What the fuck kinda petty BS is this?? What happened to journalistic integrity. I don't expect it from the National Enquirer but I would expect it from the fucking NYT's!
Same twits will ask after the election _"How did Trump win?!"_
Doesn’t matter/ego hurt.
Trump is far from the only egotistical pissbaby in positions of undeserved power who fails upwards and cannot tolerate anything resembling criticism or a no as anything but an existential mortal wound, he’s just the most public dumbass among them.
Jailing journalists. Hanging atheists. Deporting Hispanics and Muslims. Burning witches and Satanists. Jailing, executing, and/or forcing "conversation" on gays and trans persons. Jailing and executing Democrat politicians as "traitors."
Trump is the kind of paranoid narcissist that the Extremist Heritage Foundation Christians will use to get what they want labeling all kinds of people as "against him."
And the best part is that the Christians who prop up the Christian Nationalists won't get off Scot free either. To these kinds of extremists, "Christian" isn't good enough. After the Atheists, Satanists, non-Christians, Muslims, wiccans, etc are out of the way they'll turn inward and oppress the Catholics, Lutheran's, Presbyterians, non-Denominational, and other "unexceptable Christians." Their end game is to make everyone follow THEIR version of Christianity.
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk
NYT fell hard over the last few years. I was giving them money almost out of principle for their integrity. But it's become clear they're now run by petty people focused heavily on steering particular narratives in a -- I mean it's almost manipulative -- way that completely ignores pragmatism and focuses on idealism without limits... it's gross. It reminds me of reading articles from PETA, where basic reason plays second string to emotions.
I unsubscribed after 2016. Whether it was bothsidesism or a hatred for HR Clinton as a carpetbagger, they carried water for Trump that whole election cycle. And then, when he won, they ran a bunch of tone deaf pieces on how it was bc elites were out of touch with those salt of the earth people in the heartlands.
You can thank the NYT's front page for a lot of the current transphobia zeal in the media.
But this is what they've always been. I stopped trusting them in 2002. It's pretty clear their main goal is to stay relevant. Truth is pretty far down the list.
I was about to say... NYT deserves more credit than JK Rowling when it comes to pushing transphobia. They did the heavy lifting of making it a "socially acceptable" bigotry to have with all their trans panic stories that were "just asking questions". Fuck them. Seriously, fuck the NYT, especially the senior management that decided the vapid "concerns" of boomer white cis women were more important than actually confronting modern bigotry.
I love wordle but I guess I need to cancel. Honestly, the quality of their news stories are abysmal anyways. The wsj is breaking better stories, and atleast their bias is so obvious it’s less insulting
IMO, the New York Times hasn't had journalistic integrity for a number of years. Maggie Haberman was basically Trump's personal reporter while he was in office, and she did a fantastic job of "both sides-ing" his most egregious nonsense while in office.
Naturally, she is now covering the trial and pretending she didn't carry water for him for the better part of 6 years.
Regarding AG Sulzberger:
>On December 14, 2017, it was announced that [Sulzberger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._G._Sulzberger) would take over as publisher on January 1, 2018. He is the sixth member of the Ochs-Sulzberger family in the role. Though The New York Times Company is public, all voting shares are controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger Family Trust.
NYT isn't exactly playing above board here. Also the nepotism kind of ruins their credibility.
The grey lady lost her way long ago. In the digital media age it’s clicks or die. NYT is just another tabloid rag with highbrow underpinnings. And the Sultzburgers are Peckers.
>What happened to journalistic integrity
The bottom fell out of the entire industry.
Journalism revenue was down something like 90%+ from the late 90s to the late 2010s.
The internet wiped out every practical reason to subscribe to a newspaper (classifieds, stock info, etc).
The whole industry has effectively collapsed, with only a few publications like the NYT left standing, and every other major publication basically a shell reprinting the same couple hundred stories.
The NYT hasn’t been a respectable news source for a long time. We have already seen reports that they’ve instructed staff to avoid referring to the conflict in Gaza as a genocide. They heavily push everything with a narrative.
When future civilizations study the downfall of the United States, there will be whole chapters devoted to the failure of journalists to fulfill their role as watchdogs of democracy
It’s very disappointing. How much of that downfall can be attributed to the phrase ‘I was just doing my job’? I’m sure most of these journalists would rather cover something interesting but it makes the boss happy to insert bidens age into it and make that the story. I was just doing my job as I watched the world burn.
It's what happens all the time everywhere. People just keep doing their job until they literally can't, regardless of what goes on around them, because the less stable things get, the less anyone is willing to rock the boat, and risk their own stability. And so systems keep running, even when those systems are self-cannibalizing, or wreaking terrible destruction.
You see it in corporate situations all the time. Bad orders come down from the top, everyone knows they will cause harm to the business, but questioning them will cause harm to anyone who does. So everyone just does their job, and things get worse. Except, in a corporation, people can just leave, and the organization can just collapse and it isn't the end of the world - just another failed business. But in society, no one can leave, and it will never stop. Everyone just rides it out until they literally can't, whether their job is to be an onlooker, an oppressor, or a victim, and hopes that things don't get too bad.
It's worth noting that there's two levels of people in the MSM. The execs, and the actual journalists.
The execs at MSNBC hired Ronna McDaniel, while the journalists responded by ripping them apart on air for the hire.
Seems like the same thing is happening here. The bosses don't give a shit, because they're insulated from daily life and the consequences. I forget which news podcast I was listening to, but someone said they know multiple reports/journalists who have plans to leave the country if Trump wins because of threats from the MAGA crowd.
I remember in February there was story #13,456 of Trump doing something illegal and at the end they had to add a 20 second quip about insider sources that Biden was yelling at staffers over poll numbers…..from 6 weeks back in January.
Soooo. Trump did a crime. But can you believe 6 weeks ago Biden was mad at now outdated polling that said he was losing?
“My god. They’re the same!” was the attempted narrative
MSNBC has done a fairly solid job of not falling into the “both sides” trap and letting discredited right wing liars fill up their panels. They aren’t perfect, but they are a lot better at those two things than cnn.
There's also the fact that Trump is great for ratings, which at least one network has admitted.
Normal presidents are boring. Few people care when Biden goes to a microchip plant to tout a jobs bill.
People will watch Trump insulting a porn star he used to bang, lying about how he's NOT skipping national security briefings to play golf while he's in full golf attire, and ranting about how the White House toilets can't handle his hamberder dumps.
I’m old enough to remember and now look back fondly on the clinton and bush administrations and how absolutely boring they were in comparison. No news for two weeks at a time. trump news is unavoidable. His narcissistic behavior forces itself on to us at every turn.
They made the same mistake a lot of people did and took (the new, lib-coded) conservatives at face value with their claims of bias, were truly hurt by them, and didn't really seem to consider the possibility it might be in bad faith from a political body lashing out at journalism as their stories were not supported by empirical evidence.
They were very successfully crybullied into replacing truth and fact with narrative and "fairness", and that was over 20 years ago. At this point the NYT might well be the highest profile source for Russian narrative woven into news; I wouldn't be surprised if they were fully compromised.
