I cancelled years ago... after reading the paper for decades. I recall the foul looks I once got when I carried around a copy in the Deep South. It might as well have been Pravda.
Yet the strange thing is that it's a curate's egg -- "good in parts" -- so the stink from journalistic incompetence by design wafts its way round the world, while some excellent ed-op and other material still gets published.
Selling mixed prejudices, because prejudices sell. Tarting up the old lady sells... News, apparently, doesn't... I find that hard to believe.
Readers aren't all junkies. Once upon a time, journalists weren't all pushers, weren't all hacks...
Undermining trust, rotting the bonds of community, cannot possibly work for long. Fast bucks can make for lasting failure. That of a great newspaper, that of a once great and immensely promising country.
First, consider that you are emulating the thinking of Trump: "a great newspaper, that of a once great and immensely promising country." And, then consider, that the NYT that has enhanced our appreciation of the world for many decades, requires our vigilance and confronting feedback for us to be responsible and effective. This issue (responsibility and vigilance) prevails as citizens of the world we live in, and as parents, friends, students.
Obviously, consider it lazy to simply abandon what we find fault with.
P.S. I continue to benefit greatly from attending to Tom Friedman's wisdom.
Interesting take on it. My take is that the New York Times' irresponsible reporting and editing helped get Trump elected in 2016. I dropped my subscription shortly thereafter. They don't seem to have learned anything since. It is not a democratic institution that can be influenced by our "feedback."
Susanna, I don't think it was just NYT. I noticed most of the media I had previously depended on prior to 2015, going nuts for the jerk who had no experience, no empathy, no civility, little intelligence beyond that of the con artist. He was the "new thing" and our decent media in large numbers jumped on board the Trump train all the way to Trumplandia. We are still recovering from the trip and that fool wants in again and has a whole lot of media support. Any criticism of Trump seems muted and tentative while criticism of Biden who has actually done a whole lot for this nation is loud, rude, and undeserved. How do we hold the media accountable. I pointed out a really bad pro-Trump but inaccurate item on NPR recently and only got back a standard "thank you for your comment; we'll get back to you on it." They never will. I did actually hear one criticism of Trump today on NPR, tentative, honest, and there! Shock!
Boy what rubes are you folks. "Whole lot of media support"? REALLY? Except for Fox (which of course is highly influential), SHOW me the "support" Trump has. The Times CALLED FOR HIM TO STEP ASIDE (which for me is a disaster, because we - the Democrats - will win SO MUCH MORE EASILY against Trump precisely because he is a disaster than we would against Nikki Halley or heaven forbid even Vance.). Again, as with the slanted media I have requessted, do not give my your opinions, those are worth about as much as MY opinions, GIVE ME FACTUAL REFERENCES to articles which are slanted. And by slanted I don't mean negative. It is the responsibility of the press to report the news whether good, bad or neutral. The negative reporting surrounding Biden should have been expected, he has shown repeatedly over many months a declining ability to focus and speak clearly. They should have been exposing that all along. And if anything, it might (if you take a few seconds to think) be the best thing that the press ever could have done (to get Biden to step aside) because he would have LOST THE ELECTION TO TRUMP ALMOST WITHOUT QUESTION and now with Harris firmly in the role of nominee, we actually have the chance to have the second black President and the first woman. HUGELY GOOD for the country. Trump is not. So I fail to see why you keep attacking ME when all I have asked for is proof (that you all claim you have read) of the so-called one-sidedness of the press, favoring Trump. I don't mean vague hand-waving, I mean what you do for research, i.e., you write down the articles and dates and page numbers and quote the sections. You do that and I promise you I will read every single line referenced and if I think you have a case, I also promise you I will mea culpa to the entire blog.
The problem is, I think there is no "there" there, i.e., the so-called articles you all claim are biased simply don't exist. You take a headline, misread it or interrpret it in the wrong way and then say "there's proof that the article is biased" except when you read it, there is no bias.
The NY Times spent 31 paragraphs today dissecting the Harris plan to lower prices.
It spent 0 paragraphs dissecting Trump's "plan."
Trump spent almost two hours yesterday, with props behind him, supposedly trying to explain how prices would drop if he's elected. The Times spent Zero Point Zero percent of the story examining how he would do it and if it would work.
It then asked multiple Ivy League economists to critique the Harris plan.
