Since you already admitted you don't follow the news I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
NYTimes Clamps Down on Reporters Going on MSNBC (and other partisan seeming shows)
- Thread starter UnpopularBlargh
- Start date
Since you already admitted you don't follow the news I honestly can't tell if you're trolling.
User Banned (1 Week): Trolling over a series of posts; previous infractions
or just going with the most trusted new source in the country.
Seriously. I've seen this several times on here. People act like MSNBC and FOX News are opposite sides of the same coin.
That couldn't be further from the truth.
And as you and others say Maddow may be super liberal, but she does deep dove journalism connecting dots. Without a lot of personal bias.
Maddow is terrible so I don't really mind. Don't know any other MSNBC hosts but If Maddow is their best, then it can't be strong bench. Cable"news" generally are bad and seem to be more about entertainment then actual news. What bothers me most with Rachel is her constant baseless speculation, Russia gate especially was dark time for her. There are better ways to cover it.
NYT is the fucking DOOP headquarters of journalism. They would rather turn a blind eye to the destruction of our country than report facts and piss off Trump and company.
You're going to argue from a position of ignorance on a story you haven't read based on prestige? This thread has a decent breakdown of basic facts that Maggie glosses over to spin this yarn of white privilege:
The NYT has a great news team, they've put out Pulitzer winning content on the Russia investigation and have done several recent deep dives on Trump's finances. They also have a terrible editorial front end, a handful of access journalists that do all they can to push "both sides" on every possible issue, and a notorious streak for supporting American interventionism in all of its flavors.
If your only reaction to the fluff piece on Hicks is "but I like the NYT" maybe you should take some time and actually, I dunno, read the newspaper a few times a week.
I'm only stating that these "opinionated talk-show hosts" aren't news. Hannity isn't news, Maddow isn't news. It's entertainment. I don't like Hannity as much as the next guy, but I group them up in the same genre of TV shows.
MSNBC may not be Fox News but it absolutely has a heavy bias that tends to be cringeworthy at times. They go way beyond just reporting and parsing the news. I always vote straight D but I cant stand watching it.
As pointed out however, NYT taking this stance with some of its recent history is certainly eye rolling.
As pointed out however, NYT taking this stance with some of its recent history is certainly eye rolling.
"The NY Times does a lot of great reporting except when I dont agree with it"
I don't see anything wrong with this policy. Those shows are not good for the country/democracy and it's wise for all of us to steer clear of their polarizing effect, which are, uh, kind of rearing their head in some of these mouth-foaming replies.
I'd be more concerned if Hannity and co. weren't on this list and exempt, but they're clearly already so far gone because they're the poster childs for what NYT is trying to avoid.
I'd be more concerned if Hannity and co. weren't on this list and exempt, but they're clearly already so far gone because they're the poster childs for what NYT is trying to avoid.
What? The NYT has done some absolutely stellar investigative pieces into Trump's financial history and all the shady shit he's been a part of for decades, whether it be fraudulently syphoning money from his father through tax loopholes when he was broke, declaring historically high income losses that helped him avoid paying any taxes whatsoever for decades, or his monumental backstabbing of Deutsche Bank after they stuck their neck out for him as a lender when no other financial institution would. They've been at the forefront of exposing him for the fraud he is, the last thing they care about is whether they're "pissing him off".
The NYT's op-ed section is a mixed bag, which is kind of the point. There are some excellent opinions out there, as well as some not-so excellent opinions. It's the nature of human discourse, and the op-ed section rightly reflects that.
But there are more than willing to hire journalists that helped convince the public that invading Iraq was a good thing
lol @ the idea that appearing on a show means you align with their politics.
If a Times reporter appeared on Hannity, conservatives would celebrate the chance to make that person a whipping boy. If the same person appeared on Maddow, it'd be a confirmation of the fact that they're in lockstep agreement with Maddow's views.
Why base your decision on what people (in this case conservatives) might think.