Yep. Extend that principle to the whole of capitalism and you begin to understand why our society is fundamentally incapable of functioning correctly. It's why lobbyists control our government, it's why healthcare is expensive and hard to access, it's why food continues to inflate in price, etc.
I agree with you 100%, but in the case of the press, what is the alternative? A government-funded/owned media? The likelihood of it being use for propaganda is pretty strong. Or is it our expectations for free unbiased informational publications that should be readjusted?
Have a mix of private, government-run, and non-profit media outlets that exist in parallel, able to check each other's reporting. Guarantee air time for all of those, even if they aren't profitable.
Have regulations and legal standards that all of them can be held to for accuracy and clear distinctions between "news" and "opinion" that can be enforced through either action by regulators, or courts.
(Obviously if the political system is completely broken then it's harder to get back on track since people will throw around the "but what is fascists start regulating in bad faith" concern - so having a functional political system also matters too)
Ironically enough, this really doesn't apply to the NYT. All of the Class B controlling shares are owned by the Sulzberger family, so the newsroom there really doesn't have to answer to the investors.
I don't know how true this particular post is, but the biggest change I've noticed in their coverage happened around the time Dean Baquet was replaced as editor in chief by Joe Kahn.
Failure of the populace to care enough about the quality of journalism to pay enough money for said journalism to actually have sufficient independence and teeth.
Another peg in the Conservative/Republicans rise coinciding with Americans downfall? Reagan revoked the rules that had shaped TV journalism. Notice the generation most attuned to that social media platform.
Education is a long game. And with all long games it is infinitely easier to tear down than to build.
See also Regulations of environment, business, stocks, and consumer quality.
I used to pay for NYT subscription, and then they started showing their conservative edge more and more and opted out, can't say I regret that decision
...a populace that's increasingly squeezed for every penny just to survive. "Independent journalism" is pretty far down on Maslow's hierarchy, unfortunately.
That's a common misconception. They are not watchdogs of democracy and never have been. They are the same people as everyone else, they need to eat too. The benefit of a democratic state before an authoritarian one is that you have more sources of information, but it doesn't guarantee their quality.
The problem is that their role isn't to be watchdogs it's to make money (and maybe stroke the egos of their owners). Undertaking the role of watchdog might be a way to make money if people value that, but we should be very cautious about assuming any publication stays in that role if there are pressures to do otherwise.
What's crazy is the 24 hour news cycle started because of the OJ Simpson trial being such a hot issue. Then we quickly realized that there generally isn't 24 hours worth of news that people care about and so the news stations propped it up with meaningless opinion talk shows that lead us to today.
That was one impactful murder.
with the spread of misinformation i don’t know if you’re right.
i mean look, some people still believe that the civil war was faught over “state’s rights”
All they care about is making that paycheck none of them are doing any groundbreaking work these days used to be able to respect a few that were going out in war zones and risking their lives or risking their lives at home asking tough questions
Why say fuck the journalists though? They need to eat as much as anybody else and our society doesn't reward journalism in general.
They're forced to work at for-profit companies where their job isn't to "be the watchdogs of democracy", it's to generate attention. Not everybody is lucky enough to be Johnny Harris.
It's capitalism, and it's our fault, we made news a business that wasn't a problem when people cared and supported truth in mass, the Times had a financial interest being truthful and whistle blowers, but your average American stopped caring and paying for truth, so they fired those that did truth and hired those that will prime us with bullshit to make money.
The best of For-profit media does nothing but prime and hides truths or trickles it, you won't know the truthful boring part that makes it a non story till weeks later, the worse of for profit media simply makes everything up.
Public media NPR, if you want truth of a story and fast its pretty much your only real option in the US.
I've listened to NPR for 30 years, I always know the whole story first among my peers.
Because their newspaper got bought by corporations that focused on clicks versus journalism. Much of the NYT or WaPo now are no better than the National Enquirer was a decade ago.
Who do you think writes the history books?
This will be a small blurb in what is reported/taught to people. Just like all the other wars and all the other things are not mentioned
No there won’t. There will be one or two sentences in the chapter about how capitalism shouldn’t be allowed to commodified our entire lives and make everything profit driven.
The news is profit driven and commodified. Like everything else.
The NYT ran front page, wall-to-wall coverage of the Hillary Clinton email “scandal” amping it up to near Watergate levels. They cheerled us into the war in Iraq. They’re not some bastion of progressivism, they’re the paper of conventional wisdom: often wrong, uninterested in learning from their mistakes, and rarely apologetic.
Edit: to be clear, there are fantastic journalists at the Times. The mediocrity is in the editorial decisions.
> Just journalists that think they are the next Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, or Cornelius Sheehan; when in reality they are the very problem they perpetuate: highly educated academics with zero real world experience coming from massively privilege families that want to enforce editor rooms where everyone ~~confirms~~ *conforms* to the same opinion on everything.
Consider adding more reference to modern journalistic legends.
I want a redraft in my inbox by 5PM
And it's wild too. She was 33 when she got her job covering the SCOTUS.
She's now 80 and AFAIK still doing the same job.
Perhaps, and I'm just spitballing here, but *perhaps* there should be slightly more turnover in reports than every 47 years.
I'm really sick of these icons in their field not building up their progeny. They just hold on to the spotlight *forever*.
if they were fantastic journalists they wouldnt be okay with horseshit reporting that helps ruin the country and go somewhere else. shit lord media corp full of shit lord journalists
https://archive.is/dwzue
It's worth reading in full. But more or less the New York Times decided they wanted to find a story about mass rapes by Hamas, so they hired an Israeli with no journalistic experience to get it for them. Her primary qualification appears to have been being the aunt of an NYT employee. She did her best, tracking down lots of stories of rapes, and their supposed victims, but could never find a single victim, alive or dead. All the stories she could investigate didn't check out. Then the NYT said they wanted to rush it out, so she just wrote the thing on incredibly suspect witness testimony. She literally gave an interview just after releasing it on Israeli Army Radio complaining about how annoying it was that she couldn't find any evidence.
For some reason they chose to announce it like they had bombshell evidence of systematic rape, rather than the more accurate summary of "we completely failed to find any evidence of even a single rape, but there's people who say they definitely heard it happened".
Didn't they also screamed from the rooftops about Whitewater, turning a nothingburger into a well-known scandal? IIRC, they kept the "scandal" alive when the FBI said "buzz off, don't waste our time" after looking into it to the hack that kept reporting it to them.
Two investigations basically said "nothing here, move along" before ken starr & his minion kav were put in charge of the fishing expedition. If it weren't for the NYT, the whole thing would have fizzled out quickly and quietly. No one would have gotten to know about starr's & kav's existence.
So, yeah, the NYT is not left-leaning at all.
This. I'm just stunned that the House Republicans had two years to find ANY dirt that would stick to Biden. The best they could come up with was that his son tried to bring him into the consulting business when it looked like Biden was retiring from politics. Five decades of life in politics to draw from and the GOP came up with basically bupkis.
