Hacker News Reader

Comment by eastbound | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

So let me get this straight - you want to go from a system where:

- the government hands out money to the media - the law says that they need to give it to everyone without political discrimination - if they try to withold funding, you can sue them and probably win

To a system where:

- if you have a ton of money, you can be a media outlet - if you don't have a ton of money, get fucked

I'm struggling to see how the latter is better for anyone other than rich people who want to influence the masses.

In theory your argument could be good, in practice the state is governed by the same horrible people that run corporations, and at least with corporations they topple over every 25 years.

So yes I’d prefer not to let leeches take my money by force to give it to media, worst of all to tell the things they said against whites during the last 4 years. I mean, the proof that they’re bad is exactly what you paid them to say recently.

Easiest way to spot an authorian is the complaining something is not democratic while also spending time promoting antidemocratic messages.

It is a cop out. I do not believe everyone who argue against some of my views are against everyone of them. I have no idea of what part of the far right pleases you, but the point about a democracy is that nothing is fixed everything ebbs and flows. This is something conservative people have a hard time with, and when the leftwings ebbs they have a hard time.

The media is not left wing. It might be more left than the far right, but it is also along way from the far left.

Just be honest about your ideas and intentions, do not blame others for your failures.

NYT does have a left leaning bias. Here's an example where a conservative person and a liberal person each did the same donation tax avoidance strategy, and the NYT said the conservative got "an enormous personal tax windfall", but the liberal got "no tax benefit". In reality they both got the same benefit. NYT describes the conservative person as greedy and the liberal person as selfless, for doing the same thing.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32847961

A few scattered examples of this does nothing to counterbalance the neoliberalism and outright cronyism of NYT. They are probably a big reason why you might even (wrongly) associate neoliberalism with leftist ideology.

Back in 2004 they withheld publishing the fact that the NSA had spliced themselves into every internet backbone. (RIP Qwest).

Back in 2002/2003, they drummed for war like all the good sycophants.

A few examples of them painting some of their toadies in a good light while trashing some of their enemies is hardly evidence of “leftism”.

If the NYT were even moderately leftist, they would have endorsed Bernie Sanders.

Your comment and others are great examples of how the NYT, as good journalism does, angers everyone. They've taken positions all over the spectrum. Look at their editorial page (though that does omit Trumpism, possibly because that is often based on falsehoods).

> If the NYT were even moderately leftist, they would have endorsed Bernie Sanders.

Only progressives think Sanders is 'moderately leftist'.

No, I will shower you with good old capitalist critiques. The market is not all powerful. Market failures exists because not every market is capable of self-regulation. Some market players can and do abuse their market power. State intervention so that journalists, policeman, waste managers, water distributors, electricity distributors, internet providers, health care providers, health insurance providers, food producers, etc. can do their job effectively, because they provide needs that are too sensitive to leave to private self-interests. That's why many of those are subsidized _and_ regulated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com