It’s hard to stay informed so I still subscribe to the NYT as well as my local paper. But I have to take the time to check out online sources too. The foreign press helps also such as the BBC and The Guardian. And I watch Congress in action when I have time. Taking to the streets April 5th.
As long as I've been reading the NYT, a standing news angle is "Dems in Disarray." Whether we are winning or losing, the Times always insists we have something to be anxious about. So the "Democrats in Denial" opinion piece was inevitable -- mostly interesting but in one instance preposterous. According to the editorial staff, the first thing we need to do is "admit that their party mishandled Mr. Biden's age." Huh? How do we do that? Hold town halls talking about Joe's age? Take out full-page ads in the NYT and WSJ? Ask Joe to hold an apology tour? Besides, the NYT already went overboard on that issue. After a special counsel inappropriately trashed Biden's faculties in his final report, the NYT, WSJ and Wapo combined for 81 stories in two weeks on Biden's aging issue. I could find only one NYT story about Trump's unhinged behavior, written by Peter Baker, very late in the game. Former NYT editor-in-chief Dean Baquet famously said that the NYT was not part of the resistance to Donald Trump. Then it became part of the resistance to President Biden.
I dumped the NY Times after the 2016 election; the hiring of Bret Stephens was the last straw. My WaPo sub runs out in April. I've been subscribing to the Guardian, US and UK editions, for several years. Do people who refer to it as a "foreign" news outlet realize that its US edition is very good? Between the Guardian, several (too many!) Substacks, and assorted other sources of special interest, I'm pretty well informed.
While the stories certainly have soft-pedaled or outright disguised the issues created by this or Biden’s administration, I find the NYT’s headlines regularly don’t reflect what their authors wrote. Further, I am disgusted that few if not no legacy news organizations stood with the AP and walked out of the press briefing room much less continue to sit there with, as you describe, a liar spewing at them. Why not leave and choke that outlet? Why not ask simple questions deferentially when responding to outrageousness: 1) are you ignorant of the facts or are you being told to cover? 2) are you lying or ignorant or need more time to get accurate answers? 3) are you incorrigible? Their failure to act suggests the MSM and legacy journalists are waiting for someone else to take a stance so they can uphold the norm of reporting on it. Their fearful lack of taking a stance and depending upon “access” for their reporting is helping usher us down the authoritarian’s road.
The NYTimes has a bad habit of lacking objectivity about itself. You could have also mentioned their racist editorials about Jewish people fleeing Hitler as well. Or you could have talked about them coming to heel for Bush and failing to publish domestic spying they knew about. Back then we had the WaPo to do the job. But with Bezos blocking news there, it’s only the Times which thinks itself above the fray of American life. Their arrogance will be our undoing. Thank you for speaking out!
My local newspaper regularly reprints articles from the NY Times. What appears in the Times daily is reprinted in small papers all over the country. What the Times says matters.
This is spot on. Every time Biden or Harris would talk about the threats to democracy most of the media rolled their eyes and said “there they go again.” To write something as tone deaf as this op Ed—I only got through a few paragraphs—is so on par for the NYT.
And the commenters are just as bad. “We need Bernie!” “They need to stop focusing on identity politics and on protecting the social safety net.” FFS, Bernie lost. Give it a rest. And Bernie is the very one who started the whole rigged elections BS. Maybe if these people had picked their eyes up from the NYT and listened to what Kamala said, her message was all about protecting and strengthening SS, Medicare, and making housing affordable for everyone.
Dems spent months knocking on doors to talk about the issues that mattered with voters and to talk about what the Dems had to offer to make their lives better. Voters didn’t care! Yes prices were high—and their pain was magnified by every “price of eggs” story which made Biden look bad. For three years, every time good economic news was reported it was always conditioned by threats of recession. When a teenage checker at Target told me we were in a recession I wanted to throw up but I politely corrected her. Talk about trickle down messaging.
Everything you say here can be multiplied by a 1,000. It was the same message across the legacy media. And that message was one put forth by the GOP years ago that began with “limousine liberals” and has morphed into whatever the hell it is today—“Dems are Elites who only care about them, not you.” Dems did change in the 90s to match the mood of the nation, as dunderheaded as that was. But they have never stopped defending the Safety net or working to strengthen it. To say the opposite is just not true.
My one massive complaint about 2024 was they didn’t hit back hard enough (frankly at all) or quick enough.
Individual editors on the Times news desk write article headlines that in many ways contradict the import of the reporters' intent, leaving an erroneous impression amongst news consumers skimming over content. However, by and large your "neutrality" pejorative was true up to the tRump inauguration. Since then, NYT journalist-practitioners of "neutrality" such as Peter Baker, Haberman, et al have taken a bit more critical posture, and even the Editorial Board has weighed in with *relatively* strong condemnation of tRump excesses.