Here is an example from the HCR piece we all just read: "And the New York Times reported that in a speech in North Carolina, тАЬHarris Is Set to Lay Out an Economic Message Light on Details,тАЭ adding that she is expected to tweak Biden administration themes тАЬin a bid to turn the Democratic economic agenda into an asset.тАЭ
HCR goes on to note that the US has the strongest economy in the world right now and inflation has been successfully managed.
As far as I'm concerned, a statement by the NYT that the Biden/Harris admin needs to 'turn their economic agenda into an asset' strongly suggests that they currently see it as a liability -- which is not only not true but also a major right-wing talking point.
The TIMES reporting helped to get Trump elected? ARE YOU FROM MARS?!!! The Times avidly supported Hillary Clinton, but hey, you know, Hillary had some REAL baggage and the Times NEWS section (unlike the Editorial section) was obligated to report on that stuff. That was Hilary's burden to bear, she was the one who did stuff that looked at best fishy and are worst UGLY, and sadly, she was facing in the election the worst monster we have ever seen. But the newspaper's responsibility it to report the truth and they did. Sadly, the people in this country are as a group way to dumb to actually tease out the bad stuff from the good stuff and she lost, not by much either. She won the popular vote and only lost in the swing states which Biden turned around 4 years later.
Hilary was her own best enemy, for so so so many reasons and while I avidly supported her like a good Democrat, I was not stunned by her loss because I knew she was vulnerable. Trump's team was able to jump on it and divert attention away from his own nonsense (with one major difference... all of HIS stuff was "private" nonsense, while her stuff occurred while she was in service to the government and that made a HUGE difference).
I believe that Trump's grotesque moves WHILE he was President will as they did in 2020, hold as major negatives against him in 2024, especially now that Biden is out of the race. Those issues are/were just as relevant as the issues regarding Hilary in 2016, and Kamala Harris has few if any similar issues. She has been one of the most upstanding public servants in a long time, and I will be stunned if she loses this election.
There are actual stats out there on the number of articles the NYT put out that referenced HRC in a negative way, especially about her 'emails'. Many more of those than negatives about Trump.
Unfortunately I don't have those stats on hand, but people out there have crunched the actual numbers.
I agree with these productive talks. I long ago grasped the тАШunderstanding the audienceтАЩ reporting but тАж.
that the fight is going to be ongoing ..even after the Harris/Walz Win ..is a given. Our factual gains make little dent but good writing/reporting/headlines does. And I would agree the Republicans cornered the headlines with THE GRIFTER, THE CON hype using drama and a popular seduction , if not even cult approach. It worked тАжPAST TENSE.
Enough have now come back/seen the light , the eloquence of dedicated writers,historians,and amazing leadership has prevailed , mightily preserved, I favor.
The fight is not over.
We can never be complacent again.
Hopefully that lesson has received the A+ , TBD on 11/5/24 .
It requires a LANDSLIDE.
It requires GOTV/Volunteers amassing/Postcards/All hands on Deck! The grassroots led the charge , the American Rally Forth The Flag miracles is working.
Stay The Course ЁЯл╡
I love the тАШтАЩwrite it that wayтАЩтАЩ closing answer lineтАжBIDENтАЩs answer! Bravo my captain ЁЯл╢
The writing is clearly on the wall. Newspaper are JUST beginning to correct their lack of equal coverage..in part due too -to the new joy/hope/charisma that sells sells sellsтАжwe have a L O N G way to go before equality and facts surpass love of money and control . Few making the big bucks will like the roadтАжand those who contribute a THANK YOU EVERY TIME!
ItтАЩs perfectly clear to those with real leadership abilities тАж
Biden made a huge mistake with the border if for no reason then the optics of do nothing. I cringed for 3 years wondering why he was so dense. Maybe itтАЩs because he is dense.
And we all benefitted from their endless, baseless attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016, "But her emails," /s. And here we are the old playbook being recycled.
If you really believe that ALL the attacks on Hillary Clinton were baseless, you need to read some real history. Hillary was so vulnerable from many of her positions as both Senator and Secretary of State. She was a terribly weak candidate (I was so stunned when Biden decided to step aside for her, even though voting for a woman was something I was really anxious to do, I just wasn't convinced she was the right one).
John, so you were looking for perfect, huh. Clinton was a very qualified candidate, knew her stuff, and was far superior in every way to "the monster" as you call Trump. I did not see the NYT pushing nearly as hard to point out Trump's total inappropriateness for any office let alone president, then he proved it. There are plenty of folks saying your exact criticisms of Harris right now. Could it be, dare I say it, Misogyny or a fear of women in power? Nah, couldn't be that!
