The value of hijacking institutions lies precisely in the fact that people continue to afford the institutions respect that was earned by people who are long gone.
…or as in this case with this author, articles get wholesale respect based on the fact that the prime - but not sole - determiner of the content is known to the author to be deserving of respect.
…even as he knows that the institution may alter or remove content in those very articles to serve its leftist cause.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Why respect overall an organization that obfuscates, omits and acts as a biased activist, on the side of terrorists no less, all the while claiming to be a neutral voice of journalism. Respect is earned, how is respect due to the NYT.
I get the author’s point. Reading the Times requires a filter. Some of the articles are just hopelessly ideologically slanted. But many of the articles are some of the best researched and thorough reporting available. Probably about one-third of the time I stop reading after a few paragraphs, and one can usually figure out which ones those are from the subject matter.
I submit that you should consider, however, that on literally every piece that you claim appears to be well researched, unless you already know everything about the subject, the possibility that information harmful to The Omnicause was left out or removed remains high indeed.
Even if I concede that in those cases nothing false has been presented.
Part of the bias is in the determination of what is and is not news.
Which is not to deny the author’s claim that individuals he knows and respects are likely publishing good work, and possibly even only rarely leave out “unhelpful” bits.
What stuck out for me in the Times article this morning was the statement (paraphrasing) that the attacker either wanted to down the plane to kill the Israelis ‘or’ wanted to commit suicide. There is no ‘or’ in this quotient. The guy was obviously doing both. So to cite suicide as a standalone goal is ridiculous.
If only the world could convince suicidal Muslims to do their thing at home, the problem would solve itself. But since we can't even get them to pray at home, or in a mosque, rather than public parks and streets, I'm not at all optimistic about that strategy. Gosh, so many confusing customs for one group of folks, eh?
Having a point of view is not a sin when it is presented as such. The problem with the Times, and unfortunately many other media organizations, is that points of view are disguised as news and reporting, with cherry-picked evidence, inconvenient facts conveniently omitted, favorable facts blown out of proportion, and stories fabricated, all in service of that point of view. Rename the NYT’s so-called “News” section to Opinion or Point of View, and I’ll be totally cool with it. Otherwise, what they are doing is public opinion manipulation that has truly tragic consequences (rising antisemitism, lives ruined by transgender ideology, etc., etc.). And that, in my view, IS a sin.
My bet is that many reporters these days literally cannot understand that they possess a point of view. Instead they take for granted that certain beliefs are true and not beliefs at all. If they encounter views that don’t accord with their assumptions, those views are wrong. I blame the grown ups in the room for not having the courage and grit to challenge this generation. The first person who should be subjected to uncomfortable questions is oneself. A reporter who can’t ask ‘what am I missing here’ is just a stenographer.
“My bet is that many reporters these days literally cannot understand that they possess a point of view.”
There no doubt are a few particularly stupid, particularly ignorant midwits who fall in this category.
But to claim it of most, and especially of those at the NYT, in 2026 is just ridiculous.
In fact most people who go into journalism these days do so explicitly to be social justice warriors, not to ”break news” à la Lois Lane and Clark Kent.
Ever since Trump became the GOP nominee in 2016 and then won, they have been quite open that Orange Man Bad justifies them being partisans “needing” to affect outcomes, not merely be “reporters”.
Once you have read a NYT article on a subject you have professional expertise in & you see all the inaccuracies and lack of context in the article, you wonder if their coverage of topics you know nothing about have similar inaccuracies.
David, why respect overall an organization that obfuscates, omits and acts as a biased activist, on the side of terrorists no less, all the while claiming to be a neutral voice of journalism. Respect is earned, how is respect due to the NYT? I’m quite sure it isn’t.
The continued desire to give it respect when it’s not earned and therefore not due is why the NYT will never right itself. Being around for a long time shouldn’t be a litmus test for veracity.