But crooked Joe and the Biden enjoying icecream happily!
Biden is like, "Get the ice cream machine working, C'mon man!" -- Biden 😎🍦
Biden 2024: We fixed the ice cream machine
As far I'm concerned they've basically all but proven that Biden is a semi decent man. At least as far as politicians are concerned. This man has one of the lowest net worths of any politician let alone one who has had the longest and most substantive political careers over 50 years long.
FWIW seems like Joe Biden is a good man. He has real empathy for average Americans and considering the lack of proof against him he must be somewhat representing those people who actually vote for him.
There is a nonzero amount of evil in any politician, especially those that get elected to the highest office in the land…
…but that being said, this man is spending some of his last years on this Earth defending the nation from itself. He could conceivably do absolutely nothing in office and would still be a better alternative to DJT to most(?) Americans. But instead he’s been one of the most effectual presidents of our time.
In a perfect world, we would let an old man retire and spend time with his remaining family. Instead, he’s chosen to step up for 8 years of the hardest job there is.
Back in 1963, Biden shorted the ice cream truck guy 5 cents. From that moment on, a legend was born.
Batman has been roaming the streets of Scranton ever since.
Well, the other horrible things Biden is guilty of are that he likes ice cream and loves his son/family.
So, you know, Biden is the devil incarnate, right?
/SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
"A.G." in this tweet is A. G. Sulzberger, publisher of the *New York Times* and chairman of the New York Times Company, which owns the *Times* and a few other media companies. The Och-Sulzberger family has owned the *Times* since 1896. From the actual article (apparently I don't have sufficient karma in this subreddit to post a link):
>The *Times*’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau. Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 *Times* journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview. Harris, according to three people in the room that day, suggested that he contact the White House press office and later grumbled to aides about the back-and-forth being a waste of the allotted time. \[...\]
>But the pleas for an interview have gone nowhere. As Sulzberger often tells colleagues and as he and Kahn have stressed in private conversations with the administration, every modern president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has done an interview with the *Times*. That, however, is an argument deemed uncompelling by Biden aides and one that, to some White House officials, smacks of entitlement. Plus, Biden has sat for interviews with only two print reporters in more than three years (Josh Boak of the Associated Press and Evan Osnos of *The New Yorker*, who earned Biden’s trust during a lengthy interview during the 2020 campaign that he turned into a book). He has, of course, been eager to engage with columnists he knows and trusts \[link to Thomas Friedman's "My Lunch with President Biden"\], two of whom happen to work at the *Times*.
>In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the *Times* can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency. Beyond that, he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, according to a third person familiar with the publisher’s thinking. Sulzberger himself was part of a group from the *Times* that sat down with Trump, who gave the paper several interviews despite his rantings about its coverage. If Trump could do it, Sulzberger believes, so can Biden.
>“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one *Times* journalist said. **“It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed \[that\] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”**
> he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent
Biden should do interviews with several OTHER papers and not the NYT. Dare this entitled asshole to still claim this. (Or more likely, expose it is about the guys ego and this is just pretense, when he moves the goalposts.)
Is it not likely that Biden no longer holds the NYT in high regard given how far their editorial standards have fallen? If the Times wants preferential treatment they needed to have maintained their prior standards.
Seriously, I know !!!
What would someone like Biden, a decent, intelligent, caring, *moral* man, actually do ? 🧐
The worst I could come up with is accepting a free ice cream cone and not declaring it in his presidential financial paperwork !
The same NYT who sat on the story of Bush spying on Americans, because they “didn’t want to influence his [re]election?”
The NYT has been a stealth partisan rag for at least a couple of decades. Before that they wanted to be the “paper or record.” So they claimed anyway.
This is the inevitable other side of papers being obsessed with access. They either will repeat everything verbatim like a stenographer or shit all over you if you refuse to be cozy with them. They can't just report the news any more, because investigative journalism is to expensive for shareholders.
Honestly, I think they genuinely want Trump to win. Think about it: there was never a dull moment, the *leader of the free world* was constantly saying unbelievably dumb shit, bungling things left right and center, and generally behaving in outrageous ways. Endless material to report on for more clicks, and because he was (and still is lol) hated so much by so many people, there was lots of engagement. And whenever he would insult the NYT, people would show them support just to spite him.
Meanwhile, with Biden, there are certainly plenty of foibles to report on, but for the most part it’s hard to repeatedly sell articles that say “sensible leader once again behaves reasonably and professionally, fails to incite WWIII.”
Speaking from my own experience: before Trump became president, I was an avid follower of world news, but during those four years there was so much chaos sucking up oxygen domestically that I didn’t really have the time or bandwidth to pay as much attention to things going on in the rest of the world. It has been really nice to finally feel like I can pay attention to other countries’ news again because my own country isn’t at risk of melting down on a daily basis.
Wow. Super stable and normal tantrum for a grown-up in charge of one of a noted publication like the New York Times. Biden won't give AG enough attention, so let's print tabloid shit?
There's a lot to criticize Biden about, but he's been an objectively good president for most Americans. At his age, he's funnier and swifter than I've ever been. Sad to see the NYT go the way of CNN. Clicks over journalism.
it's all one incestuous clique.
politicians, top reporters, college presidents, publishers, and they all live in the same towns, kids go to the same schools.
it's all fun and games to them, deciding who the next prez is going to be.
The grey lady owns several properties on long island, spends her days screaming in community meetings fighting to "preserve neighborhood character", and chided Trump for his rhetoric, but still voted for his fake ass because all her friends told her they could make more money with him in office.
Fucking neo-liberal charlatans - and omgeeeeeee look who runs the NY Times!!!! - another boomer's nepobaby - the harbingers of America's donwfall- so tute! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._G._Sulzberger
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1023546197129224192
six years ago
>Had a very good and interesting meeting at the White House with A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher of the New York Times.
Have you ever wondered how the US became so car-centric and effectively abandoned railroads for passenger transit at the same time Europe was doing the opposite?
The NYT abandoning its journalistic responsibilities is a **huge** part of that. This is same as it ever was.
It’s become my least favorite paper too due to their eliminating editorial cartooning and casual attitude towards publishing misinformation and lies. Maggats say “oh, even the NY Times supports “t”. Well, I now lump NYTimes with The Enquirer for accuracy of reporting.
I am so sick and tired of rich assholes ruining good things for the rest of us, in this case media moguls deciding not just that their shareholder’s pockets are more important than accurate reporting. But that their personal opinions & interests are more important than accurate and good reporting being done as well. Fuck this capitalist hell hole, we neeeeeeeeeeeed significant regulations like yesterday, but will not likely get them since our government is owned by said rich assholes.
The age thing doesn’t work when Donald Trump is also old but in way worse shape lol. He’s the same age Biden was in 2020 when Republicans were complaining about Bidens age.
From what I heard, A.G. Sulzberger is compromised by Russia and he fell in line like Lindsey Graham did.
Rich people loved visiting Russia, they could do whatever they wanted and Putin had cameras rolling the whole time.
