am fanatically pro-American."

The only difference is that, as you note, NYT's focus is on their own gravitas. Their goal isn't merely survival, but to maintain their image as an authoritative voice in national affairs. And they do that in large part simply by currying favor with whoever currently has the biggest coattails.

[-] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 60 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yep, they see which way the wind is blowing, and they'd rather be the one interviewing the fuhrer than be dismantled for unflattering words during his ascent.

I'm sure they genuinely, self-masturbatorily believe they are the peak of journalism, but in abandoning the journalistic cornerstone of informing and serving the public trust, they're anything but.

[-] NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world 77 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I'm old enough that for me the NYT lost a lot of credibility with their cheerleading of the Iraq war and WMDs and serving as a tool for Cheney to get revenge on a whistleblower and all that shit. The same organization that is now writing haikus to avoid saying Isreal massacred starving civilians in their headline, "As Hungry Gazans Crowd a Convoy, a Crush of Bodies, Israeli Gunshots and a Deadly Toll".

The simple fact is a second Trump term is good for the NYT. Trump does crazy shit, people are outraged, they buy newspaper subscriptions to read about it. The NYT monetizes doom scrollers, and Trump is a endless supply of doom.

So is it money, or is the NYT always just been a mouthpiece of neocons? Or both.

[-] BertramDitore@lemmy.world 45 points 4 months ago

they've always been pragmatists to the point of standing for nothing except their own gravitas

Well said. Their reflexive need to “both-sides” even the most one-sided issues ultimately helps normalize the most extreme viewpoints. It’s what made me lose faith in them.

Also their headlines are consistently absurd, to the point of often being inaccurate. Remember around the 1 million mark, when they said Covid had caused countless deaths and then proceeded to tell us how they counted the deaths? Words mean certain things, and their meanings matter. Don’t use “countless” if the thing is countable.

[-] AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago

Exactly.

objectivity ≠ equivocation

A murderer and their victim don't both have a valid point.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

It's even simpler than that. The paper is class aligned. It's something run by something like a 4th generation rich kid.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 10 points 4 months ago

For sure. They're pretty open about prioritizing access over truth.

[-] Evrala@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Back when the stories broke that the CIA helped to fund itself for their Contra operations by smuggling cocaine into America they helped protect the CIA because they were angry that a small time paper and Gary Web broke the story instead of mainstream media.

There are declassified CIA documents talking about how helpful the LA Times and New York Times were on helping them cover up the scandal. They were worried about the continued existence of the CIA with everything coming out but mainstream media came to their defense unprompted.

[-] dumpsterlid@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

Imagine how many lives would have been saved if we shutdown the CIA.

load more comments (23 replies)
[-] Minotaur@lemm.ee 101 points 4 months ago

The Wordle people have a journalism outlet???

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 17 points 4 months ago

Games like that are a key part of how they pay to run the news outlet.

[-] kometes@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago

I save my hate for Joel and whoever does Connections.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Lmao it's pretty good too as long as you remember it's class aligned to the wealthy.

[-] Minotaur@lemm.ee 6 points 4 months ago

You really do have to get into the mindset of a yuppie NYC writer who went to Brown to get the full experience

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 74 points 4 months ago

This is why I always LOL when some far right (or some kind of "moderate" NPC) person starts up with the "liberal media" in reference to the likes of NYT.

Seriously, people need to POINT and LAUGH at such things being taken for granted. Exactly how is NYT in any meaningful way "liberal"?

[-] hamid@lemmy.world 37 points 4 months ago

The one thing that communists and conservatives have in common is that everyone they don't like is a liberal

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] b3an@lemmy.world 42 points 4 months ago

Maybe this isn’t the place for this but, I do pay for their website, and some stuff is quality. However, even as a paid user, I’m subjected to CONSTANT, and I mean CONSTANT aggressive ‘upgrade’ offers. I was even thinking to post to mildlyinfuriating about it. I did the math a bit back and it was something like every 3-4 days since 2022 that they send me emails pushing me to upgrade from their least expensive plan. Not to mention forcing me to reject it anytime I clear my browser cache and have to re-log in. Also when I’m on the site I’m subjected to it. It’s frankly disgusting. When it comes to marketing they are only marginally better than Condé Nast 🤮🤮🤮

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Weird. I'm a paid user and I've never once been encouraged to upgrade anything.

I've got just about the lowest pay option too, so you'd think I'd be a prime target.

I use the app and a desktop browser (but with adblock). Where do you see them?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 4 months ago
[-] b3an@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

I appreciate the detailed link, but I do understand profit chasing. They’re just super aggressive about it. 🫠

[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 40 points 4 months ago

The Times/Siena poll also somehow comes up with 12 percent support among Democrats for Rep. Dean Phillips, who has yet to get more than two percent of the vote in a primary. Even Phillips himself posted a tweet that said “When the NYT/Siena poll shows me at 12%, you better believe it’s flawed. Only 5% even know who I am.”

