The New York Times

You gotta spin it to win it Media

Stop the presses!

Televangelist Conservative bias TeleSUR The Economist Ted Rall Cyber-bullying Whitewashing in film Luke Rudkowski Schlockumentary

We want pictures of Spider-Man!

Journalism Newspapers All articles

Extra! Extra!

WIGO World v - t - e

“”New rallying cry on the right: "Even the liberal New York Times agrees that climate change is debatable."

—Bruce Bartlett[1]

The New York Times (All the News That's Fit to Print™), depending on who you ask, is either a ragsheet run by commies, an obnoxious paywalled establishment ragsheet that is everything wrong with major American news outlets, or a winner of over a hundred Pulitzer Prizes.^[2] The Times is best known for its crossword puzzle and for Paul Krugman, both of which send secret messages (through clues and op-ed columns, respectively) that only liberals can understand properly.

If someone is scanning the Times in public, you can be sure they're either a deceitful liberal, or a good conservative checking out what liberals are up to. Someone who laughs while reading the Times is a liberal, as no conservative would ever find the un-American, Muslim-loving articles humorous!

The Times also is widely read at many universities and environmental organizations. When visiting these locations, make sure to keep low by hiding your Wall Street Journal inside the front pages of the Times.

In reality[edit]

While the crazies over at the Media Research Center have accused the Times of having a liberal bias,^[3] there have been several instances where the paper has blatantly supported neoconservative policies. For instance, in the wake of Iran-Contra, one editor acknowledged that the Times frequently adhered to the Reagan administration strategy of heavily reporting on human rights abuses in Nicaragua by the leftist Sandinista government as a means to support the right-wing Contras. At the same time, the newspaper usually ignored worse cases by other Central American governments supported by the Reagan administration.^[4] More recently, Clark Hoyt, public editor for the Times, steadfastly refused to issue corrections for a discredited story involving the ACORN pimp hoax.^[5]

It may be more reasonable to say that if the paper of today has any actual bias, it trends toward American exceptionalism and preserving the establishment status quo, rather than toward any broad political ideology. After all, the same newspaper which once published The Pentagon Papers now sidelines the release of leaked Afghan War documents in favor of personal attacks on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.^[6] The Times' coverage of the leaks was strikingly suspect when compared with other media outlets; the paper chose to focus on doing its best to make sure the US didn't look bad, and refused to admit the documents showed that government officials had ever lied about anything.^[7] Following the same lines, it also led the charge on not calling waterboarding torture when it was being done by the US,^[8] while at the same time not caring to be pedantic when it came to the same abuses done by others.^[9] It finally made a rule change in 2014.^[10]

Media Bias/Fact Check lists the New York Times as left-center.^[11]

The New York Times has published articles that are sympathetic to astrology and other pseudosciences.^{[12][13][14][15]} (Most of these are in the Woo Style section.) In fact, they have a whole column dedicated to this deceit.^[16] To be fair, they also publish pieces from pseudoscience critics.^[17][18]

Iraq War coverage[edit]

The most notable controversy the paper has faced was that centering on its coverage leading up to the Iraq War.^[19] Especially troublesome were stories backing the American government's position on WMD's in Iraq, authored prominently by reporter Judith Miller.^[20] Miller's articles, which more or less echoed the claims of Bush administration officials, were then cited by those very same officials as justifications for war. Truthiness in motion, you could say.

Not to be outdone, fellow Times journalist Thomas Friedman backed the war effort to the extreme, repeatedly asserting (contrary to the reality on the ground) that all was well, and that we were likely to see the end of the conflict somewhere within the next six months. So widely criticized was the Times coverage on Iraq, they even had to print a half-hearted apology when all was said and done.^[21]

Despite all of the above, the New York Times does manage to produce some high quality journalism. The Times has won 130 Pulitzer Prizes as of May 2021.

Flubs on discrimination[edit]

Slavery and segregation[edit]

In January 1859, the Times published an article proposing: "The very best thing that could possibly be done towards the abolition of Slavery would be for the North to stop talking about it. … Though, in our judgement, silence on on the part of the North concerning Slavery would be the best conceivable policy, there is not one chance in ten thousand that it will be adopted. … The Slavery question will continue to be discussed in the North; Abolitionists will will continue to denounce, menace and alarm the South … Emancipation, if it ever comes under such circumstances, will come like a thief in the night … the result of some bloody catastrophe, and do more harm than good to everybody concerned."^[22] The paper's gradualist flag flies high here.

Somewhat similar is an article from June 1961 about the Freedom Riders of the civil rights movement. Then, the Times argued: "The Freedom Riders ought not to be enjoined by the courts from exercising their Constitutional rights. But, as we have urged before, the Freedom Riders should realize they have made their point and voluntarily cease their activities for a period during which the passions aroused by their recent efforts may subside. A similar position on this issue was taken last week by the Southern Regional Council, which is composed of both white and Negro liberals. The Council is entirely correct in advocating that the advantages gained be not pressed too far. The issue of desegregation can ultimately be solved only in the South and primarily by Southerners, white and Negro. Neither violence nor the steadily insistent provocation of violence can bring about the solution."^[23]

The Holocaust[edit]

As reported by The Times itself in 1996, The Times "…grievously underplayed the Holocaust while it was going on."^{[24][25]:19-191} The Times was not alone in this among major media outlets,^[24] but it was particularly disconcerting since at the time, The Times was published by a religious Jew, Arthur O. Sulzberger, Sr. Even in the immediate aftermath of World War II, Sulzberger gave a speech in 1946 in which he partly blamed Zionist Jews for the Holocaust:^[25]:320

Holocaust denial can take several forms, and include minimizing the impact of the Holocaust and blaming the Jews for their own genocide.^[26]

Anti-LGBT discrimination[edit]

Homophobia at the Times was intense under A. M. Rosenthal (executive editor of the paper from 1977–1986), who is known to have personally hated gay people.^[27][28][29] (His tombstone says "HE KEPT THE PAPER STRAIGHT".^[29]) The New York Times during that period largely prohibited using "gay" as a synonym for "homosexual, lacked coverage of gay experiences,^[30] and was accused of homophobia multiple times by a gay community newspaper in New York City, the New York Native.^{[31][note 1]} On the 1981 cover of issue 13 for the Native was an article titled "Homophobia at the New York Times", written by David Rothenberg, which said that while there were gay people working at the Times, they were often in the closet to help their careers.^[33][34] The Times published an early report on AIDS, though it was not the first and it incorrectly said the disease posed no threat to non-homosexual people.^[27][35]

Some commentators draw a parallel or connection between historic coverage of gay people by the Times and later coverage of transgender people.^[29] In an analysis of Times coverage of nationwide anti-trans legislation from February 2023 to February 2024, Media Matters for America in association with GLAAD found that two-thirds of articles did not include the perspective of trans people. Eighteen percent of the articles also included anti-trans misinformation.^[36]

See also[edit]

• CNN
• New York Post
• Wall Street Journal
• The Washington Post

Columnists we have articles on[edit]

• The Krug
• The Bobo
• The Moustache of Understanding
• The Chunky Reese Witherspoon

External links[edit]

• New York Times
• USA Today, another liberal rag.
• LA Times, a lesser-known copycat propagandist tool.
• Track the historical use of words in the Times
• Track revisions to articles from popular news sites, most notably the Times
• Lulz: NYT's critical review of (pro-Times and well-received) doc Page One: Inside The New York Times

Notes[edit]

References[edit]