The problem as I see it is not that they have been critical of Biden, but that they are not ringing the alarm bells loudly enough over some of the batshit garbage Trump has been spewing recently. “Dictator on day one”, cutting off funding for schools that require vaccinations, etc.
It is reminiscent of the “both sides” criticism moderates get — in an effort to provide even coverage, they are functionally giving the crazy and the corrupt a free pass.
Thanks for someone finally saying it!!! . . Like WTF?! Same with CNN although integrity left there upon the invention of the internet.
TLDR they’re somehow not kissing Biden’s ass enough for Salon, no mention of leaks or fabricated stories
They are not reporting on important stories that make trump look bad. Things that would have been front page headlines 7 years ago. They want to stay in business under fascism and are showing the GOP they can toe the fascist line.
they can toe the fascist line.
Always have been https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/new-york-times-nazi-correspondent
Did you read the story, where they dug pretty deep into a factual story where it seems at least a little likely that the NYT is reporting poll numbers that simply don’t exist the way they say they do, in order to bash Biden?
Kissing ass or friendly or not friendly has literally nothing to do with it. You might have made up a story in your mind that Salon wrote, and reacted on the basis of that imagined situation, but that wasn’t this Salon story. “The facts the New York Times are reporting should be true, but they seem like they’re not, and that along with the specific political direction in which they are not, is important news” is the story they wrote.
I skimmed it. I don’t need convincing that NYT are lying hacks. It’s pretty small potatoes imo compared to their usual shenanigans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies
I thought by the headline they were talking about this https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/
Usually NYT can be found with their lips on the metaphorical ring of the neoliberal western order, so if they’re not full-throated in support of one of its champions, that’s a little interesting but not very.
Usually NYT can be found with their lips on the metaphorical ring of the neoliberal western order, so if they’re not full-throated in support of one of its champions, that’s a little interesting but not very.
Personally my belief is that “is this true or not?” is way, way more important than “does this line up with my ideology or not?”
I’m comfortable reading stuff from all kinds of viewpoints, neoliberal communist whatever, as long as the facts that are underpinning it are relatively close to reality. That obviously excludes some stuff, but reading what remains is actually a pretty good way to understand the world.
@mozz ICYMI, the New York Times got a new Publisher in 2018. I think this is the root cause.
Oooh
That actually makes a lot of sense and makes me sad. They’ve been doing other weird stuff, and if it’s all of a piece and more of the same victimization to business interests that has been slowly eviscerating all of American journalism… yeah, yeah, that makes sense. 😢
A favorite of poll skeptics is its sampling bias. How did the New York Times come up with a polling sample that included 36 percent rural voters when the 2020 proportion of rural voters was 19 percent? Somehow, the poll’s sample of female voters was equally skewed…
Uh-huh.
The poll found Trump winning the female vote by one percent, when Biden carried women in 2020 by 11 points.
And Salon uses this as one support to argue that NYT skewed the statistics. It’s a strange article. I find unnecessary weak arguments here and there.
“Err, I’d back up my opinion differently” was my reaction for the few minutes during the reading.
