this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2024
212 points (87.9% liked)

politics

19168 readers
4028 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WoahWoah 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

You missed the part where news organizations are not a singular monolith but rather composed of numerous individuals that don't all feel/think the same way let alone hold the same opinions in an op-ed.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 4 months ago (3 children)

You're not wrong. It is however notable that the NYT's editorial stance on Biden's performance and place in the Democratic strategy was a monolith, and one that was misaligned with both the voters' opinions and the objective reality, up until a couple of days ago possibly in my opinion because word of some level of lost subscribers started reaching back up to the monolith's office.

[–] WoahWoah 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's all fine and well, but this is a contributing writer. She's not even an employee of the NYT.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That would only matter to the IRS. Or someone really really into the details of journalism. If you are one of those seven people, kudos.

[–] WoahWoah 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The NYT regularly publishes opinion columns from wildly different perspectives. Only a week ago Matthew Walter, who could arguably be described as a conservative Christian nationalist, wrote a contributing opinion column discouraging people from voting.

It doesn't "only matter to the IRS." Not understanding what an opinion column and a contributing writer are and how they function within a news organization is simply media illiteracy.

Kudos.

[–] homesweethomeMrL -1 points 4 months ago
[–] alilbee 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I really agree with both of you here. While there was an article or two posted with the opposite narrative, the NYT used their editorial discretion in a fairly flagrant way on this issue. It stood in stark contrast to other issues that they have gone out of their way to keep a neutral stance on as an overall paper (which I applaud). I'm not opposed to the newsroom, editorial team, or contributing writers having a stance unlike mine. I'm not the type to say "fuck all the media" all the time and think they're generally diverse groups of professionals trying their best and sometimes failing. The fact that the NYT op-ed page and front page were just plastered in a single perspective though, without an opposing narrative, was just really blatant on this issue.

I was one of those canceled subs. I canceled WaPo after their disastrous leadership developments too. I'm basically running on cables and international outlets now, which is a real shame because I like to read other perspectives presented well, which the op-ed teams at those agencies are capable of doing.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah. It's a shame. I feel like the vast majority of the staff in both places are competent professionals laboring away in a profession that's badly badly needed, and badly badly under attack, in this country, and it feels unfair to shit on their work product when as far as I can tell the bulk of the problems are coming down from above them and they probably dislike them a lot more intensely than I do.

At the same time, you can't just ignore it, if some organization is trying to support the fascist winning the election. Fuck the NYT until further notice is my feeling. WaPo has been writing a couple of weird as hell stories too (e.g. Trump is going to save NATO), but I still have my subscription to them.

[–] Ensign_Crab -2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, they must have lied and made us all remember Biden's perfect debate performance was actually awful.

[–] fishos 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Remind me again how many local news stations are owned by ClearChannel again? Do you not remember the video showing local morning broadcasts from around the country and them all being the exact same script repeated verbatim?

No, no we don't have a wide swath of sources. We have many disguised as independent, but the sad fact is, few are.

[–] Ensign_Crab 1 points 4 months ago

No, the New York Times has a personal vendetta against Biden for some reason Biden stans are never able to identify because they can't pretend the Times is Russian.