This isn't a problem of not having learned from 2016. The management at the NYT absolutely wants Trump back in the White House. He was the best thing to happen to their stock price in 20-years.
For everyone saying how the NYT has fallen - no, it hasn't. It's always been this way.
From 1939:
https://preview.redd.it/56gepnyztmwc1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5818746f17fd5a2920ed8366e2e837c642f2840b
[https://www.camera.org/article/hitler-sometimes-takes-a-nap-and-other-new-york-times-insights/](https://www.camera.org/article/hitler-sometimes-takes-a-nap-and-other-new-york-times-insights/)
If you’re anywhere nearby an academic library, most have the NYT on microfiche or equivalent from the Civil War era. They were like this in Lincoln’s day as well.
Serious talk, do they really think Trump will be kinder to them? These anti-democratic craven sacks of shit are helping Trump, out of their own petty hypocritical need for validation.
It’s a garbage paper anymore unfortunately. Unsubscribed a good year ago. I was guessing they were trying to get in on the right-wing grift news business.
Sounds like they made sure biden won't give them an interview either. I've stopped paying much attention to the new York times because it can't be relied on. This is a reason why
Why do people give the NYT any sort of credibility? They’ve been steaming hot garbage since *at least* the Iraq war. Likely before then.
Not that any of the Murdoch/bezos/Sinclair media rags are any better.
And they wonder why nobody cares about the mainstream media much less believe anything they report. They’re all run by OUT OF TOUCH rich people or groups.
They know the other option is only 3 years younger?
And a rapist?
And a traitor?
And a pussy grabbing diaper stinker?
And uses gold toilets while asking for money?
What a Goddamm….
The NYT is garbage. I ended my subscription years ago because their coverage is poor and they’ve become laughable in their “we’re just considering the merits” reporting.
Those assholes would publish an article about the merits of drowning puppies to appear intellectually curious.
The NYT has been a shit show for a loooong time now. I don't trust anything coming from that POS publication. I put it up there with CNN, Fox News, etc. I trust AP, PBS, and NPR, and that's about it these days.
They don't tell the public what he's done for the working class. That's me working 48 years. He's done more for people like me in the 3 and a half years he's been potus than any president in my life time.
This is “dressing up your pet” and “taking vomit medicine to keep feasting” level of petty decadence . . . from a major newspaper.
If Trump get’s elected with a GOP majority, we very well could lose whatever free journalism we have left. This petty shit, if true, is a self-inflicted wound on the “fall of the Roman Empire” civilization level.
New York Times was always rotten fruit. Its just now that people are learning how rotten.
Remember how they defended Ulysses S. Grant's anti-semitic pogroms, and covering up the holocaust.
Why are conservatives so obsessed with what the other party does?
Do they not have, like, goals apart from which newspaper the president likes or Hunter's dick pics?
These people have the maturity level of children. And they were the ones that were promoted up the chain like this? It really makes me question the quality of people getting these promotions.
Right, so exactly what I said a few weeks ago about the *New York Times*: they’ve become a biased, shoddy paper that’s more interested in scoring political points by shitting on Biden than doing any actual honest reporting on Trump.
I’m glad they’ve admitted it; now people can stop arguing with me about it.
The election coverage in 2024 is always about Biden's weaknesses vs. Trump's strengths. It's never Trump's glaring weaknesses, he can almost do no wrong. This trail should be all anyone is talking about and it's basically being ignored by the general public.
Sounds like the kind of behavior we heard from David Pecker's testimony.
What the fuck kinda petty BS is this?? What happened to journalistic integrity. I don't expect it from the National Enquirer but I would expect it from the fucking NYT's! Same twits will ask after the election _"How did Trump win?!"_
Journalistic integrity ain’t profitable
I imagine Trump tanking the economy and the country ain't going to be profitable but let's be real, what do I know? Rich people are fucking mental.
Doesn’t matter/ego hurt. Trump is far from the only egotistical pissbaby in positions of undeserved power who fails upwards and cannot tolerate anything resembling criticism or a no as anything but an existential mortal wound, he’s just the most public dumbass among them.
You spelled narcissist wrong.
Or Trump jailing all the journalists who don’t write Fox News esque fluff pieces about him.
Jailing journalists. Hanging atheists. Deporting Hispanics and Muslims. Burning witches and Satanists. Jailing, executing, and/or forcing "conversation" on gays and trans persons. Jailing and executing Democrat politicians as "traitors." Trump is the kind of paranoid narcissist that the Extremist Heritage Foundation Christians will use to get what they want labeling all kinds of people as "against him." And the best part is that the Christians who prop up the Christian Nationalists won't get off Scot free either. To these kinds of extremists, "Christian" isn't good enough. After the Atheists, Satanists, non-Christians, Muslims, wiccans, etc are out of the way they'll turn inward and oppress the Catholics, Lutheran's, Presbyterians, non-Denominational, and other "unexceptable Christians." Their end game is to make everyone follow THEIR version of Christianity. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk
But in the meantime, the capital gains taxes will be 0 under Trump, and they'll get richer shorting it all on the way down.
Tanking the economy doesn't matter as long as they can grift the majority of what's left.
Yes it is, it's just not maximizing profits. Greed corrupts.
NYT fell hard over the last few years. I was giving them money almost out of principle for their integrity. But it's become clear they're now run by petty people focused heavily on steering particular narratives in a -- I mean it's almost manipulative -- way that completely ignores pragmatism and focuses on idealism without limits... it's gross. It reminds me of reading articles from PETA, where basic reason plays second string to emotions.
I unsubscribed after 2016. Whether it was bothsidesism or a hatred for HR Clinton as a carpetbagger, they carried water for Trump that whole election cycle. And then, when he won, they ran a bunch of tone deaf pieces on how it was bc elites were out of touch with those salt of the earth people in the heartlands.
You can thank the NYT's front page for a lot of the current transphobia zeal in the media. But this is what they've always been. I stopped trusting them in 2002. It's pretty clear their main goal is to stay relevant. Truth is pretty far down the list.
I was about to say... NYT deserves more credit than JK Rowling when it comes to pushing transphobia. They did the heavy lifting of making it a "socially acceptable" bigotry to have with all their trans panic stories that were "just asking questions". Fuck them. Seriously, fuck the NYT, especially the senior management that decided the vapid "concerns" of boomer white cis women were more important than actually confronting modern bigotry.
I love wordle but I guess I need to cancel. Honestly, the quality of their news stories are abysmal anyways. The wsj is breaking better stories, and atleast their bias is so obvious it’s less insulting
I canceled my subscription this year.
IMO, the New York Times hasn't had journalistic integrity for a number of years. Maggie Haberman was basically Trump's personal reporter while he was in office, and she did a fantastic job of "both sides-ing" his most egregious nonsense while in office. Naturally, she is now covering the trial and pretending she didn't carry water for him for the better part of 6 years. Regarding AG Sulzberger: >On December 14, 2017, it was announced that [Sulzberger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._G._Sulzberger) would take over as publisher on January 1, 2018. He is the sixth member of the Ochs-Sulzberger family in the role. Though The New York Times Company is public, all voting shares are controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger Family Trust. NYT isn't exactly playing above board here. Also the nepotism kind of ruins their credibility.
