Glad more people are realizing this. It's harder to spot/acknowledge for people on the left since the biased coverage feeds into their worldview...in my opinion it's artificially solidified their confidence on how "correct" they feel they are about political topics.
The next step in this realization is nothing to do with one-sided reporting, it's the massive scale of what selectively gets ignored or hidden.
Maybe your opinion has more to do with how weird and dispatched from reality American politics has become and less with how the NYT wants to brainwash you, or whatever you think they're doing?
My sense is many (most?) of the commenters here are off-put by the latter category.
Edit: the reference to Krugman as significantly “left” just registered, and I don’t think that’s what people are referring to —- or even that most of NYT’s new guard would consider Krugman to be a leftist
The NYT’s views on race relations are so far from normal Europeans that Macron called them an existential threat to France.
Huh?
There was recently an attempted insurrection based on fake news, you know.
I must say though that Fox News has gotten downright rational (on all things) since then. Politically biased, sure, but they're actually news lately.
If anything that’s all the more reason to be very mindful of the same effect occurring in other media publications.
It shows a strong assumption that while that commenter is able to see the difference between bias and misinformation, the left cannot. And I don't buy it.
Neither people who watch Fox News nor people who watch NBC News buy it hook line and sinker.
So considering there was an attempted coup, and that many people still believe the election was rigged and that trump will come back in power (arresting biden) in the beginning of March doesn't exactly speak well for the "especially on the left".
And it’s totally true when you’re countering the real charlatans of the right like Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz (to focus on American politics) But not a valid blanket statement whatsoever.
The implied reverse therefore would be that it's easier for people on the right to see bias in the media. Not that the right dont have bias.
Yeah, that's also what I read. And as evidence to the contrary I pointed out that some people had their world view changed so much that they tried to overthrow the government.
Which tells me that they didn't see the agenda they were being pushed.
Which contradicts the comment's point.
Note that in no way do I disagree that the left has a problem too.
As in, both sides are equally bad for similar but different reasons but we only hear about a singular event that some whack jobs on the far right pulled off. Compare to my local media as an example which buried the story about the violence around a "citizen" road block until a seven year old was murdered as her family tried to go past. Even then it was buried with stories of police violence or right wing threats.
No, those of us who lean to the right know the nut jobs and there that line begins but there where that line is for my left leaning friends is beyond me to understand.
Really?
I would invite you to foxnews.com. As an example for the last week the front page has been plasted with Cuomo.
And CHAZ? A complete disaster that was absolutely not a secret.
You say that the line is clear on the right, but I think it's just that it's clear to you. The fake news that the election was stolen is actually mainstream, on the right. Trump had some ordinary people injest bleach, you don't think many more believed the other lies?
Do you think most people on the left supported the 2020 summer riots? Or defund the police? Even polling of black people had a huge majority against that nonsense. Some do. But then some on the right think Biden's about to be arrested when trump returns with the military in two weeks.
My point is that "especially on the left" has no connection in reality. "Also on the left" does.
I've noticed that national news outlets in the US tend to be better when their preferred party is in power and worse when the opposition is in power. I suspect it's because in the latter case the news outlets slant all of their coverage towards negativity and discrediting the opposition.
I thought CNN was much more tolerable during the Obama administration, but watching them over the last few years has consistently left my frustrated. Meanwhile, the reverse has been true for Fox News. That said, I don't consume much from either outlet.
But yes, they were bananas under obama too.
The comment doesn't say anything about people on the right being immune to it (and I would suspect there's a similar effect there in reverse, for eg Fox News).
I don't see misbehavior on the right as a justification for lazy, manipulative groupthink by the NYT, or outright bullying. Especially when they are clearly capable of good reporting.
I'm not american but reading NYT during the elections, I was astonished by how much NYT was blaming Trump for everything, and never say anything positive about him. Now I treat newspapers as propaganda.
I actually stopped reading any news at all except bloomberg a month ago and can't be happier.
The guy was calling the whole thing a hoax, I don't know what credit he should get for anything.
Trump's base overwhelmingly believes it's a hoax. So is "left" wing media lying to me that he says it's a hoax, or is right wing media lying to all his supporters that it's a hoax?
