every now and then.

Atrios: http://www.eschatonblog.com/2017/05/bothsidesism.html?m=1

Nate Silver:
https://mobile.twitter.com/natesilver538/status/933415593054691328?lang=en

Jay Rosen:
http://pressthink.org/2017/11/pricing-access-trump-white-house-strange-case-times-social-media-policy/

That’s from a very short search. You can google “Haberman bothsidesism” or try “Haberman Kushner mother” for more.


The NYT Times needs to start protecting the truth and rejecting bothsidesism.

That has not been my observation/experience.

Seems to me the NYT has been balanced on its reporting on DJT.

Fawning over rethugs as usual. Then when a Democratic president comes in they get critical and only quoted rethugs. Those leopards spots have always been there with a pro rethug bias.

Use an analogy from sports. If you’re covering a game between the Browns and the Eagles, you don’t use “balance”.

One team is bad. The other team is good. You say that.

Same situation here with the GOP and Dems. One party is corrupt and autocratic and endangers the country. The other is a normal coalition-based political party that wants to govern and help average Americans.

The NYT should say that. If they are “balanced” — that means they are effectively lying. It means they are not communicating the truth. It means they have a conservative bias.

That’s whats going on. (Not what the OP was about: the OP was about obvious tilt towards the GOP, as the NYT refuses to quote Dem leaders. But the balance thing is probably the biggest issue with the NYT.)

Seven articles among how many about Trump in the same issue?

Clearly even people on DU are influenced by the same GOP media machine if you believe the NYT (Politics and op-ed sections only) is critical enough of Trump.
(The NYT is still the paper of record and has a great great investigations department. It’s just their politics and opinion coverage has been cowed into false balance by GOP attacks.)

If you want to break out of that, read media outside America. Look at Der Spiegel or Le Monde (English trans) or The Economist or the non-tabloid non-conservative UK press: Guardian and maybe the Telegraph. Or the NY Daily News. Or EJ Dionne and Norm Orenstein and David Frum and Rick Wilson. THEY fairly tell the horrible truth about Trump without seeking false balance.

The NYT has been sold a bargeful of lies by the right wing press that they need to balance a pro-American party with an insane party. They are not nearly critical enough of the insanity. They normalize Trump and the GOP every single day.

For longer explanations of why the NYT is normalizing trump, read Jay Rosen (NYU journalism) or CJR or George Lakoff or Marsha Gessen or Garry Kasparov (or any anti-Putin Russian journalist).

The NYT is harming America with false balance. (NPR is even worse for the same reason). It’s sad but true.

The New Yorker or NY Mag or Wa Po are WAY WAY fairer sources towards the president today. Unfortunately none of them NYT today.

You just haven't been paying attention. Cherry-picking article explaining the point of view of the Republican majority in Congress and of the Trump administration is misleading. I just went tot the NY times website and searched for "trump.' Up popped many, many articles warning of the danger Trump presents, and the shady, illegal, and treasonous acts he is accused of.

And further, you’re making the same assumption, and same mistake, that the media makes - that truth and objectivity implies equal volume of criticism of both sides. (“Lots of articles critical of Trump....”)

That is obviously false. As usually the underlying quantity to be measured is not equal on both sides.

I’m saying he deserves even MORE criticism. Like any other corrupt wannabe autocrat racist who is deeply damaging America would deserve.

both sides?" I wrote that they write far more articles that are critical of Trump. Count them and tell me what the balance is.

And you counted articles. That whole PREMISE is misguided (unless one can estimate the underlying bias in people’s positions - which seems impossible.)

It’s not about counting articles - that’s what gets us to these notions of false balance.

It’s about being objective. Reporting facts.

And Calling out lies and bad faith. When the times starts doing that, our public debate will be much much improved.

You err in believing that reporting someone's opinion is equivalent to agreeing with it. My mother was scandalized that Marx's "Capital" was available in my high school library. She worried about it's effect on vulnerable minds. We are a lot stronger and more intelligent than that. If one could actually get through the book, one would not be hypnotized by it. Same goes for good journalism. I'm not afraid to hear what the other side believes, or claims to believe.

NT

A.M. Rosenthal?. As a 'paper of record', they get all sorts of pressures.

in the Times on the same day had Democratic commentary. I've seen people accuse the WaPo of the same thing, which I know to be way off base because I checked and it just wasn't so. A very large percentage of news on the web is borrowed from stories first published in these two excellent papers. They do real in-depth journalism, and are quick to announce it publicly when they get something wrong. Attacks on good media like this play into the hands of right wingers intent on creating their own alternative reality where there are not its and you "can't trust the media." You know, just like Trump has been saying.

And the NYT has a bad bad case of the “bothsidesism” disease.

You’re seriously defending the NYT’s politics coverage?

So not only have I formed my own opinion, it’s an expert opinion.

And if you think the NYT isn’t helping Trump, I’m very sorry for you. I hope you open up your horizons and get information from a wider variety of sources soon.

Constructive criticism of the Times is a good thing. Accusing the Times of never criticizing Trump and, in fact, supporting him is not. Tear down our best journalism and we'll be left with just the crap.

I waver on this topic, but I appreciate your point that we can’t just wish for the Times to go away.

The Times is some of our best journalism and the paper of record.

But they have GOT to fix their politics coverage and their headlines. They are helping this president and the GOP.

Because the times is thought to be liberal, their criticism of democrats has a huge effect. Their negative-towards Dems-coverage - of Benghazi, emails, Clinton Cash, and denying ties between Trump and Russia - did more than perhaps any media outlet to get Trump elected. That needs to be fixed.

(Note that on all four of those topics, the Times was manipulated by the right into criticizing Dems falsely. Ultimately THAT is the big problem- they must stop allowing right wing disingenuous propaganda to exploit and abuse them.)

While they have some very, very good investigative reporting, they continue the foolish WE MUST BE FAIR AND BALANCED EVEN IF WE END UP LEGITIMIZING LIES.

This is the newspaper that obsessed with Hillary Clinton's emails and forgot to cover her positions on issues.

Eric Boehlert has monitored msm for a long time, including a lot of years with Media Matters. He now writes for Share Blue. When he examines coverage, he is usually thoughtful and careful.

and an even better intelligent and adult back and forth discussion. It's a big reason why I come here.