Did you read the story, where they dug pretty deep into a factual story where it seems at least a little likely that the NYT is reporting poll numbers that simply don’t exist the way they say they do, in order to bash Biden?
Kissing ass or friendly or not friendly has literally nothing to do with it. You might have made up a story in your mind that Salon wrote, and reacted on the basis of that imagined situation, but that wasn’t this Salon story. “The facts the New York Times are reporting should be true, but they seem like they’re not, and that along with the specific political direction in which they are not, is important news” is the story they wrote.
Usually NYT can be found with their lips on the metaphorical ring of the neoliberal western order, so if they’re not full-throated in support of one of its champions, that’s a little interesting but not very.
Usually NYT can be found with their lips on the metaphorical ring of the neoliberal western order, so if they’re not full-throated in support of one of its champions, that’s a little interesting but not very.
Personally my belief is that “is this true or not?” is way, way more important than “does this line up with my ideology or not?”
I’m comfortable reading stuff from all kinds of viewpoints, neoliberal communist whatever, as long as the facts that are underpinning it are relatively close to reality. That obviously excludes some stuff, but reading what remains is actually a pretty good way to understand the world.
Did you read the story, where they dug pretty deep into a factual story where it seems at least a little likely that the NYT is reporting poll numbers that simply don’t exist the way they say they do, in order to bash Biden?
Kissing ass or friendly or not friendly has literally nothing to do with it. You might have made up a story in your mind that Salon wrote, and reacted on the basis of that imagined situation, but that wasn’t this Salon story. “The facts the New York Times are reporting should be true, but they seem like they’re not, and that along with the specific political direction in which they are not, is important news” is the story they wrote.
I skimmed it. I don’t need convincing that NYT are lying hacks. It’s pretty small potatoes imo compared to their usual shenanigans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies
I thought by the headline they were talking about this https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/
Usually NYT can be found with their lips on the metaphorical ring of the neoliberal western order, so if they’re not full-throated in support of one of its champions, that’s a little interesting but not very.
Personally my belief is that “is this true or not?” is way, way more important than “does this line up with my ideology or not?”
I’m comfortable reading stuff from all kinds of viewpoints, neoliberal communist whatever, as long as the facts that are underpinning it are relatively close to reality. That obviously excludes some stuff, but reading what remains is actually a pretty good way to understand the world.