• mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    You’re not wrong. It is however notable that the NYT’s editorial stance on Biden’s performance and place in the Democratic strategy was a monolith, and one that was misaligned with both the voters’ opinions and the objective reality, up until a couple of days ago possibly in my opinion because word of some level of lost subscribers started reaching back up to the monolith’s office.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s all fine and well, but this is a contributing writer. She’s not even an employee of the NYT.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        That would only matter to the IRS. Or someone really really into the details of journalism. If you are one of those seven people, kudos.

        • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          The NYT regularly publishes opinion columns from wildly different perspectives. Only a week ago Matthew Walter, who could arguably be described as a conservative Christian nationalist, wrote a contributing opinion column discouraging people from voting.

          It doesn’t “only matter to the IRS.” Not understanding what an opinion column and a contributing writer are and how they function within a news organization is simply media illiteracy.

          Kudos.

    • a lil bee 🐝@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I really agree with both of you here. While there was an article or two posted with the opposite narrative, the NYT used their editorial discretion in a fairly flagrant way on this issue. It stood in stark contrast to other issues that they have gone out of their way to keep a neutral stance on as an overall paper (which I applaud). I’m not opposed to the newsroom, editorial team, or contributing writers having a stance unlike mine. I’m not the type to say “fuck all the media” all the time and think they’re generally diverse groups of professionals trying their best and sometimes failing. The fact that the NYT op-ed page and front page were just plastered in a single perspective though, without an opposing narrative, was just really blatant on this issue.

      I was one of those canceled subs. I canceled WaPo after their disastrous leadership developments too. I’m basically running on cables and international outlets now, which is a real shame because I like to read other perspectives presented well, which the op-ed teams at those agencies are capable of doing.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Yeah. It’s a shame. I feel like the vast majority of the staff in both places are competent professionals laboring away in a profession that’s badly badly needed, and badly badly under attack, in this country, and it feels unfair to shit on their work product when as far as I can tell the bulk of the problems are coming down from above them and they probably dislike them a lot more intensely than I do.

        At the same time, you can’t just ignore it, if some organization is trying to support the fascist winning the election. Fuck the NYT until further notice is my feeling. WaPo has been writing a couple of weird as hell stories too (e.g. Trump is going to save NATO), but I still have my subscription to them.

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah, they must have lied and made us all remember Biden’s perfect debate performance was actually awful.