Honest question: Is it now fair to call the NYT a right-wing rag?

[NewsCenter28]

To me, this is the final straw

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/10/business/media/elon-musk-politics-twitter.html

on top of it's over-top Clinton e-mail sensationalizing in 2016 and downplaying of Trump-Russia in that same cycle.

Not to mention Maggie Haberman being everywhere singing the praises of Trump, all the time.

Not to mention bankrolling Judith Miller as she pedaled Cheney's lies over WMDs.

I never would have thought it possible but that so-called "news analysis" piece this weekend pushed me over the edge to understand the (justified) anger that so many have had at the NYT for so long.

[ananda]

1. Good grief, it's been that way for years.

...

[rampartc]

2. the "weapons of mass destruction" should have erased any doubt

and their op ed page has been full of conservative crackpots and establishment apologists .

[Takket]

3. Its been right wing for years.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. It represents the interest of money, privilege, and capital as foundational to society

It is not a grass roots publication. Best thing to do is pay it no heed.

[Paladin]

5. Every garbage column by Ross Douthat confirms it. (nt)

[dembotoz]

6. if you consider the alternatives....no

it IS less awful and that is about a good as we can currently get

[Hortensis]

7. :) Far from. Occasional bias to benefit its interests, yes.

All sources have to be evaluated in the context of and comparison with each other.

In spite of its deficiencies, and occasionally outright corrupt coverage to influence such things as elections, it is still widely recognized among those who study these things as providing some of the finest and most valuable journalism on the planet. The information it provides on a very wide range of topics is not complete, no one source ever could be, but it is priceless.

Although I’ve read it for years, and daily watched it work systematically to defeat Hillary and the Democratic Party in 2016, this is not just my personal opinion. Honest experts in journalism who care about it study these things, and even issue reports, some of which we can read. We can test our own natural biases, assumptions and ignorance against the results of careful research.

Bottom line, though, anyone who watches MSNBC as a primary news source will end up with a poor and warped understanding of their world, and not so much better of the politics it specializes in. Someone who reads the New York Times will be far better informed and understanding of their world than most human beings. We have been studied also.

Btw, my own justified anger was not just against the Times. It takes only one to be a devastatingly, misinformed and irresponsible voter, and that one is not the New York Times or even one of the candidates whose campaign strategies were built on deceiving people about Democrats.

Our information sources is a good topic.

[Ron Green]

8. Their thirst for ad revenue from multimillion dollar real estate and expensive watches

pushes out any honest examination of what’s really going on and what really needs to happen.

[lark]

9. Yes, fair now and for many years past.

I unsubscribed in 2016, they had pissed me off with their right wing approval one too many times.

[Genki Hikari]

10. I wouldn't say that they're right wing, per se

They've always been the stenographers of the oligarchy, even back in the 70s, so, outside of a few token exceptions, they always peddle what the oligarchs want.

It's why they can seem sorta liberal about minor social issues, but when it comes to what makes the oligarchs richer, they are all over it like stink on horse manure, be it hating on the Clintons (now 30 years strong--and counting!), bashing Democrats for any transgression--real or perceived, ignoring r thug bad behavior, war cheerleading, or, well, take your pick of ridiculous nonsense they'll prop up if it makes an oligarch look good or get richer.

This is who they are and always have been, always will be.

They have never been a friend to liberals. EVER.

[Polybius]

11. No

They are a corporatist liberal newspaper. They endorse Democrats and their editorial is (at least it was) very anti-Republican.

[Mad_Machine76]

12. But they still peddle Republican/right-wing voices

and promote anti-Trans voices as well. It's not quite Fox News in general, but it's letting a lot of bad stuff in.

[Polybius]

13. So similar to CNN now?

They are like that as well, but still are anti-Trump and anti-MAGA.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

14. The NYT is an anti-democratic paper that helped elect TFG

I have no problem with calling the NYT a right-wing rag

Link to tweet

https://occupydemocrats.com/2022/02/12/opinion-the-ny-times-owes-hillary-clinton-an-apology/?fbclid=IwAR2uLFSStzdvuwChYw4meB88BOaD9h_l0EiBacCJpeYX-9l4XAKpbRuez-E

With everything the NY Times has done to Hillary Clinton, they could have at least published her recent comment, the one they themselves requested, in a story about the irresponsible and disgusting way the former president handled government documents.

But no, they refused.

This is the latest in a long list of atrocities the New York Times has done to Hillary Clinton and it proves that they are not the ‘liberal media,’ if such a thing ever existed in the first place. This is what she said:

“The 2-year frenzy over the emails was a political Rorschach test where everyone saw something different in what was ultimately nothing. Call it sexism, Republican depravity, ratings-hungry media, it’s time we acknowledge it was bullshit, and write that into the history books.” – Hillary Clinton

The New York Times is hot garbage and here’s why:
Back in 2016, their reporter Maggie Haberman amplified the Hillary Clinton conspiracy which Trump campaigned on. I and many other conservatives who supported Trump (including others like me who learned this was a mistake) did our best to get this to the masses to say ‘Hillary Clinton was an irresponsible leader and unfit to be President.’ At the time I was spreading this lie, I didn’t know it was a lie, and the fact that the Times writer amplified it, even more, made us believe we were right and this possibly persuaded undecided electoral voters to pick Trump. Little did I know that I would eventually learn that Hillary Clinton was exonerated of any wrongdoing, and I apologized for my part in spreading this lie.

After learning about how the email scandal was a conspiracy, you would think that the NY Times would get it together, right? Nope, things just got worse. We just found out in Maggie Haberman’s recently published book that Trump reportedly flushed unclassified government documents down the toilet. The destruction of government property is a crime, as well as illegally obtaining classified documents.

What’s truly disappointing is that we didn’t know this important information until over a year after the 2020 presidential election. We are talking about a story comparable to the single most damaging story of the 2016 election about a Democratic candidate, but when a Republican president does the same the Times ignores it, even with the same supposedly objective writer on the beat. Even worse, the buried story is a standalone moneymaking deal for the reporter who pushed the nothing-burger Clinton story. Trump’s reckless behavior proves him to be incompetent and criminal, and more is leaking out daily about his fight to keep the people’s records in his tiny, private hands.

Link to tweet

[Elessar Zappa]

15. It gives voice to too many right wingers but

I wouldn’t call it a right wing rag. Compare them to the New York Post and you’ll see the difference.

[BlueCheeseAgain]

16. No, not at all.

If you think the NYT is right-wing, who do you consider generally unbiased?