Oh you’ve barely scratched the surface of their depravity. Remember when they described Trump’s open, explicit racism as a “long-held fascination with genetics”?
This is why when I received a gift subscription for my birthday this year I didn't even keep the email with the activation link. It's so unnecessarily difficult to cancel subscriptions from them (which I'd already done about a year prior) that there was no net positive for me to bother using it. I feel bad because they don't provide refunds for gift subscriptions for any reason but that's not enough to guilt me into reading propaganda. Hopefully they don't send more reminder emails to the gift giver than they do to the gift recipient.
As someone who's been involved in media criticism and independent journalism since 2000, I really appreciate this piece. The NY Times was already compromised back then, but you're right that there's been a big decline in the last few years. I would pin the start of it to 2016 with the Russiagate nonsense (Russiagate was just Birtherism for Liberals, lol). However, what's happening now is a precipitous drop for sure. It's a bit breathtaking how much of the establishment is kneeling to Trump.
Thanks for spending so much time with the "Screams Without Words" piece. That was truly a milestone in shoddiness.
Thanks Kollibri! It's good to hear that folks who are credentialed in this area are in agreement. I truly believe Screams Without Words is this generation's "Iraq has WMD" story — complete fabrication to justify unspeakable crimes.
From what I’ve been told, you can play the daily games without a subscription. You just don’t have access to the archives. I can’t verify because I’m boycotting them 100%, even the games, but you might want to try.
I didn't know that! I just visited NYTimes incognito (aka visiting a site with cookies turned off) and it said "Create a free account, or log in. Gain access to limited free articles, news alerts, select newsletters, podcasts and some daily games." I didn't go further to find out which games.
I canceled the NYT and WaPo after the Trump-Biden debate, when it became clear that they were both only interested in Biden’s mental state rather than pushing back on Trump’s completely bullshit story about having nothing to do with Project 2025.
I subscribed to The Economist until the inauguration, when it became clear that they weren’t going to take any sort of critical view on the dismantling of the Constitution (I had hoped they’d be more critical, and I found the educational aspects of conservative economics valuable to a point, though I’m far left on that spectrum). I also subscribed to the WSJ after canceling the NYT & WaPo (until my trial ran out) but didn’t read the editorials because I felt that they had content that skewed at least more critical and informative, but it wasn’t worth continuing after the trial.
Overall I get my news from left-ish Substacks and also some right-leaning ones (by that I mean people who we’d call centrists 30 years ago) who have a deep understanding of law because I like to hear their take on what’s happening.
Also my 22yo kid is an anarchist communist who knows tons more about history and the world than I do (I’m really trying to learn, as a Gen Xer who grew up at the end of the Cold War), so we have lots of interesting conversations at home.
thanks Joe. It is increasingly difficult to know where to get your news these days. The New York Times is definitely stuck and I agree it will fade away if it does not adjust to the current times.
I've been a NY Times reader/subscriber since the 1980's. There is no question but that this outlet panders to the political center, normalizes the fascistic machinations of the Felon-in-Chief, and declines to report on anything that would upset their readers, advertisers, or the status quo.
On the other hand, its editorial board has lately expressed dismay and a tepid sense of outrage at what is happening in DC. And has showcased writers such as Katherine Stewart who took a blowtorch to the power brokers, influence peddlers, and especially the Xtian Nationalists at the heart of this administration. So, there's that.
Catering to the center is a good way to put it. But like most aspects of political understanding, the centrist-voter they imagine just doesn't exist. So they end up writing stuff that appeals to no one, really.
Yellow journalism and the social reform journalists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries newspapers have always had a bias. That's the point of newspapers and you read them to get an idea of what "that side" is thinking. But the watered down weak milquetoast journalism of most MSM where offending the hand that feeds is more important than a shred of truth it makes me think Rupert Murdoch was correct in turning "news" into propaganda.
I keep being shocked and I wonder how long it's been like this. I used to read the NYT in the last century, and it was considered one of the best by many. How did they fall so far?
While I'm sure there are many people with more insight than me, I bet it had to do with the digital age. They couldn't take the slight loss in readers, so they started to panic and lost the plot.
To see what's been happening to the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, MSNBC, etc., a great place to start is with Matt Taibbi's "Hate Inc."
And those publications are the Govnt's outlet for "leaks" and policy directives. They're good stenographers; they write and publish what they're directed to do.
But practice journalism? Not even if you hold your breath and squint.
Oh you’ve barely scratched the surface of their depravity. Remember when they described Trump’s open, explicit racism as a “long-held fascination with genetics”?
lol.
Yes.