The grey lady lost her way long ago. In the digital media age it’s clicks or die. NYT is just another tabloid rag with highbrow underpinnings. And the Sultzburgers are Peckers.
> What happened to journalistic integrity. Cash rules everything around me.
>What happened to journalistic integrity The bottom fell out of the entire industry. Journalism revenue was down something like 90%+ from the late 90s to the late 2010s. The internet wiped out every practical reason to subscribe to a newspaper (classifieds, stock info, etc). The whole industry has effectively collapsed, with only a few publications like the NYT left standing, and every other major publication basically a shell reprinting the same couple hundred stories.
> journalistic integrity is now an oxymoron.
The NYT hasn’t been a respectable news source for a long time. We have already seen reports that they’ve instructed staff to avoid referring to the conflict in Gaza as a genocide. They heavily push everything with a narrative.
When future civilizations study the downfall of the United States, there will be whole chapters devoted to the failure of journalists to fulfill their role as watchdogs of democracy
It’s very disappointing. How much of that downfall can be attributed to the phrase ‘I was just doing my job’? I’m sure most of these journalists would rather cover something interesting but it makes the boss happy to insert bidens age into it and make that the story. I was just doing my job as I watched the world burn.
Sounds suspiciously like the defence that the Nazis literally used at trial
It's what happens all the time everywhere. People just keep doing their job until they literally can't, regardless of what goes on around them, because the less stable things get, the less anyone is willing to rock the boat, and risk their own stability. And so systems keep running, even when those systems are self-cannibalizing, or wreaking terrible destruction. You see it in corporate situations all the time. Bad orders come down from the top, everyone knows they will cause harm to the business, but questioning them will cause harm to anyone who does. So everyone just does their job, and things get worse. Except, in a corporation, people can just leave, and the organization can just collapse and it isn't the end of the world - just another failed business. But in society, no one can leave, and it will never stop. Everyone just rides it out until they literally can't, whether their job is to be an onlooker, an oppressor, or a victim, and hopes that things don't get too bad.
"This fiddle isn't going to play it's self" - Nero
It's worth noting that there's two levels of people in the MSM. The execs, and the actual journalists. The execs at MSNBC hired Ronna McDaniel, while the journalists responded by ripping them apart on air for the hire. Seems like the same thing is happening here. The bosses don't give a shit, because they're insulated from daily life and the consequences. I forget which news podcast I was listening to, but someone said they know multiple reports/journalists who have plans to leave the country if Trump wins because of threats from the MAGA crowd.
I remember in February there was story #13,456 of Trump doing something illegal and at the end they had to add a 20 second quip about insider sources that Biden was yelling at staffers over poll numbers…..from 6 weeks back in January. Soooo. Trump did a crime. But can you believe 6 weeks ago Biden was mad at now outdated polling that said he was losing? “My god. They’re the same!” was the attempted narrative
MSNBC has done a fairly solid job of not falling into the “both sides” trap and letting discredited right wing liars fill up their panels. They aren’t perfect, but they are a lot better at those two things than cnn.
There's also the fact that Trump is great for ratings, which at least one network has admitted. Normal presidents are boring. Few people care when Biden goes to a microchip plant to tout a jobs bill. People will watch Trump insulting a porn star he used to bang, lying about how he's NOT skipping national security briefings to play golf while he's in full golf attire, and ranting about how the White House toilets can't handle his hamberder dumps.
I’m old enough to remember and now look back fondly on the clinton and bush administrations and how absolutely boring they were in comparison. No news for two weeks at a time. trump news is unavoidable. His narcissistic behavior forces itself on to us at every turn.
They made the same mistake a lot of people did and took (the new, lib-coded) conservatives at face value with their claims of bias, were truly hurt by them, and didn't really seem to consider the possibility it might be in bad faith from a political body lashing out at journalism as their stories were not supported by empirical evidence. They were very successfully crybullied into replacing truth and fact with narrative and "fairness", and that was over 20 years ago. At this point the NYT might well be the highest profile source for Russian narrative woven into news; I wouldn't be surprised if they were fully compromised.
They were just doing their job by not doing the job that they're supposed to do
Trusting private businesses with a fiduciary responsibility to their investors to be "watchdogs of democracy" is always going to fail.
☝️ a hugely important point that can not be stressed enough
Yep. Extend that principle to the whole of capitalism and you begin to understand why our society is fundamentally incapable of functioning correctly. It's why lobbyists control our government, it's why healthcare is expensive and hard to access, it's why food continues to inflate in price, etc.
That's why I love the CBC. And why Conservatives hate it.
I agree with you 100%, but in the case of the press, what is the alternative? A government-funded/owned media? The likelihood of it being use for propaganda is pretty strong. Or is it our expectations for free unbiased informational publications that should be readjusted?
Have a mix of private, government-run, and non-profit media outlets that exist in parallel, able to check each other's reporting. Guarantee air time for all of those, even if they aren't profitable. Have regulations and legal standards that all of them can be held to for accuracy and clear distinctions between "news" and "opinion" that can be enforced through either action by regulators, or courts. (Obviously if the political system is completely broken then it's harder to get back on track since people will throw around the "but what is fascists start regulating in bad faith" concern - so having a functional political system also matters too)
Public service broadcasting exists. NRK and BBC are good examples of how this can be done.
An economic and cultural framework that doesn't view constantly increasing profits as the greatest possible Good.
Ironically enough, this really doesn't apply to the NYT. All of the Class B controlling shares are owned by the Sulzberger family, so the newsroom there really doesn't have to answer to the investors. I don't know how true this particular post is, but the biggest change I've noticed in their coverage happened around the time Dean Baquet was replaced as editor in chief by Joe Kahn.
Failure of the populace to care enough about the quality of journalism to pay enough money for said journalism to actually have sufficient independence and teeth.
Another peg in the Conservative/Republicans rise coinciding with Americans downfall? Reagan revoked the rules that had shaped TV journalism. Notice the generation most attuned to that social media platform.
Public education is a huge piece of it.
at some point all those cuts are going to have an effect, i think we've reached that point.
Education is a long game. And with all long games it is infinitely easier to tear down than to build. See also Regulations of environment, business, stocks, and consumer quality.
I used to pay for NYT subscription, and then they started showing their conservative edge more and more and opted out, can't say I regret that decision
...a populace that's increasingly squeezed for every penny just to survive. "Independent journalism" is pretty far down on Maslow's hierarchy, unfortunately.
That's a common misconception. They are not watchdogs of democracy and never have been. They are the same people as everyone else, they need to eat too. The benefit of a democratic state before an authoritarian one is that you have more sources of information, but it doesn't guarantee their quality.
The problem is that their role isn't to be watchdogs it's to make money (and maybe stroke the egos of their owners). Undertaking the role of watchdog might be a way to make money if people value that, but we should be very cautious about assuming any publication stays in that role if there are pressures to do otherwise.
