The Times is in denial that anyone considers it anything other than a mixture of Democratic party propaganda and clickbait legacy media. The stats are not looking good for them and dying industries always lash out reflexively and ineffectively at random opponents.
You speak as if this is only a problem for the New York Times.
How can a democracy function without an informed populace? If not the New York Times or some other existing "news" entity, what entity can possibly provide reliable information going forward?
Also, this isn't just about bias. Reporting with a bias can still be useful for informing people, as long as the information presented is accurate. Over time, outlets with varying bias can cover various sides of an issue, or various scandals, etc. from different perspectives, and as long as the information is accurate, over time most of the relevant facts should become known.
Not sure leaving it to the Macedonian teenagers will work out as well.
> How can a democracy function without an informed populace? If not the New York Times or some other existing "news" entity, what entity can possibly provide reliable information going forward?
The New York Times forfeited that position. If I wanted a Democratic Party propaganda rag, I could find one - I don't need the New York Times for that. If I wanted accurate information, I do need the New York Times, or someone like them - but they won't do it. They used to, but they won't any more.
The NYT? Really? I would agree if you were describing Huffington Post or various other left-wing rags, but the NYT is pretty far from a Democratic Propaganda paper.
I wouldn't call it propaganda, but as a foreigner it was amusing to read the NYT front page on election day. There was no attempt at neutrality whatsoever.
(The NYT has no obligation to be neutral and I'm not complaining about their editorial position. They have a right to take sides. It is still useful to keep their previous positions in mind when analyzing what they're saying now.)
12 Trump hit pieces in one day alone. More like establishment propaganda paper, I don't think they would have given Jeb Bush or Rubio such a hard time.
Would you have liked them balanced with 12 pro-Trump pieces or 12 anti-Hillary pieces? Sometimes things are true. Saying they're true isn't bias. It makes no sense to have "balance" when what that means is publishing a non-true thing in order to balance out the true thing you just said.
It's true that Donald Trump is lying, feckless fool. That doesn't need balancing. We can argue all day about why people voted for him, why they rejected the incumbent elite, why they wanted a change, and so on. But that doesn't really change the facts.
> It's true that Donald Trump is lying, feckless fool.
Lying? Sure. Feckless fool? Not a fact.
> But that doesn't really change the facts.
You mean, facts like Hillary arming radicals and destroying governments? Or facts like Clinton getting millions of dollars from major banks? Or facts like Clinton wiping email servers? There were floodlights on the liar, but a crook sneaked in behind them. Rampant editorializing drove people away from the media. People suspected a collusion between media houses and the Clinton campain. Wikileaks confirmed those suspicions. What do they do? CNN tell its viewers that it's illegal to read or download stuff from Wikileaks.
He's a feckless fool. Campaigns on deporting ALL illegal immigrants and building a wall. Says (on 60 minutes, this is not fake, he said it): he's only going to deport illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. This is exactly Obama's policy. He just won an election, and he's pushing the status-quo.
Again, on ACA repeal, he was VERY CLEAR in the debate: "repeal and replace Obamacare" (just not clear on "replace" with what). On 60 minutes, he's walking that back and talking about the parts he'll keep.
Trump is feckless. And a fool.
And Hillary may have armed radicals, but you look at photos of McCain shaking their hands. This policy will not change under a Trump administration, I guarantee it. Because he will do whatever this Republican congress wants. This is also true for Trade deals.
Just like Hillary, then [1][2]. She changed her tune this campaign season. Why exactly? I don't know. But the only explanation I can come up with is "my opponent's policies are bad"[3]. Most politicians do that when dealing with the opposite party, but Hillary seems to be unique in doing that against her own partymen, be it Obama (earlier) or Sanders now.
> ACA repeal
Just like Hillary, then[4]. However, Clinton had a different endgame in mind.
> Trump is feckless.
This, I cannot deny. Would you say the same of Hillary?
> And a fool.
That remains an opinion. Would you say the same of Hillary?
> you look at photos of McCain shaking their hands
... and I wonder how many of those people were hand-picked for the task by puppets the Americans put in place.
Anyway, this is precisely why I'm laughing so much about Trump's victory.
How, I wonder, do you report on a candidate, who we have a recording bragging about sexual assault, and avoid a "hit piece"? To make a derogatory article attacking trump literally all you have to do is quote what he's said on the record; No editorializing necessary.
Even labeling lewd sexualised comments ("locker talk") as "bragging about sexual assault" is bias. People have different ways of communicating that not everyone might agree with, but what you're doing is trivialising the victims of actual sexual assault.
I refer you to the department of justice's definition of sexual assault [0].
"Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient."
Grabbing by the genitals, yeah I think that covers it. Personal definitions of lewdness aside, you don't get to change the laws.
I agree they probably wouldn't have been as critical of Bush or Rubio, because it's unlikely that either of those two would have provided them with anywhere near as much material to be critical of.
NYT is not a great paper, it's not the worst, but it has issues. It has been demonstrated in the past that they change or skip coverage of important stories in order to maintain access. Often when they do have important stories they get buried in the paper while the front page exposes something significantly less meaningful.
Basically, I do trust that what they write is true, but I don't trust them to always write it...
I am tired of seeing this argument over and over with no alternative news source presented. The New York Times is a whole lot more accurate than various extremist sites, your Twitter feed, Facebook or the frontpage of Reddit. With the NYT, at least there is somebody to accuse of bias.
Social media people are happy to peddle outright lies one day, never follow up when they are proved wrong, and get on their high horses about "mainstream media".