You are accusing me of misogyny? Fear of women in power? What a crock... I campaigned tirelessly for Hilary Clinton, and have been campaigning for Harris as well (in fact that was one of the reasons I hoped Biden would step DOWN because I think Harris who I supported multiple times when she ran in California is a far better candidate that Joe is any more.). Typical nonsense from someone who is too lazy to find their sources and attributions and instead decides to use ad hominem attacks. Neither far nor adult nor really worthy of even the 8 lines I have written in response. Have a nice day.
Your first lines in any message to anyone in this forum is an attack of some form or other. It especially stands out to me that you attack 'women' here (and not all that well either - if they're grading you, you're moving back a grade I'd wager).
If the hat fits wear it, Dude......as for having a nice day? Lighten up, every one of your comments is loaded, loaded with sarcastic, snarly comments and then there is a veracity issue, you " I campaigned tirelessly for Hilary Clinton..." Uh---huh As I said.....ok, let's make it shoe and I suggest you get your foot out of your mouth
If the hat wears it? Good lord... you can't do anything except come up with challenges to my honesty. Wow. Try harder next time (but with someone else, because frankly, despite the great work that HCR does, none of this is worth it).
It's so tiresome to have to respond to misogynistic fools who are so rabidly vehement; one begins to think that the misogynistic writer is, at heart, a basic MAGA idiot. Is Project 2025 your Bible? Your niggling way of responding? Speaks volumes about you, volumes.
There is a problem with the NYT and reporting on the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Israeli relies on the "Israel Lobby" to control reactions. The head of the NYT is of a Jewish family that owned the paper for many years. I checked to see who the major shareholders are. It is Vanguard and Black Rock with controlling interest. They want profit, not controversy. V and BR have controlling interest in many important companies. One is Boeing. Boeing has put profit and share price ahead of engineering and safety. This country has a problem of profit over best practice.
If you don't like the New York Times, try CONSORTIUM NEWS. There you won't get a defense of US foreign policy, in Gaza, Ukraine, or anywhere else. It's full of former Peabody winners who've soured on the mainstream media and gone alternative. Scolding inevitably, and little appreciative of the difficulties of being the world's hegemonic power, - but throwing our many failures and atrocities into sharp relief. Give it a try.
Good luck with that. Be ignorant by choice. The Times is by far the best, most objective news source going these days. If you choose to get your "news" from MSNBC or CNN or some blog (like this one) then you are closing yourself off to actual facts and you will suffer for it, as will our entire country, if enough people turn out to be like you.
Wow, what a world we live in today. "I'd rather trust some unknown person writing a blog and their fans than an actual newspaper that has standards." Amazing.
Maybe I'm fortunate to read in several languages. But, for starters, someone here mentioned both The Guardian and the English language version of Haaretz...
"Letters from an American" is not "some unknown person writing a blog." Neither are the offerings from Timothy Snyder, Dan Rather, Joyce Vance, Simon Rosenberg, George Lakoff, Robert Reich, Bill Kristol, and The Intercept.
I trust their integrity a lot more than I trust the NYTimes or WSJ at present.
Except NONE of those report news objectively, they provide opinions. People need to differentiate, opinions and news are NOT the same thing. Sigh...
And I never put the WSJ in the same class as the Times. WSJ was purchased by the Murdochs and it has never been the same since. The Times is still owned by the Ochs/Salzburger family (as it has been for almost 120 years) and has steadfastly REFUSED to become fodder for the sell-out crowd.
And if you can't trust the Times, you (and the rest of us) are in a world of hurt, my friend, that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Trump.
But..... I still subscribe because out of their political reportage (which I agree is in need of a make-over), you do get pretty good coverage of world news, sports, and business. And, of course, Metropolitan Diary.
Which is why I will likely keep it for now. But I wouldnтАЩt pay full rate. Every time my annual special ends, I threaten to terminate and they extend it another year. Hope your not paying full rates.
Can you please provide even ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of "deliberate misinformation"??? Maybe you can, I am sure it has happened, but you will need to do a VERY diligent search because from where I sit (and I read the paper religiously every single day, cover to cover) because the number of times that has happened over many years has got to be single digits if that.
And I am talking about NEWS, not columns or editorials. Those are always subject to points of view and can clearly contain infomation that is not vetted adequately. That should NOT be the case with actual hard news, which the Times has extremely rigorous policies on checking and double-checking. And when they are wrong, they own up pretty much instantly.
