FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
Election Focus 2020: Ember’s articles on Sanders often quote as neutral authorities individuals who are on the other side of a wide ideological divide, with longstanding antipathies to Sanders’ left socioeconomic perspective.
The New York Times report failed to inform readers on the remarkable injustice of cutting Social Security benefits, in view of where the funding gap came from.
The New York Times provided yet another example of a major news outlet covering the catastrophic effects of the ongoing climate crisis without ever mentioning that crisis.
The conversation around When They See Us would be incomplete without a serious reckoning with corporate media’s role in fanning the flames of racist hysteria and misinformation.
The New York Times report failed to inform readers on the remarkable injustice of cutting Social Security benefits, in view of where the funding gap came from.
The New York Times’ claims of a relationship between Caracas and Hezbollah are entirely unoriginal, having been repeated by corporate journalists and national security pundits without evidence for years.
The April 30 coup by presidential poseur Juan Guaidó was a fraud, staged at the instigation of Washington in hopes that the Venezuelan people and rank-and-file troops would fall for the trick and think an actual coup was underway.
The New York Times acknowledges that governing millions of Palestinians but denying them the vote is a form of apartheid, so there’s no justification for saying, after nearly 52 years of such disenfranchisement, that that will eventually constitute apartheid, but for some unspecified reason doesn’t yet at this point.
If you keep up with all the various xenophobic “crises” and “threats” propagated by corporate media—depicting the United States as an overwhelmed nation, besieged by teeming swarms of scheming foreigners intent on stealing jobs and seizing scarce public benefits from across the southern border—you’ll recall that the United States has apparently been under “invasion” […]
Election Focus 2020: Why does the New York Times take rich liberals at their word that their concern with Bernie Sanders is that he would lose to Trump, rather than the obvious, glaring fact that his election would run counter to their interests?
While the New York Times is right to warn about filling the Fed with people with no understanding of economics, it is wrong to imagine that we have in general been well-served by the Fed in recent decades, or that it is necessarily independent in the way we would want.
The New York Times seriously misled readers on the status of Israel’s illegal settlements on the occupied territories of the West Bank and the Golan Heights.
With a report on Russian influence in Africa, the New York Times added to its series of reports depicting Official Enemies surpassing the US in the race for global dominance.
Why should only these groups—Muslim 95 percent of the time—“renounce violence,” but the US and its allies never have to?
A New York Times “exposé” of Cuban doctors’ supposed interference in Venezuelan elections was riddled with inaccuracies, omissions and misrepresentations.
When the right of return is mentioned in media, pundits and other journalists often baselessly call its legitimacy into question.
The outlets that vigorously pushed the false story will not extend any new skepticism toward the official sources that sold it to them. Nor will they offer any new respect—or platform—to the people who questioned the claim…not weeks later, but in real time.
When the headline of a story literally includes the phrase “Big Question: What Is Terrorism?” you might think it would offer at least one plausible definition proposed by any party or individual involved in these discussions. But not a single definition is suggested by anyone in the report.
Election Focus 2020: Are campaigns controlled by media consultants necessarily better than those controlled by the candidates themselves? Why should Bernie Sanders bending to “the wishes of his current advisers” be considered a good thing?
Incredibly, instead of pointing out that the advocates of austerity have been shown wrong, most reporting continues to treat their policies as being credible, and in fact often works to hide evidence of its failure.