Ultimate test: Will they use the "f-word", and I don't mean "fuck".
Right, but appropriate to whom? And therein lies the rub, as the MSM shies away as one from even hinting at such a characterization of what is now the American analogue to AH elevated to Chancellor in 1933, and his immediate tear-down of Weimar constitutionalism and substituting institutionalization of NASDAP ideology.
I hope it dies the unnatural death it's so completely earned.
I lived in NY in the 1970's and depended on the NYT. When I left, I no longer read it daily. I bought an intro subscription in 2020 before the election -- and cancelled it before it went to full price. I bought a 2nd intro subscription in 2024 -- and cancelled it without bothering to finish the intro period.
It's a VERY faint echo of the great paper it was 50 years ago and isn't worth the cost of printing imo let alone paying enough to help support a "cast of thousands." [Exception for some columnists like Jamelle Bouie and Paul Krugman]
Thx for pointing out that whether most Trumpers read it is irrelevant to its influence. That's one of the things that bugged me most during both my "trial" subscriptions. The NYT still led as the preeminent US newspaper despite its increasingly obvious biases. I will never forgive Sulzberger or its main Editors for not raising alarms about fascism and Trump and for not praising all efforts by Biden and his administration to help the US get back on track after Trump 1.
As a Beatlemaniac, I followed the link to the Times review of Abbey Road, and it’s worse than Mark said: Reviewer Nik Cohn thinks Lennon, not McCartney, sings “Oh Darling.”
This is why I only occasionally read the Times any more, cancelled WAPO and get a lot of my news summaries from substack. They also had an op ed about how universities have been too woke, which as a university administrator and former professor I can agree with. But that's not really the problem with universities is it? Universities are always on the front of what's next, and when conservatives have not wanted to face what's coming, they increase their attacks on higher ed, science, and intellectuals. It's an old play book.
The NYT is as responsible for this FUBAR as any news org and it’s why I canceled my subscription two years ago.
It’s hard to stay informed so I still subscribe to the NYT as well as my local paper. But I have to take the time to check out online sources too. The foreign press helps also such as the BBC and The Guardian. And I watch Congress in action when I have time. Taking to the streets April 5th.
I am with you on April 5th, as are more than 3.5% of the people!
Glad I’m still able to protest. This Granny needs her Social Security check.
Fellow "Grantifa" member here, I'll be out on April 5, too.
4/5 here too in Eugene, OR
Good for you.
As long as I've been reading the NYT, a standing news angle is "Dems in Disarray." Whether we are winning or losing, the Times always insists we have something to be anxious about. So the "Democrats in Denial" opinion piece was inevitable -- mostly interesting but in one instance preposterous. According to the editorial staff, the first thing we need to do is "admit that their party mishandled Mr. Biden's age." Huh? How do we do that? Hold town halls talking about Joe's age? Take out full-page ads in the NYT and WSJ? Ask Joe to hold an apology tour? Besides, the NYT already went overboard on that issue. After a special counsel inappropriately trashed Biden's faculties in his final report, the NYT, WSJ and Wapo combined for 81 stories in two weeks on Biden's aging issue. I could find only one NYT story about Trump's unhinged behavior, written by Peter Baker, very late in the game. Former NYT editor-in-chief Dean Baquet famously said that the NYT was not part of the resistance to Donald Trump. Then it became part of the resistance to President Biden.
Another infuriating thing about the "Joe's age" pile-on in both WaPo and the NYT was how many of the "insider" quotes were anonymously sourced.
I dumped the NY Times after the 2016 election; the hiring of Bret Stephens was the last straw. My WaPo sub runs out in April. I've been subscribing to the Guardian, US and UK editions, for several years. Do people who refer to it as a "foreign" news outlet realize that its US edition is very good? Between the Guardian, several (too many!) Substacks, and assorted other sources of special interest, I'm pretty well informed.
Thank you for spelling out the Times' abrogation of its core responsibility of telling the truth with such clarity, Mark.
The paper's publishers may have buffed their bottom line, but the price this nation has paid is incalculable.
While the stories certainly have soft-pedaled or outright disguised the issues created by this or Biden’s administration, I find the NYT’s headlines regularly don’t reflect what their authors wrote. Further, I am disgusted that few if not no legacy news organizations stood with the AP and walked out of the press briefing room much less continue to sit there with, as you describe, a liar spewing at them. Why not leave and choke that outlet? Why not ask simple questions deferentially when responding to outrageousness: 1) are you ignorant of the facts or are you being told to cover? 2) are you lying or ignorant or need more time to get accurate answers? 3) are you incorrigible? Their failure to act suggests the MSM and legacy journalists are waiting for someone else to take a stance so they can uphold the norm of reporting on it. Their fearful lack of taking a stance and depending upon “access” for their reporting is helping usher us down the authoritarian’s road.
