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.
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.