Usually NYT can be found with their lips on the metaphorical ring of the neoliberal western order, so if they’re not full-throated in support of one of its champions, that’s a little interesting but not very.
Usually NYT can be found with their lips on the metaphorical ring of the neoliberal western order, so if they’re not full-throated in support of one of its champions, that’s a little interesting but not very.
Personally my belief is that “is this true or not?” is way, way more important than “does this line up with my ideology or not?”
I’m comfortable reading stuff from all kinds of viewpoints, neoliberal communist whatever, as long as the facts that are underpinning it are relatively close to reality. That obviously excludes some stuff, but reading what remains is actually a pretty good way to understand the world.
I skimmed it. I don’t need convincing that NYT are lying hacks. It’s pretty small potatoes imo compared to their usual shenanigans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies
I thought by the headline they were talking about this https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/
Usually NYT can be found with their lips on the metaphorical ring of the neoliberal western order, so if they’re not full-throated in support of one of its champions, that’s a little interesting but not very.
Personally my belief is that “is this true or not?” is way, way more important than “does this line up with my ideology or not?”
I’m comfortable reading stuff from all kinds of viewpoints, neoliberal communist whatever, as long as the facts that are underpinning it are relatively close to reality. That obviously excludes some stuff, but reading what remains is actually a pretty good way to understand the world.