To my simplistic way of thinking, it's almost as if they are obeying in advance......
The NYTimes has a bad habit of lacking objectivity about itself. You could have also mentioned their racist editorials about Jewish people fleeing Hitler as well. Or you could have talked about them coming to heel for Bush and failing to publish domestic spying they knew about. Back then we had the WaPo to do the job. But with Bezos blocking news there, it’s only the Times which thinks itself above the fray of American life. Their arrogance will be our undoing. Thank you for speaking out!
My thoughts exactly Mark. So sad to see how far print journalism has fallen since the Watergate Era.
My local newspaper regularly reprints articles from the NY Times. What appears in the Times daily is reprinted in small papers all over the country. What the Times says matters.
This is spot on. Every time Biden or Harris would talk about the threats to democracy most of the media rolled their eyes and said “there they go again.” To write something as tone deaf as this op Ed—I only got through a few paragraphs—is so on par for the NYT.
And the commenters are just as bad. “We need Bernie!” “They need to stop focusing on identity politics and on protecting the social safety net.” FFS, Bernie lost. Give it a rest. And Bernie is the very one who started the whole rigged elections BS. Maybe if these people had picked their eyes up from the NYT and listened to what Kamala said, her message was all about protecting and strengthening SS, Medicare, and making housing affordable for everyone.
Dems spent months knocking on doors to talk about the issues that mattered with voters and to talk about what the Dems had to offer to make their lives better. Voters didn’t care! Yes prices were high—and their pain was magnified by every “price of eggs” story which made Biden look bad. For three years, every time good economic news was reported it was always conditioned by threats of recession. When a teenage checker at Target told me we were in a recession I wanted to throw up but I politely corrected her. Talk about trickle down messaging.
Everything you say here can be multiplied by a 1,000. It was the same message across the legacy media. And that message was one put forth by the GOP years ago that began with “limousine liberals” and has morphed into whatever the hell it is today—“Dems are Elites who only care about them, not you.” Dems did change in the 90s to match the mood of the nation, as dunderheaded as that was. But they have never stopped defending the Safety net or working to strengthen it. To say the opposite is just not true.
My one massive complaint about 2024 was they didn’t hit back hard enough (frankly at all) or quick enough.
This is exactly right. Thank you.
Individual editors on the Times news desk write article headlines that in many ways contradict the import of the reporters' intent, leaving an erroneous impression amongst news consumers skimming over content. However, by and large your "neutrality" pejorative was true up to the tRump inauguration. Since then, NYT journalist-practitioners of "neutrality" such as Peter Baker, Haberman, et al have taken a bit more critical posture, and even the Editorial Board has weighed in with *relatively* strong condemnation of tRump excesses.
Ultimate test: Will they use the "f-word", and I don't mean "fuck".
I wrote recently that major media were afraid of the word "fascist" even though it's totally appropriate.
Right, but appropriate to whom? And therein lies the rub, as the MSM shies away as one from even hinting at such a characterization of what is now the American analogue to AH elevated to Chancellor in 1933, and his immediate tear-down of Weimar constitutionalism and substituting institutionalization of NASDAP ideology.
I hope it dies the unnatural death it's so completely earned.
I lived in NY in the 1970's and depended on the NYT. When I left, I no longer read it daily. I bought an intro subscription in 2020 before the election -- and cancelled it before it went to full price. I bought a 2nd intro subscription in 2024 -- and cancelled it without bothering to finish the intro period.
It's a VERY faint echo of the great paper it was 50 years ago and isn't worth the cost of printing imo let alone paying enough to help support a "cast of thousands." [Exception for some columnists like Jamelle Bouie and Paul Krugman]
Thx for pointing out that whether most Trumpers read it is irrelevant to its influence. That's one of the things that bugged me most during both my "trial" subscriptions. The NYT still led as the preeminent US newspaper despite its increasingly obvious biases. I will never forgive Sulzberger or its main Editors for not raising alarms about fascism and Trump and for not praising all efforts by Biden and his administration to help the US get back on track after Trump 1.
As a Beatlemaniac, I followed the link to the Times review of Abbey Road, and it’s worse than Mark said: Reviewer Nik Cohn thinks Lennon, not McCartney, sings “Oh Darling.”
Yes, I noticed that mistake but didn't have room to get into it.
YES!
Agree 100%!
This is why I only occasionally read the Times any more, cancelled WAPO and get a lot of my news summaries from substack. They also had an op ed about how universities have been too woke, which as a university administrator and former professor I can agree with. But that's not really the problem with universities is it? Universities are always on the front of what's next, and when conservatives have not wanted to face what's coming, they increase their attacks on higher ed, science, and intellectuals. It's an old play book.