Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
Maybe, but your own back and forth, pro-NY Times/anti-NY Times post, shows that this isn't left/right political in nature, as both sides attack the Times.
|
There is no back and forth in my position in that sense.
Here's my position:
1. The NYT is usually as good as or better than the majority of other newspapers in terms of the quality of the writing alone, and a list of past contributors and awards bears that out. Additionally, its readership disproves the idea the paper is only relevant to New Yorkers.
2. But that does not make it innocent or its reporting unbiased.
Nearly all American newspapers are corrupt to the degree to which there are conflicts of interest. That is not an anti-NYT position. It is a criticism of the American news media in general.
Politically, the NYT is not liberal in terms of being an extension of the views of the publishers (who happen to be conservative). It is liberal to the extent that certain individual writers and editors are liberal.
The fact that the undistorted right (not shrill provocateurs) and the true left (actual Marxists, socialists and independents, not liberal democrats closer to the center) attack the NYT is exactly on-point. The undistorted right and actual left
should call out the NYT on inaccuracies and omissions, just as everyone should raise legitimate questions about accuracy in any newspaper.
The journalist-driven media watch group called FAIR does an excellent job of that.
But that's not the same as making sweeping statements about New York, New Yorkers, every writer who has ever contributed to the NYT and anyone who enjoys reading it.
It is also not the same as trashing every aspect of the NYT because you disagree with the politics of some of its contributors or the actions of New-York-based CEOs in three of our services industries. Neither of those attacks is sincerely focused on quality or truth.