>What exactly is being pushed on the American people?'
what about that time the NYT pushed the iraq war
or that time they pushed hillary clinton
or that time they pushed (insert whatever their paid PR "article" of the second is pushing for)
what about that time the NYT pushed the iraq war
or that time they pushed hillary clinton
or that time they pushed (insert whatever their paid PR "article" of the second is pushing for)
They were also forwards about their editorial support for HRC, having declared her their candidate well before she became the presumptive DNC nominee. You might not like the fact that pro-HRC opinion pieces made their way to the top, but there's no ethical dilemma there either.
The point is, you can't argue why people should trust you rather than the opposition. You have to provide reasons for them to do so.
It would be like building an app that wasn't getting positive reception and then trying to argue or shame people into liking it rather than giving people what they want. It plain doesn't work.
People want to know what is going on. Tell them to the best of your ability. Don't couch it in spin, don't support sides, don't appear biased. That is how you establish a reputation of trust. It's not a matter of what is legal or ethical in this case at all.
You could argue that it's indicative of bias for the NYT to break such a story at all, but it's in the public interest to know the financial solvency of their leaders. At the risk of conflating news and opinion, there was no shortage of opinion pieces calling on HRC to release her speeches - also in the public interest.
It's difficult to ask the NYT to "establish a reputation of trust" when it already has one, deserved or not. Such a request, to the editors and ethicists of any media outlet, is just a nice way to ask for more favorable (or perhaps less damning) coverage of your candidate of choice.
With that in mind, let's go to the NYT front page:
Donald Trump’s Swamp Gets Murkier
A disturbing number of lobbyists and special interest players
are joining the transition team.
The interaction does not appear to violate federal laws or
ethics rules, three lawyers said, but it did create the appearance
that Mr. Trump and his partners are using his status as a way to
profit.
Cabinet Selection Turns Into Spectacle That’s Made for TV
"Donald Trump’s Swamp Gets Murkier" is an opinion piece.
"Cabinet Selection Turns Into Spectacle That’s Made for TV" is a silly title and a cheap shot, but cabinet pageantry is nothing new. The article itself has a message in the form of facts focused on (e.g., the fact that all of Trump's picks seem to be old white men), but doesn't seem to express an opinion in the way that the editorial board's piece does.
Does it have a bias? Yes. Is it abnormal, or even unusually biased? No.
It's about trust and human nature. Not nitpicking details to try to "prove" you are right. You will never win what you are trying to win like this. Ever.
But since you asked here is a sample:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-w...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-w...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donal... (the implication being of course that Trump is tied to racism).
Now lets oppose the outrage above with the treatment of Hillary's behavior.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/wh...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto...
Look guys... it's not an ideological thing here. But you can't behave like this and have people who support a different ideology take you seriously. That's a simple fact.
When this happens people will get their information from elsewhere.
Last I have to say about this. Think about it or not. But I don't intend to argue.
I'm not sure what you mean by "trust and human nature". These seem to be self-evident (read: mostly rhetorical), and not directly in conflict with what I've said.
I'm also not sure what details I've nitpicked. I pointed out a case that I thought you might consider a hit piece, and explained why dulling it down to just that has a chilling effect on journalism as a whole and operates against the public interest.
The articles you linked portray Trump in a negative light. Is the conclusion supposed to be that HRC must be portrayed in an equally negative light? It's odd to have to say this, seeing how I'm not a particular fan of hers, but the media cannot treat circumstances as equals when they are definitively not equal. There is no modern analog to what either candidate has in their closets, but to equivocate between them via this fact alone is, bluntly, bewildering.
I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and I hope you revisit this conversation (or perhaps the thoughts behind it) at a later point without immediately defaulting to a defense against "ideology".
i also remember how it was widely thought to be a bad idea at the time by millions of people, yet, somehow they managed to pick the wrong position.
... along with millions of other people.