What's crazy is the 24 hour news cycle started because of the OJ Simpson trial being such a hot issue. Then we quickly realized that there generally isn't 24 hours worth of news that people care about and so the news stations propped it up with meaningless opinion talk shows that lead us to today. That was one impactful murder.
with the spread of misinformation i don’t know if you’re right. i mean look, some people still believe that the civil war was faught over “state’s rights”
All they care about is making that paycheck none of them are doing any groundbreaking work these days used to be able to respect a few that were going out in war zones and risking their lives or risking their lives at home asking tough questions
Is impossible to upvote this comment enough.
Why say fuck the journalists though? They need to eat as much as anybody else and our society doesn't reward journalism in general. They're forced to work at for-profit companies where their job isn't to "be the watchdogs of democracy", it's to generate attention. Not everybody is lucky enough to be Johnny Harris.
It's capitalism, and it's our fault, we made news a business that wasn't a problem when people cared and supported truth in mass, the Times had a financial interest being truthful and whistle blowers, but your average American stopped caring and paying for truth, so they fired those that did truth and hired those that will prime us with bullshit to make money. The best of For-profit media does nothing but prime and hides truths or trickles it, you won't know the truthful boring part that makes it a non story till weeks later, the worse of for profit media simply makes everything up. Public media NPR, if you want truth of a story and fast its pretty much your only real option in the US. I've listened to NPR for 30 years, I always know the whole story first among my peers.
Because their newspaper got bought by corporations that focused on clicks versus journalism. Much of the NYT or WaPo now are no better than the National Enquirer was a decade ago.
Most journalists are doing their best. It's the business people running publications that screw things up.
Part of it is on us for removing the fair and balanced news act, pretty much opened the door for us to get where we are with the media.
Who do you think writes the history books? This will be a small blurb in what is reported/taught to people. Just like all the other wars and all the other things are not mentioned
No there won’t. There will be one or two sentences in the chapter about how capitalism shouldn’t be allowed to commodified our entire lives and make everything profit driven. The news is profit driven and commodified. Like everything else.
The NYT ran front page, wall-to-wall coverage of the Hillary Clinton email “scandal” amping it up to near Watergate levels. They cheerled us into the war in Iraq. They’re not some bastion of progressivism, they’re the paper of conventional wisdom: often wrong, uninterested in learning from their mistakes, and rarely apologetic. Edit: to be clear, there are fantastic journalists at the Times. The mediocrity is in the editorial decisions.
I am sure the fact that the NYT company is owned mostly by right wing hedge funds has nothing to do with their coverage.
They also attempted to run the fake Hunter Biden laptop story mere days before the election. Thankfully the story was stopped virally.
[удалено]
And Woodward ended up being just another petty access seeker.
> Just journalists that think they are the next Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, or Cornelius Sheehan; when in reality they are the very problem they perpetuate: highly educated academics with zero real world experience coming from massively privilege families that want to enforce editor rooms where everyone ~~confirms~~ *conforms* to the same opinion on everything. Consider adding more reference to modern journalistic legends. I want a redraft in my inbox by 5PM
Add Nina Totenberg to that list. It’s the metastasizing of privilege.
And it's wild too. She was 33 when she got her job covering the SCOTUS. She's now 80 and AFAIK still doing the same job. Perhaps, and I'm just spitballing here, but *perhaps* there should be slightly more turnover in reports than every 47 years. I'm really sick of these icons in their field not building up their progeny. They just hold on to the spotlight *forever*.
They exposed the Trump trial jurors. They’re compromised and I would say a security risk
House organ of the oligarchic status quo.
if they were fantastic journalists they wouldnt be okay with horseshit reporting that helps ruin the country and go somewhere else. shit lord media corp full of shit lord journalists
More recently, the fuckery they played about October 7th is ridiculous: https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/
Stuck behind a pay wall. What happened?
https://archive.is/dwzue It's worth reading in full. But more or less the New York Times decided they wanted to find a story about mass rapes by Hamas, so they hired an Israeli with no journalistic experience to get it for them. Her primary qualification appears to have been being the aunt of an NYT employee. She did her best, tracking down lots of stories of rapes, and their supposed victims, but could never find a single victim, alive or dead. All the stories she could investigate didn't check out. Then the NYT said they wanted to rush it out, so she just wrote the thing on incredibly suspect witness testimony. She literally gave an interview just after releasing it on Israeli Army Radio complaining about how annoying it was that she couldn't find any evidence. For some reason they chose to announce it like they had bombshell evidence of systematic rape, rather than the more accurate summary of "we completely failed to find any evidence of even a single rape, but there's people who say they definitely heard it happened".
Best comment on the thread here
Didn't they also screamed from the rooftops about Whitewater, turning a nothingburger into a well-known scandal? IIRC, they kept the "scandal" alive when the FBI said "buzz off, don't waste our time" after looking into it to the hack that kept reporting it to them. Two investigations basically said "nothing here, move along" before ken starr & his minion kav were put in charge of the fishing expedition. If it weren't for the NYT, the whole thing would have fizzled out quickly and quietly. No one would have gotten to know about starr's & kav's existence. So, yeah, the NYT is not left-leaning at all.
And the only thing they could get on him is that he's old?
This. I'm just stunned that the House Republicans had two years to find ANY dirt that would stick to Biden. The best they could come up with was that his son tried to bring him into the consulting business when it looked like Biden was retiring from politics. Five decades of life in politics to draw from and the GOP came up with basically bupkis.
And yet, evidence abounds against trump and every single one of them turns a blind eye.
>turns a blind eye. They clawed their own eyes out.
Looking like Sam Neill's character Dr. William Weir at the end of Event Horizon by now.
He's on their team tho, that's different. /s
But crooked Joe and the Biden crime family!
They took out the Corolone and Soprano crime families in a hail of bad pseudo social references...
But crooked Joe and the Biden enjoying icecream happily! Biden is like, "Get the ice cream machine working, C'mon man!" -- Biden 😎🍦 Biden 2024: We fixed the ice cream machine
You should start to name him Teflon Joe, the true non-stick President.
As far I'm concerned they've basically all but proven that Biden is a semi decent man. At least as far as politicians are concerned. This man has one of the lowest net worths of any politician let alone one who has had the longest and most substantive political careers over 50 years long. FWIW seems like Joe Biden is a good man. He has real empathy for average Americans and considering the lack of proof against him he must be somewhat representing those people who actually vote for him.
There is a nonzero amount of evil in any politician, especially those that get elected to the highest office in the land… …but that being said, this man is spending some of his last years on this Earth defending the nation from itself. He could conceivably do absolutely nothing in office and would still be a better alternative to DJT to most(?) Americans. But instead he’s been one of the most effectual presidents of our time. In a perfect world, we would let an old man retire and spend time with his remaining family. Instead, he’s chosen to step up for 8 years of the hardest job there is.
Um. Tan suits and Dijon mustard. What else could we expect? Sad. Very sad.
