I was asking for examples of article content that slept with Trump. Plus Biden deserved to step down IMO; he torpedoed himself with that debate performance.
Searching it up, there’s one specific incident where NYT did cover Trump’s performance at an Economic Club involving an incoherent tirade very badly, but I believe that is more than canceled out with articles such as the Oct 6 frontpage “Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age” and “If You Think Biden and Harris Were Weak on the Border, Think Again”, the NYT’s attempt at a late October surprise. Other than that, the only concerns I found were about headlines, which never were that good (though NYT usually had the more representative headlines, I’ll admit), I never trusted and Wikipedia never trusted, a prohibition on citing which alone formalized in 2020: “Headlines are written to grab readers’ attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context […] They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.”
I don’t understand what you mean. Even the blurb all but spells it out here, not to mention I remember the image caption saying “forced relocation” and scholars calling it an ethnic cleansing.
Do you have the impression that I’m denying that the headlines are problematic? If so, please re-read my reply on the 13th, specifically the part on headlines never being much good. Look at “Father Slays New York Girl, 14, in TikTok ‘Honor Killing’” (a real headline) and tell me if NYT has any reason to sanewash a murder by e.g. using the word “slay” instead of “slaughter” or “kill”. This is an institutional problem unrelated to the quality of their journalism and a problem of management, advertising, and their perceived “palatability” in using copy writers for headlines, none of which perceptibly affects the quality of their actual articles.
What’s the clear propagandal purpose of “Father Slays New York Girl, 14, in TikTok ‘Honor Killing”? How has this impacted the content quality of their articles; that is, non-opinion news and opinions from the editorial board?
I looked back through your history and while it’s fairly liberal, which admittedly I thought acting as a white knight for NYTimes was a weird hill to die on, I realized the majority of your recent posts are from the NYTimes. It explains how you continue to act naive in the face of the obvious shift in the NYTimes’ promotion of Trump and fascism. I’ve read their articles for nearly 24 years and to me it’s clear as day they have been co-opted into this government’s fascist stance and are no longer the bastion of free speech and free thought they used to be.
This is really for everyone else to see: You have some bias or particular affiliation with the NYTimes and shouldn’t be taken seriously in your defense of this shell of corporation it once was.
Because a tremendous amount of their coverage sanewashed his most egregious transgressions, all while torpedoing Biden.
I was asking for examples of article content that slept with Trump. Plus Biden deserved to step down IMO; he torpedoed himself with that debate performance.
Searching it up, there’s one specific incident where NYT did cover Trump’s performance at an Economic Club involving an incoherent tirade very badly, but I believe that is more than canceled out with articles such as the Oct 6 frontpage “Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age” and “If You Think Biden and Harris Were Weak on the Border, Think Again”, the NYT’s attempt at a late October surprise. Other than that, the only concerns I found were about headlines, which never were that good (though NYT usually had the more representative headlines, I’ll admit), I never trusted and Wikipedia never trusted, a prohibition on citing which alone formalized in 2020: “Headlines are written to grab readers’ attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context […] They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.”
Keep fooling yourself.
I don’t understand what you mean. Even the blurb all but spells it out here, not to mention I remember the image caption saying “forced relocation” and scholars calling it an ethnic cleansing.
Do you have the impression that I’m denying that the headlines are problematic? If so, please re-read my reply on the 13th, specifically the part on headlines never being much good. Look at “Father Slays New York Girl, 14, in TikTok ‘Honor Killing’” (a real headline) and tell me if NYT has any reason to sanewash a murder by e.g. using the word “slay” instead of “slaughter” or “kill”. This is an institutional problem unrelated to the quality of their journalism and a problem of management, advertising, and their perceived “palatability” in using copy writers for headlines, none of which perceptibly affects the quality of their actual articles.
You act like it’s institutional bias, when it’s clearly propaganda.
What’s the clear propagandal purpose of “Father Slays New York Girl, 14, in TikTok ‘Honor Killing”? How has this impacted the content quality of their articles; that is, non-opinion news and opinions from the editorial board?
I looked back through your history and while it’s fairly liberal, which admittedly I thought acting as a white knight for NYTimes was a weird hill to die on, I realized the majority of your recent posts are from the NYTimes. It explains how you continue to act naive in the face of the obvious shift in the NYTimes’ promotion of Trump and fascism. I’ve read their articles for nearly 24 years and to me it’s clear as day they have been co-opted into this government’s fascist stance and are no longer the bastion of free speech and free thought they used to be.
This is really for everyone else to see: You have some bias or particular affiliation with the NYTimes and shouldn’t be taken seriously in your defense of this shell of corporation it once was.