FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
The New York Times story isn’t about “charges of antisemitism,” it’s about criticism of Israel. The headline ought to have said, “Democratic Candidate Questioned About Criticism of Israel.”
A New York Times op-ed argued that conservatives make better partners for liberals than progressives, because “one can debate how much to conserve.”
But when a journalist sets out—“guided by one main question”—to understand the roots of devastating violence in a particular city, and fails so utterly to take the overwhelming role of Washington intervention into account, the complete erasure of quite recent, utterly relevant events is startling.
None of the ideas described in a New York Times feature as “That Which Cannot Be Said” are remotely taboo; they’re the kind of things that are said routinely in outlets like the New York Times.
The New York Times says it would defy “economic logic” for Italy to leave the euro–under which Italy has yet to recover from the crisis of 2008.
The debate in the New York Times and Washington Post over President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the Iran deal, revolves around which tactics America should use to dominate Iran.
None of the supposedly taboo ideas listed by New York Times columnist Bari Weiss are remotely taboo; they’re the kind of things that are expressed routinely in outlets like the New York Times.
Many folks in the media seem to think it is part of their job to promote trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—not only in opinion pages, but in the news section, too.
Despite his stated objective, the New York Times’ Declan Walsh seemed to go out of his way to avoid talking about how Libya has come to be a place where major cities are turned to rubble.
“Pretending, ‘Oh, it’s not that bad,’ or ‘We’re still going to be able to mitigate it to the point where we’re not going to have to relocate much of New York City,’ for example, it’s just not honest coverage.”
It’s not surprising that the US and North Korea view the history of Libyan disarmament differently, when the New York Times can’t even agree with the New York Times about it.
An op-ed about why Democrats should call themselves “liberals” and not “progressives” hits most of the main points of the New York Times’ ideology.
The curators of American public opinion at the three most influential broadsheets in the United States have decided that dissent from the build-up to new airstrikes on Syria is not really an opinion worth hearing.
NPR Brings You the Unheard Voice of Rush Limbaugh…Boosting Trump’s Tax Bill With ‘Bonus’ Hype…NYT: Don’t Be Misled by Claims That CEOs Are Rich…Israel’s ‘Retaliatory’ Bombing of Syria for Shooting Down an Israeli Bomber…From ‘Sidelines,’ US Controls 1/4th of Syria…‘Anti-Propaganda Warrior,’ You Have a Mission Closer to Home…Pro-Capitalist Times
For the New York Times, the US is always lagging behind the Russian menace. Previously, the Times has told us how America was losing the “scramble for the Arctic” and falling behind in election-meddling. Now it’s in the realms of cyber and nuclear war that the Times sees dangerous gaps.
“Assaults on residential areas with AC-130 gunships cannot possibly be designed to minimize civilian casualties.”
If you want the support of working-class whites without engaging in xenophobia or other forms of race-baiting, the obvious approach is to appeal to them as members of the working class. But Thomas Edsall seems to have another agenda.
The New York Times and Wall Street Journal stand apart as the most rarefied of perches in our nation’s news ecosystem. It’s at these outlets that class distinctions are the most glaring—and most problematic. Just how elite these papers have become is the subject of a new study.
For the New York Times, the US is always lagging behind the Russian menace. Previously, the Times has told us how America was losing the “scramble for the Arctic” and falling behind in election-meddling. Now it’s in the realms of cyber and nuclear war that the Times sees dangerous gaps.
New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet—likely the most influential gatekeeper in all of media—told Times staffers in a closed-door meeting last December that the paper of record was “pro-capitalism.”