I cancelled my long term subscription with a note why a few years ago and just picked it back up for 4$ a month. I will cancel after trial. I like to read all the reporting during election season.
At the end of trial, if you threaten to end they will extend the special another year with no strings. So I give them $50 a year and I do receive good international and national news.
Hmmm so you DO admit that you receive good national news. Politics is national news. So how do you distinguish the "good" national reporting from the "awful" political reporting? Its all pretty much the same, and from where I sit, I can't even tell the difference.
Me too. They sicken me along with WaPo. Each journalist staying with them sickens me too. I am looking at the Tech Bros and the money they can throw at this election and it is frightening. How did we let them get so powerful? I see them as an evil that we need to revolt against. Not that the other super wealthy throwing money at this election are any more tasteful. It is just so wrong that we have all of the billionaires who are heading onto trillionairehood at some point.
Again as I have asked repeatedly, could you present even a SINGLE ARTICLE in which you claim a reporter (not a columnist but an actual reporter, like Maggie Haberman or Peter Baken) has lied in the Times? I challenge this because it is a vile accusation and if true would mean my entire belief system is screwed up. But sorry, I don't think it is. I think you are screwed up here, charging things that simply aren't true and if that is it, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I cancelled it when they banned me for commenting what I would do when Trump was laid in state at the capital and said I would crap in front of cameras on the steps of the Capital. (An assume statement to make for the world to view, isnтАЩt it.) And they refused to lift the ban. So they lost big time with my special sale rate ya ya.
But I will definitely urinate at his chosen grave site or toss cat shit from a distance if necessary. And I have 7 cats to choose from having a ready supply.
So typical of people who obscure the truth and throw "stones". As they say, you shouldn't live in a glass house, then. The use of foul language is just one clear example of your bias, so you can hardly accuse others of bias yourself.
Same here. It runs out in November -- nice coincidence. I've been subscribing to the Guardian, both UK and US digital editions, for several years, and just picked up Haaretz to follow Israel-Palestine news.
Haaretz is such an opinionated paper LOL! To give up the times and choose that left-wing rag is nonsensical. Don't get me wrong, I am FAR left wing especially when it comes to Israel (can't stand Netanyahu and believe they need to withdraw from Gaza and give that land to the Palestinians, oh yes and I am Jewish too) but to quote Haaretz while denigrating the NY Times is the height of absurdity.
Well, maybe (and I am happy for your heart) but you have also dumbed down your brain, because you are ignoring the best source of unbiased news available in this country. Wow, what a move forward that must be. Now you can rely on blogs and podcasts by people who have NOTHING but their own axes to grind and aren't held to ANY standards at all! Bravo!
Please provide a SINGLE EXAMPLE of their "biased reporting". IE, this means NEWS articles, not editorials or columnists, please. Those are going to have biases (and they should).
My guess is that you couldn't pick a biased article out if you fell over it. Because in fact there simply aren't many, probably not more than a few a month if that. THE NY TIMES is one of the most objective papers in the world and thats why it is also the BIGGEST paper in the world because people who count use it consistently.
Please distinguish... all of their reporting is in some sense investigative work. And if you feel that there is a bias in their reporting, I would LOVE for YOU to be the one to point out an actual article where this can be shown. I am sure there are some, but you and everyone else here seems to suggest that occurs in virtually every story and that simply is such nonsense. Sigh...
I canceled my subscription long ago.
NYT= NEW YORK TROLLS.
I cancelled years ago... after reading the paper for decades. I recall the foul looks I once got when I carried around a copy in the Deep South. It might as well have been Pravda.
Yet the strange thing is that it's a curate's egg -- "good in parts" -- so the stink from journalistic incompetence by design wafts its way round the world, while some excellent ed-op and other material still gets published.
Selling mixed prejudices, because prejudices sell. Tarting up the old lady sells... News, apparently, doesn't... I find that hard to believe.
Readers aren't all junkies. Once upon a time, journalists weren't all pushers, weren't all hacks...
Undermining trust, rotting the bonds of community, cannot possibly work for long. Fast bucks can make for lasting failure. That of a great newspaper, that of a once great and immensely promising country.
If it was Pravda today, you would be cheered by the MAGA crowd of republicans.
lol...
First, consider that you are emulating the thinking of Trump: "a great newspaper, that of a once great and immensely promising country." And, then consider, that the NYT that has enhanced our appreciation of the world for many decades, requires our vigilance and confronting feedback for us to be responsible and effective. This issue (responsibility and vigilance) prevails as citizens of the world we live in, and as parents, friends, students.
