Disclaimer I worked at NYT but this is just unsubstantiated garbage. Say what you will about the company and journalism as a whole but you’d be hard pressed to find a better group of truth-seekers out there. waves hands at every other “news” outlet
The short of that story is this: Something happens. The mainstream media (including the Times) write about it in a way that is unflattering to the Venezuelan government (or whatever enemy du-jour is targetted). Weeks later, when it no longer matters, the Times prints a more accurate version, but still manages to be as uncomplimentary as possible. As the time itself said--two weeks later:
>"CÚCUTA, Colombia — The narrative seemed to fit Venezuela’s authoritarian rule: Security forces, on the order of President Nicolás Maduro, had torched a convoy of humanitarian aid as millions in his country were suffering from illness and hunger." (from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-...)
Independent South American journalists got it right. The UN tried to set the record straight about this aid convoy, the day after the event. But from the NYT, we got 'the narrative'. And that article that finally said Mr. Maduro didn't do it, came out two weeks later. By then the damage was done.
I've observed that same dynamic with other events as well, such as during the Bolivian coup attempt of 2019. The OAS manufactured a non-existent electoral crisis. No major US paper pushed back on that narrative, which was later shown to be an artifact of how the votes counting process--as the Bolivian government claimed all along, rather than any real crisis.
The Times simply can not be counted upon to give unbiased coverage in other situations either: Syria, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Russia, Ukraine, China, are all strongly biased with the official US narrative.
This is why I cannot subscribe to this paper. It is too often useless as a place where I can go to to get truth.
And then, where do you get information?
Toplevel OP, however, is saying some things that are more radical and less studious:
* "NYT aligns itself with power at every opportunity." Because the statement is totalizing it is trivially disproved. Off the top of my head-- see the "Pentagon Pundits" story by David Barstow[1]. It won a Pulitzer and was published while Bush was still president. It was also a front-page story IIRC.
* "never ran the story to protect GW's chances at reelection." IIRC Glenn Greenwald was the most vocal/detailed critic of Keller's cowardice on spiking the domestic surveillance story in the lead up to the 2004 election. But even he didn't claim Keller did in order to help GW win the election. OP made that up out of whole cloth.
I don't think HN comments like this are propaganda, but they are low-effort and apparently impulsively written.
At least nobody has yet used the pretentious terms "Gell-Mann Amnesia" or "Overton window" in this thread, so that's progress. :)
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_military_analyst_prog...
I wouldn't consider him a reputable source on anything.
The ratio of “college hate speech” to coverage of Israel’s targeted and mass war crimes has been unbelievable. I’d be deeply ashamed if I worked there.
(Putting aside that this apartheid has been going on for far longer, of course, without consistent coverage.)
https://inthesetimes.com/article/the-rise-of-professional-jo...
They had been Iraq hawks, they are Ukraine hawks now.
The NYT most closely matches Chomsky's media analysis of all outlets, and unlike other outlets the NYT hides it well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime
Relevant quote: "In politics, a regime (also spelled régime) is a system of government that determines access to public office, and the extent of power held by officials. The two broad categories of regimes are democratic and autocratic."
It is true that as a term it has accrued some negative connotations due to the frequent use of the all-encompassing "regime" to speak of governments where their exact denomination tends to fall on the autocratic side of things. From a journalistic point of view, it is better to use a neutral term than a charged one; which unfortunately as you've noticed yourself it can taint the term to readers who are not familiar with its exact scope.
But it is correct to call it Biden's regime, just like the current administration (perhaps a better term given its popularity in the US) is part of Trump's regime.
If that's what OP thinks, I'm not sure they actually know what a vaccine is.
https://css.seas.upenn.edu/new-york-times-a-case-study-in-in...
It's certainly not that they come up with outright lies. They have a ton of good people who work there. But there's something rotten higher up in the way they put their finger on the scales.
Biden’s age was a bigger factor because it was absolutely clear he was in rapid cognitive decline. No doubt it’s also happened to Trump at his age (as it does to everyone), but Biden essentially hid from any unscripted press the entirety of his Presidency.
Trump does the opposite. We can all judge his actual cognitive faculties because he’s constantly tweeting or in front of cameras. It’s pretty clear to anyone with a brain that most of the things the Biden administration did, Biden himself had very little to do with. Trump, again, is the opposite.
The NYT honestly should have been covering Biden’s decline more. It bordered on a coverup. The fact that people were surprised at his debate performance points to that.
That's what makes what they're doing kind of insidious. They're not making things up - Biden is indeed old. It's how they weight things and how much they push them.
There's a reason the "NYT Pitch Bot" account is so popular - it's poking fun at a real phenomenon.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-t...
Obviously the editorial page is not in favor of Trump.
The organization as a whole... IDK, I have a suspicion that they kind of view the chaos as good for business and exciting, rather than 'boring and dull' like Biden.
It's not a blatant bias, it's more subtle than that. It does not involve spreading falsehoods. More things like 'both sides!'.
The story of the cognitive decline was pushed aggressively by the Trump people because it’s good TV. Just like they neutralized Desantis with the weirdo campaign.
It’s pretty obvious that Trump is a turnip. I’ve heard him speak in person… the sound bites sound cogent on TV, but the dude is like a drunk monkey he can’t string sentences together. The reactionary policy isn’t out of Trump’s head, its from a little army of fascist attorneys.
Both are odious Presidents… it’s ridiculous that a country as large and powerful as the United States is led by 80 year olds.
The story of cognitive decline was pushed because it was true. That's why he basically did no press, and why he used a teleprompter during times no other president would: https://archive.is/C60uH
When he did speak without one, he regularly said stuff like "they don't want me to talk about that."
I don't disagree that they're both way too old. However, the Trump we have now seems to be basically the same Trump we had in 2016. He rambles about as much as he did then. He could quickly deteriorate though - we'll see.
If you look at old Trump interviews, from say 20 years ago, he has absolutely degraded, and not by a small amount.
Age never mattered with regards to Trump, but it was a meme with Biden even when he was VP. In terms of press coverage and popular perception it was never a race between two old guys, it was a race between "the old guy" and Trump.
In this discussion of the NY Times, they covered heavily and the Biden camp complained bitterly. Can you say when they started covering it?
This is besides the mountains of bullshit they pushed to promote the Iraq war - propaganda they have never, and will never fully admit to.
Pretty useless if those who need it the most can’t read it.
Telling 90% of the truth means telling the least important 90%.
The love of money corrupts all but the noblest of people's hearts.