The Atlanta Journal-Constitution joins the New York Times in calling for President Biden to exit the 2024 race after last week's debate.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution joins the New York Times in calling for President Biden to exit the 2024 race after last week’s debate.

  • NoSuchAgency@lemdro.idOPEnglish
    122·
    2 days ago

    If you mean GOP, I don’t understand…Georgia’s largest newspaper or the New York Times aren’t right leaning at all

      • NoSuchAgency@lemdro.idOPEnglish
        214·
        2 days ago

        is the new york times a liberal or conservative paper

        The New York Times is often perceived as a liberal or progressive newspaper, but its political stance is more complex and nuanced. Here’s a breakdown:

        Historical context: The Times was founded as a conservative newspaper in 1851, and it maintained a conservative editorial stance until the early 20th century. However, during the 1960s and 1970s, the paper began to shift towards a more liberal perspective, reflecting the changing values and attitudes of the time.
Editorial board: The New York Times’s editorial board has historically been liberal, but not uniformly so. While it has supported progressive causes, such as women’s suffrage, civil rights, and environmental protection, it has also endorsed conservative candidates and policies on occasion.
Columnists and opinion writers: The Times features a range of opinion writers and columnists, including liberal voices like Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Charles Blow, as well as conservative voices like Bret Stephens and David Brooks. This diversity of opinion reflects the paper’s commitment to presenting a range of perspectives.
Coverage and reporting: The Times is known for its in-depth reporting and investigative journalism, which often focuses on issues like government corruption, corporate malfeasance, and social justice. While this coverage can be seen as liberal-leaning, it is also driven by a commitment to fact-based reporting and a desire to hold those in power accountable.
Subscriber demographics: According to Vox, The New York Times’s subscribers skew “older, richer, whiter, and more liberal” than the general population of the United States. This may contribute to the perception that the paper is liberal, but it’s essential to note that the paper’s editorial stance is not solely determined by its subscriber demographics.

        In conclusion, while The New York Times has a liberal bent, it is not a uniformly liberal or conservative paper. Its editorial stance is shaped by a complex interplay of historical context, editorial board perspectives, and the diverse range of voices and opinions presented in its pages. ----Brave Search

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          161·
          2 days ago

          Man, maybe you’re getting downvoted hard because you’re busy using an AI to do your fucking thinking for you instead of digging up relevant information yourself to prove it.

          Nice attempt at sidestepping how often they capitulate to Republican administrations.

          • NoSuchAgency@lemdro.idOPEnglish
            318·
            2 days ago

            I’m getting downvoted because it doesn’t fit their narrative. I don’t care about that though. It’s expected

            • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              151·
              2 days ago

              lmao narrative

              Jesus Christ get a grip.

              I guess the NYT definitely didn’t hype us up for war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nope, never.

              The NYT never breathlessly repeated the accusations of Weapons of Mass Destruction without questioning their sources as to the validity of those claims, yup.

              You gotta be fucking shitting me.

              EDIT: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html

              The NYT outright admitting they just sold the entire country lies for the Bush admin.

              • NoSuchAgency@lemdro.idOPEnglish
                12·
                20 hours ago

                Find something that’s less than 20 years old. That’s such a dumb argument anyway. 99% of the news agencies in America at that time wanted to go to war. Everyone wanted revenge for what had happened.

            • shaiatan@midwest.socialEnglish
              111·
              2 days ago

              An account that echoes right-wing talking points in most of their posts doesn’t have room to complain about “narrative”

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      82·
      2 days ago

      Georgia’s largest newspaper or the New York Times aren’t right leaning at all

      In fucking fantasy-land maybe.

      New York Times literally sat on a story about illegal wiretapping on US citizens by the NSA for over a year at the behest of the Bush administration.

      I would think someone with the username NoSuchAgency might be familiar with that…

      The main people who the NYT are aimed at are literally rich New Yorkers with an extra house in the Hamptons. You can look at their Leisure section and it becomes ridiculously clear they’re catering to an elite set and not regular people.

      Sorry, but the rich elite generally are way more conservative than your average person, even if they claim liberalism.

      EDIT: Let’s not forget how absolutely HYPED the NYT was for THE WAR ON TERROR.

      EDIT II: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html

      • NoSuchAgency@lemdro.idOPEnglish
        212·
        2 days ago

        is the new york times a liberal or conservative paper

        The New York Times is often perceived as a liberal or progressive newspaper, but its political stance is more complex and nuanced. Here’s a breakdown:

        Historical context: The Times was founded as a conservative newspaper in 1851, and it maintained a conservative editorial stance until the early 20th century. However, during the 1960s and 1970s, the paper began to shift towards a more liberal perspective, reflecting the changing values and attitudes of the time.
Editorial board: The New York Times’s editorial board has historically been liberal, but not uniformly so. While it has supported progressive causes, such as women’s suffrage, civil rights, and environmental protection, it has also endorsed conservative candidates and policies on occasion.
Columnists and opinion writers: The Times features a range of opinion writers and columnists, including liberal voices like Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Charles Blow, as well as conservative voices like Bret Stephens and David Brooks. This diversity of opinion reflects the paper’s commitment to presenting a range of perspectives.
Coverage and reporting: The Times is known for its in-depth reporting and investigative journalism, which often focuses on issues like government corruption, corporate malfeasance, and social justice. While this coverage can be seen as liberal-leaning, it is also driven by a commitment to fact-based reporting and a desire to hold those in power accountable.
Subscriber demographics: According to Vox, The New York Times’s subscribers skew “older, richer, whiter, and more liberal” than the general population of the United States. This may contribute to the perception that the paper is liberal, but it’s essential to note that the paper’s editorial stance is not solely determined by its subscriber demographics.

        In conclusion, while The New York Times has a liberal bent, it is not a uniformly liberal or conservative paper. Its editorial stance is shaped by a complex interplay of historical context, editorial board perspectives, and the diverse range of voices and opinions presented in its pages. ----Brave Search

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              21·
              20 hours ago

              It’s not my job to prove what you say is true and it’s not my fault that you rely on an inherently flawed and untrustworthy source.

              Do better.

        • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          42·
          2 days ago

          https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html

          This is the NYT literally apologizing for their massive fuckups in the lead up to the War in Iraq where they basically just accepted the Party Line of what was going on. Democrats fell in line as to not be viewed as “soft on terror.”

          They took Republican administration officials at their word and didn’t do anymore digging.

          …but sure hyping up a war pushed by a Republican administration based on lies made up by that same administration is soooooooo liberal.