Obviously, consider it lazy to simply abandon what we find fault with.
P.S. I continue to benefit greatly from attending to Tom Friedman's wisdom.
Interesting take on it. My take is that the New York Times' irresponsible reporting and editing helped get Trump elected in 2016. I dropped my subscription shortly thereafter. They don't seem to have learned anything since. It is not a democratic institution that can be influenced by our "feedback."
Susanna, I don't think it was just NYT. I noticed most of the media I had previously depended on prior to 2015, going nuts for the jerk who had no experience, no empathy, no civility, little intelligence beyond that of the con artist. He was the "new thing" and our decent media in large numbers jumped on board the Trump train all the way to Trumplandia. We are still recovering from the trip and that fool wants in again and has a whole lot of media support. Any criticism of Trump seems muted and tentative while criticism of Biden who has actually done a whole lot for this nation is loud, rude, and undeserved. How do we hold the media accountable. I pointed out a really bad pro-Trump but inaccurate item on NPR recently and only got back a standard "thank you for your comment; we'll get back to you on it." They never will. I did actually hear one criticism of Trump today on NPR, tentative, honest, and there! Shock!
Ruth, I *know* it wasn't just the NYT, but their email obsession was pretty relentless.
Boy what rubes are you folks. "Whole lot of media support"? REALLY? Except for Fox (which of course is highly influential), SHOW me the "support" Trump has. The Times CALLED FOR HIM TO STEP ASIDE (which for me is a disaster, because we - the Democrats - will win SO MUCH MORE EASILY against Trump precisely because he is a disaster than we would against Nikki Halley or heaven forbid even Vance.). Again, as with the slanted media I have requessted, do not give my your opinions, those are worth about as much as MY opinions, GIVE ME FACTUAL REFERENCES to articles which are slanted. And by slanted I don't mean negative. It is the responsibility of the press to report the news whether good, bad or neutral. The negative reporting surrounding Biden should have been expected, he has shown repeatedly over many months a declining ability to focus and speak clearly. They should have been exposing that all along. And if anything, it might (if you take a few seconds to think) be the best thing that the press ever could have done (to get Biden to step aside) because he would have LOST THE ELECTION TO TRUMP ALMOST WITHOUT QUESTION and now with Harris firmly in the role of nominee, we actually have the chance to have the second black President and the first woman. HUGELY GOOD for the country. Trump is not. So I fail to see why you keep attacking ME when all I have asked for is proof (that you all claim you have read) of the so-called one-sidedness of the press, favoring Trump. I don't mean vague hand-waving, I mean what you do for research, i.e., you write down the articles and dates and page numbers and quote the sections. You do that and I promise you I will read every single line referenced and if I think you have a case, I also promise you I will mea culpa to the entire blog.
The problem is, I think there is no "there" there, i.e., the so-called articles you all claim are biased simply don't exist. You take a headline, misread it or interrpret it in the wrong way and then say "there's proof that the article is biased" except when you read it, there is no bias.
Again, prove me wrong. I don't think you can.
Here is something shared by emoltzen on Threads:
The NY Times spent 31 paragraphs today dissecting the Harris plan to lower prices.
It spent 0 paragraphs dissecting Trump's "plan."
Trump spent almost two hours yesterday, with props behind him, supposedly trying to explain how prices would drop if he's elected. The Times spent Zero Point Zero percent of the story examining how he would do it and if it would work.
It then asked multiple Ivy League economists to critique the Harris plan.
Here is an example from the HCR piece we all just read: "And the New York Times reported that in a speech in North Carolina, тАЬHarris Is Set to Lay Out an Economic Message Light on Details,тАЭ adding that she is expected to tweak Biden administration themes тАЬin a bid to turn the Democratic economic agenda into an asset.тАЭ
HCR goes on to note that the US has the strongest economy in the world right now and inflation has been successfully managed.
As far as I'm concerned, a statement by the NYT that the Biden/Harris admin needs to 'turn their economic agenda into an asset' strongly suggests that they currently see it as a liability -- which is not only not true but also a major right-wing talking point.
P.S. by 'interpret in the wrong way', I suppose that means you believe that the way YOU interpret things is the only right way.
