this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
967 points (95.7% liked)
Just Post
1335 readers
21 users here now
Just post something ๐
Lemmy's general purpose discussion community with no specific topic.
Sitewide lemmy.world rules apply here.
Additionally, this is a no AI content community. We are here for human interaction, not AI slop! Posts or comments flagged as AI generated will be removed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Didn't the NYT mean something at one point?
It did but then Meredith Levien took control of the business and added a hard authoritarian edge to the paper which is showing in all the right wing religious nonsense it has been spewing of late.
It's fitting that the liberal paper of record supported every single war the US has been in, opposed MLK when he was marching, promoted the whole "crack babies pre-disposed to crime" horseshit in the 90s, but evolved to take the correct side that was bad, MLK was good (but civil rights is over, these new guys need to shut up), etc 5 years after it mattered.
Yeah
What's crazy is that everyone else didn't
I mean, they hired a Hitler sympathizer in the 1930s who praised Goebbels, so one could argue they have always been shitty. I'd say it's time to start telling people they (NYT) are shit and hope they lose money.
Pretty sure someone did a deep digging of info and every news outlet of consequence is at least headed by a gop donor.
Not equating correlation with causation here....let's just say "I'm just asking questions!"
Preface: I am hard-left neutralist. I believe in equality and fairness, but there are universal rights like housing, food, water, education, etc. Closest ideological icon I respect would be Howard Zinn. So...
NYT stands for something, but not what everyone thinks it does. Like NPR, it has a masked bias that is, on its face, disingenuous. NYT hauls the DNC and corporate interest lines. (tows the line, not "toes the line").
The latter, NPR, are ultra Liberal but espoused neutrality. Bullshit. NYT spouts liberal agenda but sows chaos in their supposed ranks.
Neither NPR or NYT are "ultra liberal," tf you talking about? They pretend to be liberal at times, but they're about as centrist--and more often than not, center-right--as you can get in the US without disenfranchising too many customers. NPR was a lot more objective back when they didn't rely so heavily on corporate sponsors/donors, but those days are long gone. That being said, NPR's actual news reporting is at least among the lesser tainted when it comes to bias compared to corporate news/media outlets. It's far from perfect, though.
Liberal with a capital L is not the same as left. I'm far to the left of both of them. Liberals, like Pelosi, Biden, Jeffries, Newsom, and their ilk, are Center-Right. Taken in the context of the world, they're more Right.
NYT backs their agendas. NPR has been their mouthpiece for a long time. Neither are balanced the way we'd like for them to be.
But, trying to explain this on the internet is like screaming into a void, so whatever.
"Sows"
What's with you and pigs, McMurray.
Sows, not sows, give yer balls a tug, fucking pailfed
Thanks. That was indeed an accident on my part. Good catch.
It is "toe the line", as in lining up, putting your toes on a literal line.
Which is why I clarified in parentheses the intent of my statement and the modification of the phrase. It was intentional. Thanks.