It's like in those ninja movies where the guy stabs his sword through himself in order to kill someone behind him.

[-] vanontom@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

The only polling I even partially trust is aggregated and adjusted for quality (like 538). And only a month (...or a week) before the election. Polling is broken and only getting worse, for many reasons. But I guess there is money in it, so it continues until it's worthless.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago

This is a great article. I was skeptical at first, because I used to consider the NYT one of the best journalism outlets in the country. But the author here does an excellent job of laying out the evidence for why I get more and more of a bad feeling from my former gold standard.

The polling issues are just inexcusable and nonsensical. Their sample seems highly unrepresentative of the population, to the point that it makes me wonder if it was on purpose.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 20 points 4 months ago

Would've been nice to have people speak up about this when they were spreading lies about trans kids, or WMDs in Iraq, or Iran Contra, or any of the other million and two instances of them abusing their position to protect the powerful and oppress the powerless, but yeah, the New York Times sucks. Not as bad as a Wall Street Journal or a Fox News, but they're just as stupid and shallow and sensationalist as CNN, and definitely below reputable outlets like NPR/PBS and the Guardian.

That all being said, this poll was likely pretty accurate considering it parallels what a bunch of others are saying (archived)

A day after Democrats dragged a New York Times/Siena College poll that showed the president falling 4 points behind his likely Republican opponent, former President Donald Trump, in a general election matchup, Sunday brought an additional three major surveys also showing Trump leading amid broad and deep dissatisfaction with the incumbent.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 months ago

Don’t worry, the democrats are going to turn this around by telling you it’s your fault for being unhappy with them! 🫠

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Yeah. They are the news of the New York coastal elites. That’s not to imply that New Yorkers are elitists, they are, but this isn’t the random New Yorker who thinks they’re better than some bitch in Cleveland. They’re the newspaper of the sort of people who the left hates having to share a party with. The ones who would rather discuss “the trans issue” with “respected academics” like Janice “eradication” Raymond and Ray “doesn’t believe in bisexuality” Blanchard than with actual trans people even philosophers and academics like Natalie Wynn, Janet Mock, Julia Serrano, or even the late Leslie Feinberg. These are the people who get whipped up into frenzy and go to war because capital was attacked and still are uncomfortable praising John Brown’s methods. They’re the ones who will say they resisted all they could while kissing asses and risking nothing, but occasionally wagging a finger and tutting, but if it comes to socialism or barbarism they will always choose barbarism and blame the socialists for their choice.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago

It's not even good toilet paper.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

Sorry, we replaced all the actual journalists at the NYT info desk with Ross Douthat, a junior officer at the IDF, and six copies of the latest ChatGPT software.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

The place that Judith Miller called home is a cesspit of misinformation and bias?!?

This is my complete lack of surprise. I have no clue why anyone takes the NYT seriously.

[-] silence7@slrpnk.net 11 points 4 months ago

The problem is that they have huge distribution and much of what they publish is in fact an honest attempt to get things right

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I don't think there's a conspiracy at the NYT, at least because they're never going to pass as a conservative organization. Pessimism about Biden won't change that.

My guess is that, like many people, they're panicking in slow motion. It's hard to maintain your composure when you think your nation and your way of life are seriously threatened, but then things look worse when you panic.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 12 points 4 months ago

I don't think there's a conspiracy at the NYT, at least because they're never going to pass as a conservative organization. Pessimism about Biden won't change that.

The New York Times is absolutely a conservative organization. They supported the Iraq War including with an infamous series of articles that included, more or less, outright fabrications. They along with the rest of the mainstream press shit relentlessly on people like Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders whose wild popularity among voters is due to him being much better-aligned with their political views, in opposition to either the center-right or the far-right-sorta-Nazis that are the two choices that exists in modern Washington. I haven't looked at their coverage of Gaza but I'm sure the viewpoint it begins at is horrifying.

I like Biden and I like the New York Times. But in most places in the world they'd be a conservative paper. It's only because the Overton window has shifted so, so far in this country that they're considered as some kind of liberal bastion because they occasionally report the truth instead of slavishly fawning over the leader like some kind of Belarusian hack.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FontMasterFlex@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

shocked pikachu you mean the media is slanted and not honest? who could have known?

[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago

Your take is non-specific, unhelpful and wastes energy towards a valid frustration about a SPECIFIC issue.

These type of comments might feel cathartic to you personally, but they ADD nothing for the people around you - in fact, they deflate the energy of some people that might be moved towards some meaningful action in response to that valid frustration.

So fucking knock it off, please.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
522 points (98.0% liked)

politics

18080 readers
2585 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS