> Striking during election week is kind of a crappy move to pull.
That’s leverage. Striking during a time when the business doesn’t care is a dumb move.
That’s leverage. Striking during a time when the business doesn’t care is a dumb move.
The NYT kind of brings this kind of heat on itself because it has shifted from being just the paper of record over to an institution to the current definition of progressivism. You can only really do this union kinda stuff against self-important institutions. Which developer is ever going to attempt this on Accenture? They are straight up and honest about their business, which is they are trying to rake profits from connecting developers with companies - whatever it takes, whoever, from wherever, at whatever price is profitable.
The Times adorned itself as something more than a business, a special kind of business, a business that fights for something. So there you go, live up to it I guess.
Here is some of the content that the NYTimes focuses on:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/21/opinion/starbucks-union-s...
It's a fairly pro-business paper, certainly not very critical of Israel, and you appear to have completely missed all of its somewhat trans-skeptical reporting and opinion. (The latter pervasive enough to rankle many of its own employees about the tone and tenor of NYT coverage of trans issues.)
Does NYT not have a reputation or am I truly out of touch here? I went through some of their podcasts recently and it's all quite one-sided, for example.
(NPR was even more disappointing because they positioned themselves as centrist; APM’s Marketplace was closer centrist that than NPR).
Yes, you are absolutely out of touch. drawkward gave you three incredibly specific examples but you just kept on sticking with your hunch.
A paper that is the "epitome of progressivism" probably isn't going to have multiple conservative opinion columnists heavily featured and isn't going to have recurring problems with fawning interviews of white supremacists over barbecue.
I suppose if you're any further than center-right, a paper that is narrowly center-left is going to appear to be the "epitome of progressivism", but many years of critique would probably suggest otherwise. politely, i don't think this would be something you'd get tripped up on if you'd paid attention for a few years longer than a singular skim of the podcasts recently.
Sorry, are we both talking about the New York Times in 2024 here? Not a day goes by that there isn’t an article crying about Palestinians and bashing Israel - there’s one right now, just scroll down to the section just above sports.
Calling it the preeminent progressive institution in America media today is axiomatic.
Any objective observer would call Israel's behavior abhorrent wrt Gaza. In fact, it seems like the majority of the planet is doing that, if the UN is representative.
...among certain not-unbiased segments of the population.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-at...
This comment will be deleted by moderators, though, just like every other comment which points this out. Yet no moderator has ever mentioned why they are doing that. It's factual and relevant to the discussion.
I don't consider myself a progressive for just this reason. I would be considered a TERF by the trans community, not because I think trans people don't exist or arent worth of love, employment, and respect, but rather because there are some hot issues (bathroom access, sports access, how to handle children permanently transitioning, replacing cisgendered terminology in medical textbooks) that I believe merit more study or nuanced approaches.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the question of who has the right to define what labels, and I think most progressives would not call you a progressive if you don't 100% accept trans rights. Of course, this demands lockstep ideological behavior, which is rarely a good thing for long. Could you be progressive on some issues and not others? Certainly! But which mix defines you as "progressive" or not is not up to me.
I had to look that up. I'm I out of touch with the times by not knowing such acronyms? I am standing here at the station minding my business and Overton Express is passing by at 60 mph. "TERF" seem to describe most progressives. But I think I lag the avant guard conscious by 10 years of something.
But anyhow, I would say NYT is very much not left nor progressive. Maybe on some tangential culture issues. It is a centre corporate newspaper.
So progressive!
+/- your buy-in on that image. Pete's Pizza Parlor also adorns itself - as being on a mission to serve up piping hot pizza pies.
This sounds like how American conservatives describe it rather than how most readers or actual progressives would - the latter having significant misgivings about how it covered Iraq, Occupy Wall Street, the 2016 election coverage of things like the email hacks and FBI investigations relative to their actual substance, the tone of their coverage and editorials about transgender issues, etc.
The best way I’ve found to describe the NYT is as representing the east coast establishment. The issues which earned them attacks as liberal were things like favorably covering gay rights, which affects those elites (even rich sons of influential families can be born gay so everyone knows someone who benefits from that), but they tend to be more conservative on things like workers rights or tax issues which don’t affect or may even threaten their affluent readers. Climate change affects everyone but their opinion pieces are going to be things like “buy an induction stove” or “vacation in Nepal before the snow melts and buy some carbon offsets” rather than “stop flying and eat less beef” because their target reader wants to do the former and not the latter.
I'll vote tomorrow. That's what I can do. All the rest of it is out of my hands and I'm not going to spend any of my time or mental energy engaging in the manufactured drama sure to come.
Like my barber said at my last haircut: the only sure thing about this election is that an idiot will be our next president.
It boggles my mind at how proud people are to refuse to draw a distinction between two completely different candidates. One has demonstrated competence and public service, while the other has demonstrated incompetence and chronic self-dealing.
Refusing to draw a distinction is moral cowardice.
I see we share the same strategy. My new policy is that I shut the news off once the polls open on election day and don't turn it back on until the following morning. Over the course of my life, I'll accrue enough saved hours to have achieved something minor, yet meaningful.