NYT decided to go all in on left leaning, all anti Trump all the time, and even then some of their readers think they are carrying water for Trump.
It absolutely blows my mind that people can say something like "CNN is relatively unbiased", and yet nearly 100% of every (political) story follows the same pattern: In the last four years I don't remember a single CNN headline that was positive of Trump. Of course you can say that he's a complete screw up that never once in four years did a single positive thing, but if you're honest with yourself, you know that's not true. The same way that in the next four years they won't publish a single negative article about Biden, but that doesn't mean he's a saint that never once did anything that could be reported on negatively. That people can't see how insanely biased these sources are really blows my mind. The proof is there for you to see - how many months or years will it take before you see a single negative story about Biden?
They are only left-leaning in specific center-right ways?
Neoliberalism isn't a left ideology.
And yes exactly what you wrote in your second paragraph.
You can be pedantic all you want. But 90%+ of America’s won’t follow what you’re saying if you’re saying at best NYT is center right.
You also likely won’t be able to have the conversation without seeming smug (or insert other related adjectives) either. Likely hurting any discussion you have.
At which point, any pt of discussion is defeated.
Neoliberalism isn't a left view in America, either. While it's true that only since Trump it's been somewhat displaced by vague mix of kleptocracy and protectionism as the economic policy of the dominant faction of the Republican Party, it remains widely shared between both parties, there's nothing left, even in American terms, about neoliberalism.
> But 90% of people in America will have no clue what you mean when you say things like that.
If I rephrased neoliberalism as “corporate capitalism”, they'd understand it perfectly.
We can all agree that “Shining Path” Maoist rebels view the NYT as to the right of center...
"A print headline on Tuesday’s front page for an article about President Trump’s statement addressing last weekend’s mass shootings has added to a continuing debate over how news organizations cover his administration.
Times editors were concerned that the initial headline — “Trump Urges Unity vs. Racism” — did not contextualize Mr. Trump’s message on Monday and decided to change it for later editions to “Assailing Hate but Not Guns.”"
This strikes me as an open acknowledgement that negative spin is a hard requirement when reporting on Donald Trump at the New York Times.
[0]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/reader-center/trump-mass-...
It came out harder (to the point of abuse) on Trump because Trump is from NYC (big plus), major player in revitalization of Manhattan (big plus), big in pop media industry (umm, sort of plus) but was everything the UWS wasn’t (how dare that Republican Queens lowlife). If there ever was a use case for the word “intersectionality”, it would be the NYT view of Donald. And the NYT didn’t navigate those choppy seas well.