FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
How did a tax cut that mainly benefits a small group of top earners become broadly popular? One reason is the nonstop deluge of stories over the past two months, cheerleading alleged “tax cut bonuses” from large corporations.
The issue isn’t “free speech” or the problems with “PC” online culture; it’s simply the pundit class protecting its own.
We hear people asserting that the massive inequality we are now seeing in the United States is the result of an unfettered market. This is a convenient view for those who are on the upside of things, but it also happens to be nonsense.
When New York Times national security reporter Scott Shane wrote an essay about the CIA’s alleged attempt to recruit him, two clauses stand out for their confident attribution of benevolent motives to US foreign policy.
Statements about runaway inequality must be nuance-trolled to death, lest readers be “misled” by statements that the media outlets themselves agree are true.
If we think that Trump is responsible for the rise in world oil prices, then he can reasonably be given credit for the uptick in investment that has occurred during his administration; otherwise, there is not much for him to boast about.
The New York Times has some 100 percent uncut pro-US ideology to push under the guise of criticizing Trump, and no amount of basic historical facts will get in its way.
Ask the New York Times to append a disclosure to its December 11 op-ed that its authors were funded by someone with a major financial interest in attacking Cristina Kirchner.
Should the New York Times have disclosed that the author of a piece about government propaganda runs a group overwhelmingly funded by the US government?
It’s wrong in the ethical sense for the New York Times to implicitly accept as normal politics a refusal to allow democracy to undermine ethnic supremacy.
“Lowering taxes is, at heart, what makes a Republican a Republican,” the New York Times told us. The problem with this assertion is that the Republican plans actually raise taxes for close to half of middle-income families.
FAIR thanks the activists who contacted the New York Times, and the Times for correcting the record.
If an elected official had tried to orchestrate this kind of obvious, contrived damage control, the New York Times would be the first to cry foul—one hopes—and deservedly so.
“It’s saying that it’s OK to continue business as usual, when we know that our planet is in climate chaos because of anthropogenic causes, human-induced causes, of messing with our Earth systems and our Earth cycles.”
Ask the New York Times to correct the claim that Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent was criticized for “having soft-pedaled evidence of genocide” that hadn’t happened yet.
For many in the Western press, de facto Saudi ruler Mohammed bin Salman’s self-serving power grab is the action of a bold “reformer,” a roguish bad boy doing the messy but essential work of “reforming” the kingdom.
Times are tough in Middle America, but the New York Times says there’s hope on the horizon — conveniently packaged in the economic boom of e-commerce.
A review of New York Times articles, columns, op-eds and reports shows a clear emphasis on documenting and condemning perceived suppression of conservative voices at American universities,
When it was announced that several journalists would travel with Sen. Bernie Sanders in October for a hospital tour of Canada to learn about its single-payer system, one question immediately sprang to mind: What would corporate media do to smear universal healthcare this time?
For more than a century, the Times has played the same role in Democratic politics—defending the party’s Big Money wing against populist encroachments. But rarely has the paper’s pleading on behalf of elite interests in the Democratic Party been as frenetic as it has lately.