This is why when I received a gift subscription for my birthday this year I didn't even keep the email with the activation link. It's so unnecessarily difficult to cancel subscriptions from them (which I'd already done about a year prior) that there was no net positive for me to bother using it. I feel bad because they don't provide refunds for gift subscriptions for any reason but that's not enough to guilt me into reading propaganda. Hopefully they don't send more reminder emails to the gift giver than they do to the gift recipient.
I love this story! Good for you!
As someone who's been involved in media criticism and independent journalism since 2000, I really appreciate this piece. The NY Times was already compromised back then, but you're right that there's been a big decline in the last few years. I would pin the start of it to 2016 with the Russiagate nonsense (Russiagate was just Birtherism for Liberals, lol). However, what's happening now is a precipitous drop for sure. It's a bit breathtaking how much of the establishment is kneeling to Trump.
Thanks for spending so much time with the "Screams Without Words" piece. That was truly a milestone in shoddiness.
Thanks Kollibri! It's good to hear that folks who are credentialed in this area are in agreement. I truly believe Screams Without Words is this generation's "Iraq has WMD" story — complete fabrication to justify unspeakable crimes.
“What is even the point of reading The New York Times?” In a word: "Wordle." Without it, I'd be gone in a NY heartbeat.
You can subscribe to NYT games independently of the news. It's $40/year.
From what I’ve been told, you can play the daily games without a subscription. You just don’t have access to the archives. I can’t verify because I’m boycotting them 100%, even the games, but you might want to try.
I didn't know that! I just visited NYTimes incognito (aka visiting a site with cookies turned off) and it said "Create a free account, or log in. Gain access to limited free articles, news alerts, select newsletters, podcasts and some daily games." I didn't go further to find out which games.
Yikes. I’ve been digging the Wordle, recipes and book reviews. I guess that’s what I get for subscribing for the lively/baldoni content 😂
Wordle seems to be the reason people stick around, which I get lol
I canceled the NYT and WaPo after the Trump-Biden debate, when it became clear that they were both only interested in Biden’s mental state rather than pushing back on Trump’s completely bullshit story about having nothing to do with Project 2025.
I subscribed to The Economist until the inauguration, when it became clear that they weren’t going to take any sort of critical view on the dismantling of the Constitution (I had hoped they’d be more critical, and I found the educational aspects of conservative economics valuable to a point, though I’m far left on that spectrum). I also subscribed to the WSJ after canceling the NYT & WaPo (until my trial ran out) but didn’t read the editorials because I felt that they had content that skewed at least more critical and informative, but it wasn’t worth continuing after the trial.
Overall I get my news from left-ish Substacks and also some right-leaning ones (by that I mean people who we’d call centrists 30 years ago) who have a deep understanding of law because I like to hear their take on what’s happening.
Also my 22yo kid is an anarchist communist who knows tons more about history and the world than I do (I’m really trying to learn, as a Gen Xer who grew up at the end of the Cold War), so we have lots of interesting conversations at home.
thanks Joe. It is increasingly difficult to know where to get your news these days. The New York Times is definitely stuck and I agree it will fade away if it does not adjust to the current times.
Glad you liked it! What's weird is they have ample opportunity to evolve, but they refuse to.
I've been a NY Times reader/subscriber since the 1980's. There is no question but that this outlet panders to the political center, normalizes the fascistic machinations of the Felon-in-Chief, and declines to report on anything that would upset their readers, advertisers, or the status quo.
On the other hand, its editorial board has lately expressed dismay and a tepid sense of outrage at what is happening in DC. And has showcased writers such as Katherine Stewart who took a blowtorch to the power brokers, influence peddlers, and especially the Xtian Nationalists at the heart of this administration. So, there's that.
Catering to the center is a good way to put it. But like most aspects of political understanding, the centrist-voter they imagine just doesn't exist. So they end up writing stuff that appeals to no one, really.
Objective journalism is a canard. From the Hearst
Yellow journalism and the social reform journalists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries newspapers have always had a bias. That's the point of newspapers and you read them to get an idea of what "that side" is thinking. But the watered down weak milquetoast journalism of most MSM where offending the hand that feeds is more important than a shred of truth it makes me think Rupert Murdoch was correct in turning "news" into propaganda.
At least with Fox News you know their viewpoint.
I keep being shocked and I wonder how long it's been like this. I used to read the NYT in the last century, and it was considered one of the best by many. How did they fall so far?
While I'm sure there are many people with more insight than me, I bet it had to do with the digital age. They couldn't take the slight loss in readers, so they started to panic and lost the plot.
To see what's been happening to the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, MSNBC, etc., a great place to start is with Matt Taibbi's "Hate Inc."
And those publications are the Govnt's outlet for "leaks" and policy directives. They're good stenographers; they write and publish what they're directed to do.
But practice journalism? Not even if you hold your breath and squint.
Good question… the NYT serves the US state department.
totally agree