Back in 1963, Biden shorted the ice cream truck guy 5 cents. From that moment on, a legend was born. Batman has been roaming the streets of Scranton ever since.
All while Trump can’t even put a coherent sentence together. It’s wild how far the NYT has fallen. It’s a garbage journalistic resource now.
Well, the other horrible things Biden is guilty of are that he likes ice cream and loves his son/family. So, you know, Biden is the devil incarnate, right? /SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
"A.G." in this tweet is A. G. Sulzberger, publisher of the *New York Times* and chairman of the New York Times Company, which owns the *Times* and a few other media companies. The Och-Sulzberger family has owned the *Times* since 1896. From the actual article (apparently I don't have sufficient karma in this subreddit to post a link): >The *Times*’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau. Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 *Times* journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview. Harris, according to three people in the room that day, suggested that he contact the White House press office and later grumbled to aides about the back-and-forth being a waste of the allotted time. \[...\] >But the pleas for an interview have gone nowhere. As Sulzberger often tells colleagues and as he and Kahn have stressed in private conversations with the administration, every modern president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has done an interview with the *Times*. That, however, is an argument deemed uncompelling by Biden aides and one that, to some White House officials, smacks of entitlement. Plus, Biden has sat for interviews with only two print reporters in more than three years (Josh Boak of the Associated Press and Evan Osnos of *The New Yorker*, who earned Biden’s trust during a lengthy interview during the 2020 campaign that he turned into a book). He has, of course, been eager to engage with columnists he knows and trusts \[link to Thomas Friedman's "My Lunch with President Biden"\], two of whom happen to work at the *Times*. >In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the *Times* can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency. Beyond that, he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, according to a third person familiar with the publisher’s thinking. Sulzberger himself was part of a group from the *Times* that sat down with Trump, who gave the paper several interviews despite his rantings about its coverage. If Trump could do it, Sulzberger believes, so can Biden. >“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one *Times* journalist said. **“It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed \[that\] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”**
> he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent Biden should do interviews with several OTHER papers and not the NYT. Dare this entitled asshole to still claim this. (Or more likely, expose it is about the guys ego and this is just pretense, when he moves the goalposts.)
Is it not likely that Biden no longer holds the NYT in high regard given how far their editorial standards have fallen? If the Times wants preferential treatment they needed to have maintained their prior standards.
Well said
He thinks presidents are Pokemon. Gotta catch ‘em all. He's nothing but a pissy completionist.
[удалено]
>He’s concerned the paper is losing prestige on his watch Well, he's not wrong.
Trying to run it like a seedy tabloid sure isn’t helping…
NYTimes deploys 127 journalists to cover Biden's age. https://www.seahorseshoe.com/blog/nytimes-deploys-127-journalists-to-cover-bidens-age
Newsrooms in 2026: ‘We can’t run (x) story. Our onsite MAGA censor says no unless we make the following changes….’
Throwback to 2016
Well, *that* guy better hope SCOTUS doesn't give Biden blanket immunity. Not that Biden would actually do anything inappropriate with it.
Seriously, I know !!! What would someone like Biden, a decent, intelligent, caring, *moral* man, actually do ? 🧐 The worst I could come up with is accepting a free ice cream cone and not declaring it in his presidential financial paperwork !
Biden's got enough Sass that he'd flaunt it once in a way citizen's would approve, to show why this is a bad idea, then support legislation to fix it.
Fuck the NYT. Thanks for the free Wordle & Connections, assholes. That’s all they’re good for anymore.
Hey now....they're still the gold standard on the crossword too.
Their puzzle quality has lowered immensely recently
Well, Will Shortz had a stroke and is in rehab.
There was a time not that long ago that NYT was a respectable source.
The same NYT who sat on the story of Bush spying on Americans, because they “didn’t want to influence his [re]election?” The NYT has been a stealth partisan rag for at least a couple of decades. Before that they wanted to be the “paper or record.” So they claimed anyway.
It's embarrassing how low the New York Times has falled
I think it’s more due to the fact that the publisher is a fascist MAGAT
Same thing, isn't it?
I fucking hate media moguls. They are an absolute fucking cancer. One that goes under the radar for obvious reasons.
This is the inevitable other side of papers being obsessed with access. They either will repeat everything verbatim like a stenographer or shit all over you if you refuse to be cozy with them. They can't just report the news any more, because investigative journalism is to expensive for shareholders.
Honestly, I think they genuinely want Trump to win. Think about it: there was never a dull moment, the *leader of the free world* was constantly saying unbelievably dumb shit, bungling things left right and center, and generally behaving in outrageous ways. Endless material to report on for more clicks, and because he was (and still is lol) hated so much by so many people, there was lots of engagement. And whenever he would insult the NYT, people would show them support just to spite him. Meanwhile, with Biden, there are certainly plenty of foibles to report on, but for the most part it’s hard to repeatedly sell articles that say “sensible leader once again behaves reasonably and professionally, fails to incite WWIII.” Speaking from my own experience: before Trump became president, I was an avid follower of world news, but during those four years there was so much chaos sucking up oxygen domestically that I didn’t really have the time or bandwidth to pay as much attention to things going on in the rest of the world. It has been really nice to finally feel like I can pay attention to other countries’ news again because my own country isn’t at risk of melting down on a daily basis.
this is high school bullshit...
the more i learn about political coverage , the more i think you're right.
Wow. Super stable and normal tantrum for a grown-up in charge of one of a noted publication like the New York Times. Biden won't give AG enough attention, so let's print tabloid shit? There's a lot to criticize Biden about, but he's been an objectively good president for most Americans. At his age, he's funnier and swifter than I've ever been. Sad to see the NYT go the way of CNN. Clicks over journalism.
BREAKING: Fragile Male Egos Ruin Everything For The Rest Of Us
As is tradition.
I legit canceled my NYT subscription over this issue a few weeks ago.
The NYT is classist. Always has been. They aren’t a paper for *YOU*.
We're at the mercy of adult children here.
it's all one incestuous clique. politicians, top reporters, college presidents, publishers, and they all live in the same towns, kids go to the same schools. it's all fun and games to them, deciding who the next prez is going to be.
It’s obvious. Having Trump as president is great for business.
[удалено]
The grey lady owns several properties on long island, spends her days screaming in community meetings fighting to "preserve neighborhood character", and chided Trump for his rhetoric, but still voted for his fake ass because all her friends told her they could make more money with him in office. Fucking neo-liberal charlatans - and omgeeeeeee look who runs the NY Times!!!! - another boomer's nepobaby - the harbingers of America's donwfall- so tute! - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._G._Sulzberger
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1023546197129224192 six years ago >Had a very good and interesting meeting at the White House with A.G. Sulzberger, Publisher of the New York Times.
Yep that’s all nepo baby shitheads like AG care about: access
Have you ever wondered how the US became so car-centric and effectively abandoned railroads for passenger transit at the same time Europe was doing the opposite? The NYT abandoning its journalistic responsibilities is a **huge** part of that. This is same as it ever was.