The TIMES reporting helped to get Trump elected? ARE YOU FROM MARS?!!! The Times avidly supported Hillary Clinton, but hey, you know, Hillary had some REAL baggage and the Times NEWS section (unlike the Editorial section) was obligated to report on that stuff. That was Hilary's burden to bear, she was the one who did stuff that looked at best fishy and are worst UGLY, and sadly, she was facing in the election the worst monster we have ever seen. But the newspaper's responsibility it to report the truth and they did. Sadly, the people in this country are as a group way to dumb to actually tease out the bad stuff from the good stuff and she lost, not by much either. She won the popular vote and only lost in the swing states which Biden turned around 4 years later.
Hilary was her own best enemy, for so so so many reasons and while I avidly supported her like a good Democrat, I was not stunned by her loss because I knew she was vulnerable. Trump's team was able to jump on it and divert attention away from his own nonsense (with one major difference... all of HIS stuff was "private" nonsense, while her stuff occurred while she was in service to the government and that made a HUGE difference).
I believe that Trump's grotesque moves WHILE he was President will as they did in 2020, hold as major negatives against him in 2024, especially now that Biden is out of the race. Those issues are/were just as relevant as the issues regarding Hilary in 2016, and Kamala Harris has few if any similar issues. She has been one of the most upstanding public servants in a long time, and I will be stunned if she loses this election.
There are actual stats out there on the number of articles the NYT put out that referenced HRC in a negative way, especially about her 'emails'. Many more of those than negatives about Trump.
Unfortunately I don't have those stats on hand, but people out there have crunched the actual numbers.
That, Valerie Meluskey, is why I took this paper for decades.
And why I look forward to victory, recovery, return to all that is admirable in America.
While expecting a hard fight and a very different world, if we all make it safely to 2026.
I agree with these productive talks. I long ago grasped the тАШunderstanding the audienceтАЩ reporting but тАж.
that the fight is going to be ongoing ..even after the Harris/Walz Win ..is a given. Our factual gains make little dent but good writing/reporting/headlines does. And I would agree the Republicans cornered the headlines with THE GRIFTER, THE CON hype using drama and a popular seduction , if not even cult approach. It worked тАжPAST TENSE.
Enough have now come back/seen the light , the eloquence of dedicated writers,historians,and amazing leadership has prevailed , mightily preserved, I favor.
The fight is not over.
We can never be complacent again.
Hopefully that lesson has received the A+ , TBD on 11/5/24 .
It requires a LANDSLIDE.
It requires GOTV/Volunteers amassing/Postcards/All hands on Deck! The grassroots led the charge , the American Rally Forth The Flag miracles is working.
Stay The Course ЁЯл╡
I love the тАШтАЩwrite it that wayтАЩтАЩ closing answer lineтАжBIDENтАЩs answer! Bravo my captain ЁЯл╢
The writing is clearly on the wall. Newspaper are JUST beginning to correct their lack of equal coverage..in part due too -to the new joy/hope/charisma that sells sells sellsтАжwe have a L O N G way to go before equality and facts surpass love of money and control . Few making the big bucks will like the roadтАжand those who contribute a THANK YOU EVERY TIME!
ItтАЩs perfectly clear to those with real leadership abilities тАж
ЁЯТЩЁЯТЩVOTE BLUE , END THIS COUPЁЯТЩЁЯТЩ
ЁЯСН
тАЬO Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells; ...тАЭ
Biden made a huge mistake with the border if for no reason then the optics of do nothing. I cringed for 3 years wondering why he was so dense. Maybe itтАЩs because he is dense.
Hopefully minus 1.
And we all benefitted from their endless, baseless attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016, "But her emails," /s. And here we are the old playbook being recycled.
If you really believe that ALL the attacks on Hillary Clinton were baseless, you need to read some real history. Hillary was so vulnerable from many of her positions as both Senator and Secretary of State. She was a terribly weak candidate (I was so stunned when Biden decided to step aside for her, even though voting for a woman was something I was really anxious to do, I just wasn't convinced she was the right one).
John, so you were looking for perfect, huh. Clinton was a very qualified candidate, knew her stuff, and was far superior in every way to "the monster" as you call Trump. I did not see the NYT pushing nearly as hard to point out Trump's total inappropriateness for any office let alone president, then he proved it. There are plenty of folks saying your exact criticisms of Harris right now. Could it be, dare I say it, Misogyny or a fear of women in power? Nah, couldn't be that!
You are accusing me of misogyny? Fear of women in power? What a crock... I campaigned tirelessly for Hilary Clinton, and have been campaigning for Harris as well (in fact that was one of the reasons I hoped Biden would step DOWN because I think Harris who I supported multiple times when she ran in California is a far better candidate that Joe is any more.). Typical nonsense from someone who is too lazy to find their sources and attributions and instead decides to use ad hominem attacks. Neither far nor adult nor really worthy of even the 8 lines I have written in response. Have a nice day.