I wonder who it is referring people to HN for this purpose.
I am currently struggling to come up with something about Trump that's not mostly negative. Maybe his honesty in the Woodward calls? That's stretching it a bit, and only highlights how dishonest he's been in public. His response to Covid and natural disasters? So bad it better be incompetence rather than malice. His refusal to clearly distance himself from hate groups? His refusal to pay his own lawyers? Trump University and all the other scams?
No, I'm lost, I might be missing something. Please explain what Trump did well that isn't considered morally questionable.
The topics I understand as being pushed by the left in the US just seem so centerist to me, based on the political landscape that I'm living in.
Single payer health care, minimum wage increases, increases in social support nets... So many topics I'd love to hear the argument against from any stand point that isn't pure capitalist greed.
Not saying that's a bad thing, but I think it would qualify as left-wing in most countries.
Agreed about social safety nets and most other policies. Sometimes it feels Americans don't realize how uniquely chaotic and inefficient their system is, compared to every other western country. The healthcare system in particular.
An increase in the minimum wage will help a little, but having affordable health care works help more.
Australia's minimum wage for people over 21 is over $15 USD for full time work, and over $19 USD for part time (you receive a 25% casual loading rate increase for part time work). [1] That comes out to about 70% of their GDP per capita (working 38 hours per week, 50 weeks a year). The US going to $15 an hour would only be 43% of GDP per capita. If the US paid its minimum wage workers according to our actual economic output per person, our minimum wage would be $24 an hour, to match Australia. I wouldn’t really call $15 an hour radical.
[1] https://blog.aigroup.com.au/australia-had-the-highest-minimu...
By 2025, and only for Federal workers. The small print in that promise that only came out after the election.
Moral/Immoral?
Right/Wrong?
Fair/Unfair?
If we can agree on judging policies, platforms, ideologies and beliefs on a shared set of criteria, then we can move forward, otherwise we're just shouting at each-other.
You can tell me all day long that it's fair for me to get my stuff taken away without my consent by an entity because I got born within it's "borders"; but that won't make it fair for me within my moral framework, irrespective of how much I deplore the suffering of the poor and unfortunate and want to help them.
> in my opinion it's artificially solidified their confidence on how "correct" they feel they are about political topics.
I was wondering what topics these were.
It would be perfectly centrist for a couple states to enact the policies you mention, assuming they can work out the details and balance the books. When these policies turn into wild success stories, other states might follow.
It probably makes sense to start with some small-medium sized, well-governed blue states first, like when MA implemented Romneycare.
But the left position is to enact these polcies nationally across the US, which has >10x the number of people in your country. And there are a ton of details that nobody really even wants to talk about, and no plan to adapt when things don't work out. So, we are just supposed to trust Congress with a huge amount of extra money and a lot more power because the title of the bill sounds nice?
There are also a lot of policies that seem uniquely designed to punish the "right". I am pro-choice, but I recognize that a lot of people in the US are really, really not. But a lot of people on the left don't just want it legal, they want to use taxpayer money to pay for it. Think about how that makes tens of millions of evangelical Christians feel? There are enough pro-choice organziations that they can pool money from pro-choice people to subsidize abortions. The taxpayer money isn't needed. Why force it?
But abortion funding is not the domain of the federal government and there is not much reason for it to be. There are plenty of private citizens who are pro choice and could fund abortion subsidies. It would probably be easier to do that than fight a political battle over it, which also costs money.
A government should govern the people that are actually here, not who you wish were here. Maybe in some places nobody minds abortion, but the US is not one of those places. So, we've got to respect those tens of millions of people at least enough to not spend their money on abortion.
If we should respect the views of tens of millions of people in one area, we should do it in another. If we think that life is sacred and we shouldn’t spend federal money to end it, let’s be consistent.
there are significant gaps in funding for these services, especially in underprivileged areas.
Would you support increasing WIC and other benefits for these children? Because if not, this policy decision would increase the number of people who grow up hungry.
The obvious answer is of course that health care is a public service and should not be reliant on charitable organizations, which would be absolutely ridiculous. (Yes reproductive care is health care, arguments made from personal feelings or believes are not a worthy retort against medical scientific consensus)