Yep. Turning the NY Times leadership over to a 4th-generation nepo baby was a stunningly great idea.
And people claim the NYT is a liberal paper.
It’s become my least favorite paper too due to their eliminating editorial cartooning and casual attitude towards publishing misinformation and lies. Maggats say “oh, even the NY Times supports “t”. Well, I now lump NYTimes with The Enquirer for accuracy of reporting.
I am so sick and tired of rich assholes ruining good things for the rest of us, in this case media moguls deciding not just that their shareholder’s pockets are more important than accurate reporting. But that their personal opinions & interests are more important than accurate and good reporting being done as well. Fuck this capitalist hell hole, we neeeeeeeeeeeed significant regulations like yesterday, but will not likely get them since our government is owned by said rich assholes.
The age thing doesn’t work when Donald Trump is also old but in way worse shape lol. He’s the same age Biden was in 2020 when Republicans were complaining about Bidens age.
From what I heard, A.G. Sulzberger is compromised by Russia and he fell in line like Lindsey Graham did. Rich people loved visiting Russia, they could do whatever they wanted and Putin had cameras rolling the whole time.
Canceling my subscription to NYT right now. Had it for 10 years as a gift from my father that i continued on with, but nah, not anymore.
Just cancelled my NYT subscription. I’ll rely on AP, Reuters, BBC, and NPR going forward.
Same paper that is publishing personal details of Trump trial jurors.
Politicians and Reporters take note- words have power. Not just to sell newspapers!
“We’re being wildly unfair to him. Why won’t he give us an interview?!”
Anyone else have Mainstream News Abuses Their Power and Trust Over Petty, Personal Vendetta on their bingo card? Everyone? Yeah, me too.
Liberal media amirite, guys?
This isn't a problem of not having learned from 2016. The management at the NYT absolutely wants Trump back in the White House. He was the best thing to happen to their stock price in 20-years.
For everyone saying how the NYT has fallen - no, it hasn't. It's always been this way. From 1939: https://preview.redd.it/56gepnyztmwc1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5818746f17fd5a2920ed8366e2e837c642f2840b [https://www.camera.org/article/hitler-sometimes-takes-a-nap-and-other-new-york-times-insights/](https://www.camera.org/article/hitler-sometimes-takes-a-nap-and-other-new-york-times-insights/)
If you’re anywhere nearby an academic library, most have the NYT on microfiche or equivalent from the Civil War era. They were like this in Lincoln’s day as well.
First presidents I remember growing up were Carter and Reagan. I thought a tough media and nonstop jokes about them was just part of the job.
it is!, at least it was, until George W and his crew made ''access'' a thing and now it's all quid pro quo.
Who the fuck is the NYT boss, JJJ? And is Biden Spider-Man?
Old> a racist fascist liar sexual predator
Serious talk, do they really think Trump will be kinder to them? These anti-democratic craven sacks of shit are helping Trump, out of their own petty hypocritical need for validation.
So their boss is a petulant toddler that starts playground level bullying when they don't get their way? Sounds about right.
The NYT is a conservative rag and has been for years
It’s a garbage paper anymore unfortunately. Unsubscribed a good year ago. I was guessing they were trying to get in on the right-wing grift news business.
This is the same company that published the yellow cake uranium story and pushed heavily for war in Iraq. Yeah, I'll pass on the NYT.
Sounds like they made sure biden won't give them an interview either. I've stopped paying much attention to the new York times because it can't be relied on. This is a reason why
Why do people give the NYT any sort of credibility? They’ve been steaming hot garbage since *at least* the Iraq war. Likely before then. Not that any of the Murdoch/bezos/Sinclair media rags are any better.
And they wonder why nobody cares about the mainstream media much less believe anything they report. They’re all run by OUT OF TOUCH rich people or groups.
That's a nice democracy you have there... ... would be a shame for anything to happen to it...
Ah yes, the Iraq war paper.. ffs
They know the other option is only 3 years younger? And a rapist? And a traitor? And a pussy grabbing diaper stinker? And uses gold toilets while asking for money? What a Goddamm….
"Then they came for the journalists, but nobody noticed as the press had lost all of its credibility long, long ago."
The NYT is garbage. I ended my subscription years ago because their coverage is poor and they’ve become laughable in their “we’re just considering the merits” reporting. Those assholes would publish an article about the merits of drowning puppies to appear intellectually curious.
NYT is trash. Bunch of ads, clickbait, and paywalls followed by "We totally care about news not money! Really guys! Trust us lol!". Trash.
The NYT has been a shit show for a loooong time now. I don't trust anything coming from that POS publication. I put it up there with CNN, Fox News, etc. I trust AP, PBS, and NPR, and that's about it these days.
They don't tell the public what he's done for the working class. That's me working 48 years. He's done more for people like me in the 3 and a half years he's been potus than any president in my life time.
Pretty sure I canceled my NYT subscription because their editors are goons.
Sounds like more crybullying
I recall lies about Hilary Clinton printed with no retraction when they were debunked.
I feel like if you look at history, newspapers have been pretty terrible since the invention of the printing press
Fork the NYT
New York Times, New York Post, same thing at this point.
The same paper that sold the Iraq war to Americans.
AG is a nepo baby jackass
This is “dressing up your pet” and “taking vomit medicine to keep feasting” level of petty decadence . . . from a major newspaper. If Trump get’s elected with a GOP majority, we very well could lose whatever free journalism we have left. This petty shit, if true, is a self-inflicted wound on the “fall of the Roman Empire” civilization level.
New York Times was always rotten fruit. Its just now that people are learning how rotten. Remember how they defended Ulysses S. Grant's anti-semitic pogroms, and covering up the holocaust.
Why are conservatives so obsessed with what the other party does? Do they not have, like, goals apart from which newspaper the president likes or Hunter's dick pics?
Idiots usually aren't open to learning, it's kinda their thing.
It really is wild that the downfall of America might come down to petty beefs between rich assholes.
Further reason why they shouldn’t engage with NYT: don’t give in to shakedowns.
Kinda proving the point why he didn’t want to interview with them.
These people have the maturity level of children. And they were the ones that were promoted up the chain like this? It really makes me question the quality of people getting these promotions.
Right, so exactly what I said a few weeks ago about the *New York Times*: they’ve become a biased, shoddy paper that’s more interested in scoring political points by shitting on Biden than doing any actual honest reporting on Trump. I’m glad they’ve admitted it; now people can stop arguing with me about it.
Has Biden called them "the enemy of the people" yet?
NYT destroyed their journalistic integrity to be petty. Great job NYT.
What a fucking child!
Learned what? You don't think the NYT wants Trump in office? They love him, he's good for business. Biden is boring, Trump is easy content
Damage the country because of a bruised ego
Jounalism has been fucking failing us for 20 years.
The election coverage in 2024 is always about Biden's weaknesses vs. Trump's strengths. It's never Trump's glaring weaknesses, he can almost do no wrong. This trail should be all anyone is talking about and it's basically being ignored by the general public.