Your first lines in any message to anyone in this forum is an attack of some form or other. It especially stands out to me that you attack 'women' here (and not all that well either - if they're grading you, you're moving back a grade I'd wager).
If the hat fits wear it, Dude......as for having a nice day? Lighten up, every one of your comments is loaded, loaded with sarcastic, snarly comments and then there is a veracity issue, you " I campaigned tirelessly for Hilary Clinton..." Uh---huh As I said.....ok, let's make it shoe and I suggest you get your foot out of your mouth
If the hat wears it? Good lord... you can't do anything except come up with challenges to my honesty. Wow. Try harder next time (but with someone else, because frankly, despite the great work that HCR does, none of this is worth it).
It's so tiresome to have to respond to misogynistic fools who are so rabidly vehement; one begins to think that the misogynistic writer is, at heart, a basic MAGA idiot. Is Project 2025 your Bible? Your niggling way of responding? Speaks volumes about you, volumes.
Get a grip, if you're able.
You make good points, but your hostility is weakening your arguments.
Ah you mentioned Tom Friedman. That ainтАЩt fair. Yes there are some roses among the thorns
I also cancelled years ago. I think the NYTimes helped Trump in 201-. What a shame.
2016
There is a problem with the NYT and reporting on the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Israeli relies on the "Israel Lobby" to control reactions. The head of the NYT is of a Jewish family that owned the paper for many years. I checked to see who the major shareholders are. It is Vanguard and Black Rock with controlling interest. They want profit, not controversy. V and BR have controlling interest in many important companies. One is Boeing. Boeing has put profit and share price ahead of engineering and safety. This country has a problem of profit over best practice.
"This country has a problem of profit over best practice." For far longer and wider than you even suspect Patrick.
If you don't like the New York Times, try CONSORTIUM NEWS. There you won't get a defense of US foreign policy, in Gaza, Ukraine, or anywhere else. It's full of former Peabody winners who've soured on the mainstream media and gone alternative. Scolding inevitably, and little appreciative of the difficulties of being the world's hegemonic power, - but throwing our many failures and atrocities into sharp relief. Give it a try.
I think I will cancel mine now even though I only pay $4 per month. I always refuse the full rate.
I finally canceled at my son's urging. I, too, only paid $4 and enjoyed the games and recipes.
But we must speak with our pocketbooks and not give them another penny. I've had it with them, just as I've had it with Xitter. No more.
Good luck with that. Be ignorant by choice. The Times is by far the best, most objective news source going these days. If you choose to get your "news" from MSNBC or CNN or some blog (like this one) then you are closing yourself off to actual facts and you will suffer for it, as will our entire country, if enough people turn out to be like you.
Wow, what a world we live in today. "I'd rather trust some unknown person writing a blog and their fans than an actual newspaper that has standards." Amazing.
Maybe I'm fortunate to read in several languages. But, for starters, someone here mentioned both The Guardian and the English language version of Haaretz...
Some big problems with NYT since 2016...
"Letters from an American" is not "some unknown person writing a blog." Neither are the offerings from Timothy Snyder, Dan Rather, Joyce Vance, Simon Rosenberg, George Lakoff, Robert Reich, Bill Kristol, and The Intercept.
I trust their integrity a lot more than I trust the NYTimes or WSJ at present.
Agree ml.
Except NONE of those report news objectively, they provide opinions. People need to differentiate, opinions and news are NOT the same thing. Sigh...
And I never put the WSJ in the same class as the Times. WSJ was purchased by the Murdochs and it has never been the same since. The Times is still owned by the Ochs/Salzburger family (as it has been for almost 120 years) and has steadfastly REFUSED to become fodder for the sell-out crowd.
And if you can't trust the Times, you (and the rest of us) are in a world of hurt, my friend, that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Trump.
But..... I still subscribe because out of their political reportage (which I agree is in need of a make-over), you do get pretty good coverage of world news, sports, and business. And, of course, Metropolitan Diary.
Which is why I will likely keep it for now. But I wouldnтАЩt pay full rate. Every time my annual special ends, I threaten to terminate and they extend it another year. Hope your not paying full rates.