If a Times reporter appeared on Hannity, conservatives would celebrate the chance to make that person a whipping boy. If the same person appeared on Maddow, it'd be a confirmation of the fact that they're in lockstep agreement with Maddow's views.
Why base your decision on what people (in this case conservatives) might think.
MSNBC blatantly panders, which is one thing I really would rather they not do. But unlike Fox News they're not literally lying.
People usually tend to cross reference the news.
Jesus christ. I remember you from last time you tried to argue politics,it went just as well.
Huh? Where is the narrative coming from that the NYT is somehow scared to call Trump out on his bullshit?
I don't understand this hate of NYT in this thread, it's so bizarre to me. There are very few journalistic outlets these days that actually put in the time to source their stories and conduct legitimate (and much needed) investigative reporting. The Times continues to do an exceptionally important job while the majority of the rest of digital media is busy finding the most inflammatory clickbait title to increase ad revenue.
In my opinion the news divisions of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall St Journal are about the only US news organizations other than the wire services that are doing actual journalism. Other sources may break a story here and there, but these three are knocking it out out of the park daily. Everybody else, including the cable news networks, are basically just reporting and editorializing the original reporting coming from these organizations.
Unfortunately all the hate for the NYT I've seen on this board shows me people care more about ideological purity vs a news organization that does actual journalism and occasionally reports on something that left wing people might disagree with.
This of course doesn't include the op ed pages which are obviously partisan and biased in nature and separate from the news divisions.
Maybe if you never pay attention to the nyt you'd think they're some of the best but compared to some intl or less known outlets theyre fucking terrible. Neoliberalism is overused, but yeah they are.
Gungho for Iraq and more
msnbc is a for-profit corporate media institution with very little political ideology. this isn't a centrist versus Dem issue
Centrism is fine for tranquil, stable times. Not when the question is whether we should give Nazism a chance or if we should do something about our dying planet or those legions of freaks loaded with guns and opioids ready to take out a few dozen people every day and an encroachment of post-capitalist neo-feudalism. In such times it only gives the spineless and lazy a hiding place from their responsibilty as moral citizens wich leads them to let the worst elements of society take us all down as history has shown us over and over again. But since it has happened so many times we might have reached the breaking point for the whole world now. Playtime was over decades ago, today it's the danse macabre and we will only join it as corpses, whether we fight for or against it or hide in the dirt to die a coward!
It's funny you bring this up because NYT did downplay Hitlers anti-semitism.
There is actual historical precedent for the Times being rather useless in identifying and alerting its readers to the dangers of fascism.
The NYT has been nosediving for years and have fully embraced the "both sides!™️" mantra, so good riddance.
PBS, NPR and The Washington Post are all you need for US politics.
PBS, NPR and The Washington Post are all you need for US politics.
Im boutta use era's favorite phraseIt's funny you bring this up because NYT did downplay Hitlers anti-semitism.
There is actual historical precedent for the Times being rather useless in identifying and alerting its readers to the dangers of fascism.
Yikes
Those who understand strategy are in awe of Hitler the master.
Looking around I actually found that someone wrote a book about how the Times handled the Holocaust (poorly).
To all those claiming the NYT to be some kind of bastion of journalist integraty I recommend you look up their coverage of the leadup to the Iraq war. Drooling militarist nonsense in the main, and I expect the same next time. They certainly do publish some excellent journalism from time to time, but it is entirley reasonable to be wary of the paper, particulalry given it has often fallen for the 'middle must be right' trap.
Times reporters appear on Morning Joe almost daily but I guess they see that show as "centrist"?? Mika and Joe fucking hate Trump lol
Ah, I get it. Your definition of a legitimate and worthwhile journalistic outlet is "do I agree with everything they publish". Sorry but that's now how these things work.
If you don't want to take my word for it, the NYT has more Pulitzer prizes than any other publication in the United States. And it's not even close.
I'm beginning to question whether people even understand what being a journalist means.
