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.
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 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.)
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.
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.
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.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S1uc47j1Q4
[2] http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/hillary-clinton...
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
[4] http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-email-shows-clinton...
Grabbing by the genitals, yeah I think that covers it. Personal definitions of lewdness aside, you don't get to change the laws.
Which is what you assumed. Groupies exist for a reason - they want to get with the target of their admiration.
What would the right response of the paper be to a demagogue?
In retrospect, fake news might have been the most effective thing. But they're part of the establishment so they won't allow themselves to do that.
If that's true, why did the New York Times just apologize for their abysmal coverage of this election cycle?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reader...
MSNBC laying into the NYT after the election for not accepting reality & criticizing people who said Trump even had the slightest chance at winning.
Basically, I do trust that what they write is true, but I don't trust them to always write it...
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".