I was begged by the NYT to only pay $4 to get me back. I couldnтАЩt pay for deliberate misinformation. Felt unpatriotic
Can you please provide even ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of "deliberate misinformation"??? Maybe you can, I am sure it has happened, but you will need to do a VERY diligent search because from where I sit (and I read the paper religiously every single day, cover to cover) because the number of times that has happened over many years has got to be single digits if that.
And I am talking about NEWS, not columns or editorials. Those are always subject to points of view and can clearly contain infomation that is not vetted adequately. That should NOT be the case with actual hard news, which the Times has extremely rigorous policies on checking and double-checking. And when they are wrong, they own up pretty much instantly.
I cancelled my long term subscription with a note why a few years ago and just picked it back up for 4$ a month. I will cancel after trial. I like to read all the reporting during election season.
At the end of trial, if you threaten to end they will extend the special another year with no strings. So I give them $50 a year and I do receive good international and national news.
Hmmm so you DO admit that you receive good national news. Politics is national news. So how do you distinguish the "good" national reporting from the "awful" political reporting? Its all pretty much the same, and from where I sit, I can't even tell the difference.
Me too. They sicken me along with WaPo. Each journalist staying with them sickens me too. I am looking at the Tech Bros and the money they can throw at this election and it is frightening. How did we let them get so powerful? I see them as an evil that we need to revolt against. Not that the other super wealthy throwing money at this election are any more tasteful. It is just so wrong that we have all of the billionaires who are heading onto trillionairehood at some point.
I did the same. WhatтАЩs interesting, though, is how many of these so-called journalists lie in the paper but write books denigrating Trump.
Again as I have asked repeatedly, could you present even a SINGLE ARTICLE in which you claim a reporter (not a columnist but an actual reporter, like Maggie Haberman or Peter Baken) has lied in the Times? I challenge this because it is a vile accusation and if true would mean my entire belief system is screwed up. But sorry, I don't think it is. I think you are screwed up here, charging things that simply aren't true and if that is it, you should be ashamed of yourself.
IтАЩm close to canceling my WaPo subscription next.
I cancelled it when they banned me for commenting what I would do when Trump was laid in state at the capital and said I would crap in front of cameras on the steps of the Capital. (An assume statement to make for the world to view, isnтАЩt it.) And they refused to lift the ban. So they lost big time with my special sale rate ya ya.
Hahaha!! Bill Katz
But I will definitely urinate at his chosen grave site or toss cat shit from a distance if necessary. And I have 7 cats to choose from having a ready supply.
So typical of people who obscure the truth and throw "stones". As they say, you shouldn't live in a glass house, then. The use of foul language is just one clear example of your bias, so you can hardly accuse others of bias yourself.
Bill, perhaps the chosen site will be next to Ivana at BedminsterтАж.a fitting location, no?
Lol Barb....
Same here. It runs out in November -- nice coincidence. I've been subscribing to the Guardian, both UK and US digital editions, for several years, and just picked up Haaretz to follow Israel-Palestine news.
Haaretz is such an opinionated paper LOL! To give up the times and choose that left-wing rag is nonsensical. Don't get me wrong, I am FAR left wing especially when it comes to Israel (can't stand Netanyahu and believe they need to withdraw from Gaza and give that land to the Palestinians, oh yes and I am Jewish too) but to quote Haaretz while denigrating the NY Times is the height of absurdity.
Same--I switched to "puzzles only," and my resting heart rate has improved!
Well, maybe (and I am happy for your heart) but you have also dumbed down your brain, because you are ignoring the best source of unbiased news available in this country. Wow, what a move forward that must be. Now you can rely on blogs and podcasts by people who have NOTHING but their own axes to grind and aren't held to ANY standards at all! Bravo!
I too cancelled my subscription and told them I was tired of their biased reporting.
Please provide a SINGLE EXAMPLE of their "biased reporting". IE, this means NEWS articles, not editorials or columnists, please. Those are going to have biases (and they should).
My guess is that you couldn't pick a biased article out if you fell over it. Because in fact there simply aren't many, probably not more than a few a month if that. THE NY TIMES is one of the most objective papers in the world and thats why it is also the BIGGEST paper in the world because people who count use it consistently.
I did mine last weekend.
Gigi , Me too.
I am not happy with a lot of their reporting but I keep my subscription to support their investigative work.
Please distinguish... all of their reporting is in some sense investigative work. And if you feel that there is a bias in their reporting, I would LOVE for YOU to be the one to point out an actual article where this can be shown. I am sure there are some, but you and everyone else here seems to suggest that occurs in virtually every story and that simply is such nonsense. Sigh...
Bless you.