On the subject of the Iraq War, since it seems to be a recurring theme here, the Times addressed this quite awhile back and admitted that their coverage was tainted by a mix of formerly reliable informants become less and less reliable and a lack of followup on some of the stories they broke.
I don't think there's any doubt that some of their staff fell victim to the war frenzy that was going on at the time after 9/11, especially given that they were all probably New Yorkers, and as a result some of their biases collectively resulted in them publishing some articles that didn't meet their usual level of journalistic standards.
I think people forget that 80% of Americans in May 2003 were in favor of the Iraq War. This wasn't some fringe group of war mongers, this was the VAST majority of the nation across all ethnicities, genders, etc. The evidence presented at the time seemed legitimate at first glance, and most people bought it. What separated the liberals from the conservatives was that once evidence began to come out clearly contradicting what was previously claimed, liberals, Democrats, and the editorial board of the NYT were willing to change their tune and admit that they were duped by the sources they previously thought were legitimate while conservatives and the GOP chose to ignore reality.
I don't think there's any doubt that some of their staff fell victim to the war frenzy that was going on at the time after 9/11, especially given that they were all probably New Yorkers, and as a result some of their biases collectively resulted in them publishing some articles that didn't meet their usual level of journalistic standards.
I think people forget that 80% of Americans in May 2003 were in favor of the Iraq War. This wasn't some fringe group of war mongers, this was the VAST majority of the nation across all ethnicities, genders, etc. The evidence presented at the time seemed legitimate at first glance, and most people bought it. What separated the liberals from the conservatives was that once evidence began to come out clearly contradicting what was previously claimed, liberals, Democrats, and the editorial board of the NYT were willing to change their tune and admit that they were duped by the sources they previously thought were legitimate while conservatives and the GOP chose to ignore reality.
Yeah, i'm sure they wouldn't want Rachel Maddow misinterpreting a story about Trump laundering money through Deutche Bank. She might present it in a way thats unfavorable to the president.
Good looking out NYtimes, can't wait for your next article about the economic anxiety of white rural voters who support Trumps trade policies even though it's killing them.
Good looking out NYtimes, can't wait for your next article about the economic anxiety of white rural voters who support Trumps trade policies even though it's killing them.
Maddow's show isn't anything like Hannity...there's actual discussions about history, journalism, interviews with good questions. I don't understand. It's like everyone is cripplingly insecure in their own ability to interpret reality so they try to yell "biased" in a really confident voice and hope no one notices. And the NYT wants to win these people's trust over apparently? Is this what's going on?
"It's ok to print lies if they're what people want to hear."
Judith Miller wasn't a New Yorker. Sounds like you don't know much about the situation, TBH.
Judith Miller is so bad that The Onion still makes fun of her Iraq War coverage.
Remember kids, 'subjective' biases aren't ok for your criticism of the news even if it's based on facts, but I can defend blatant lies because that's just the way things were.
So exactly as I've said, you don't need to be exactly like the other guy to cross a line.
"80% of the public was running on disinformation that could have been fixed by a quick chat with any expert in the area so that makes it ok that 'the most reputable newspaper in the country' was also that ignorant"
Ok but rhe NYT still promotes literal nazis so there's clear hypocrisy here
After highlighting the unnecessary " MSNBC isnt Fox News" and "radical centrist" talk, I stated in my original post that this was still an eye rolling decision exactly because of the hypocrisy.
The liberalism that considered slaves as property and that believes that economic success is an indicator of how much effort you've put in?
I was trying to draw a parallel to the NYT not wanting their reporter going on shows that were critical of Trump, because of a perceived liberal bias, when in fact, objective reporting would be critical of Trump by default.
I don't even understand what the issue is with showing bias. The problem isn't being biased, the issue is what you're biased towards. For some reason though many news outlets act like being "balanced" is the best course of action. I'm anti-capitalist, I'm biased against it, and I'm not going to shy away from admitting it.