Good job kissing Trump’s ass, NYT. See what it gets you?
What does that link say? Can you provide a fair use snippet? My computer doesnt want to go there.
It says that the Times (along with NBC, NPR, and Politico) are losing their Pentagon press credentials, which are being given to the New York Post, HuffPo, Breitbart, and OANN.
Allegedly they’re only losing their offices at the Pentagon and their credentials will remain. Allegedly.
Now the Times is retroactively misgendering former staff.
Mistake since corrected:
If MAGA is to be defeated, my advice is to stop applying purity tests to 80 percent allies.
In this case since that IS the actual person affected, they had every right to call it out.
But otherwise, sure, perfection is unattainable.
And one person, which was admitted to be a mistake is really not misgendering former staff, More Like misgendering one former staff member. That term indicates many staff members.
I think that the NY Times is the least pro-Trump these days among legitimate newspapers. They haven’t bent the knee the way that the LA Times and WashPost have. However, this headline is right out of the NYT Pitchbot:
Give me a break – there’s no “GOP orthodoxy” about local control and there never has been. It’s local control for when the national opinion is against them, and federal control when they can get what they want.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN?!
What was the Holocaust, New York Times? A fucking urban remodel?
Maybe they’ve corrected that. I went looking for that headline, and found:
Trump Says He May Cut Aid to Jordan and Egypt if They Don’t Take Gazans
On Hochul possibly firing Eric Adams; sure, he may be fundamentally corrupt and in bed with a tyrannical fascist, but nOw iS nOt tHe tImE fOr cHaLlEnGiNg nOrMs
The Times thinks getting rid of diversity has a “positive impact” and that persecuting trans people is inconsequential.
Not exactly. The chart says trans issues are “less consequential” (THAN the issues above it on the chart). NOT INconsequential. It’s a spectrum.
Also, it says “trans issues,” NOT “persecuting trans people.”
Read what’s in front of you.
And the Times is on the wrong side of it. What’s your point?
You mean you didn’t understand? Can’t help you then.
I understand that calling trans issues (and we know what the Times means by that) “less consequential” is wrong. Do I have to start reciting Niemoller?
Here is the link to the full article:
I find this article strange.
It is extraordinarily long for an unsigned article. The only other New York Times articles, that long, that I may have seen unsigned were ones with a Russia or China dateline where they were trying to protect the journalist.
As to whether the quadrant placements are correct, at first it looks like you could read the whole and make your own judgment. But the capsule opinion article summaries only capture maybe 60 percent of the columns being assessed, making this difficult.
I hate to sound conspiratorial, but it almost sounds like someone is making a case that the Times opinion section is fully balanced, when, actually, by the standards of the U.S. political world, the Times is mostly a liberal newspaper, both in hard news and opinions…I wonder who the audience is for this article. Obviously – not the progressives at SDMB!
Gift link for link in my last post:
Paul Krugman, who was as hard on Trump as any columnist, left at the end of last year because he was concerned that they were going to cut his frequency and because they kept battling him on tough lines. Charles Blow and Pamela Paul, both about as progressive as Krugman, are also leaving soon.
The op-ed page has filleted Trump consistently over the past month. Maybe they’ve decided that a new roster of columnists are needed, and I’ll eventually recognize the new names and their slants. So that’s a wash.
People who used to complain about the Times’ front page headlines have hopefully stopped now that their front pages are filled with articles exposing Trump’s schemes.
The other stuff is reading tea leaves.