My respect for the Times is more granular than all-or-nothing. Perhaps this has to do with my time working in the field, as I find most readers do take an all-or-nothing approach largely because they don't have the time or interest in dissecting the nuances. If a paper proves itself shoddy, they're done. But I take swings at the Times precisely because I haven't given up on it (even if it has mostly turned into a gaming and propaganda platform these days). So while I reach for the vomit bag when I read their black, trans or Palestinian coverage, I do respect specific reporters and specific bureau chiefs such as Keith Bradsher, their Beijing bureau chief, whose work is very data-driven, very technical, and Motoko Rich, currently Rome bureau chief but previously Tokyo, who is known less for data and more for old-school shoe-leather reporting. Also, Kenneth Chang on the science desk. (You can see my decades in Asia have produced a certain bias.) So that's where and why I maintain respect. Not simply because it's been around for a minute. Thanks for the pushback, though. I'll add a note about some of this in the piece.
I do. I try to be discerning and so I pay attention to specific bureau chiefs who I respect, or specific beat reporters, not the whole thing as one giant entity.
NAILED IT. I agree. Overall I respect the NYT. But especially on culture war topics since 2015, there have been many outright lies, obvious biases and dishonest reporting pieces.
Perhaps having a point of view is not a sin, but not knowing that you have one IS. Fuck the NYT and the horse they rode in on. It’s not harmless to pose as an impartial outlet when you’re not. And I suspect they do actually know that they have a point of view, they just believe it to be superior. Again fuck them, because I am thoroughly sick of propaganda dressed up as news.
There are certain topics, including those you highlighted, in which the NY Times has not only lost the discerning readership’s confidence but has actively pushed an ideologically driven narrative, ignoring or distorting inconvenient facts where needed.
Israel is the most glaring example. At no time did the NY Times inform its readership of the significant constraints under which its stringers in Gaza operated. I suspect this was to “protect” them from violent and likely deadly Hamas retribution. But if it is at the cost of journalistic integrity, it’s best to report nothing. Apparently the Grey Lady learned nothing from CNN’s debacle in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Only after his execution did CNN reveal that its news had been carefully curated so as to maintain access to Hussein and his government officials.
And what precisely was the editorial decision behind never including Israel’s estimates of dead terrorists in reporting Hamas’ casualty figures?
The untrustworthy, partisan coverage on certain - but far from all - topics reminds me of Benjamin Franklin’s description of John Adams, “always an honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes, and in some things, absolutely out of his senses.”
In 1969 I was assigned to research the origins of the state of Israel for a college seminar. In doing the research I noticed the pro-Zionist point of view of the New York Times throughout the 1950s was striking. My professor made the comment that our foreign policy in the Middle East would be better run out of Washington than New York. It could be argued that Israel would not exist were it not for the extreme pro-Zionism of the Times in the late 1940s and 1950s. This is totally understandable and defensible given the context of that era in the shadow of the holocaust.
Nevertheless I was quite persuaded by Winston Churchill’s admonition that Israel would be a mistake for it was a region full of fanatics “who can never change their minds nor change the subject”. Another memory from that time was Uri Avnery’s book “Israel without the Zionists” and also George Marshall’s opposition to the recognition of Israel. I was unconvinced that the Jewish state was a good idea for either Judaism or the world. In the long run I felt that the existence of Israel could potentially catalyze an increase in anti semitism around the world and provoke endless warfare in the region.
Maybe the New York Times is now seeking atonement?
I find this ahistorical. In the 1950s, publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger remained firmly anti-Zionist, arguing that Judaism was a religion and not a nationality, and that defining Jews as a national people risked compromising the civic identity of American Jews. In 1950, a Time profile described the Times as “pronouncedly anti-Zionist.” And yes, this bled into the paper’s reporting. It gave unusually serious attention to the American Council for Judaism, a small but outspoken anti-Zionist Jewish group. Sulzberger resisted describing Israel as a “Jewish state.” The paper was extremely reluctant to send Jewish journalists to Israel. There are many more examples of such things. It wasn’t pro-Zionist.
Serious question - why hasn’t the Times, along with the BBC and CBC - been thrown out of Israel? Trump would have no problem with throwing out the Times, and the Marco-Islamist regimes in London and Ottawa already support genociding the Jews. Why tolerate their anti-Semitic mouthpieces?
“On May 11, 2026, the New York Times published an opinion column by Nicholas Kristof titled “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians.”
That same day, the Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes by Hamas Against Women and Children released Silenced No More — a 300‑page investigation representing two years of work, 430 interviews, more than 10,000 photographs and video segments, and 1,800 hours of visual material documenting systematic sexual violence by Hamas on October 7 and against hostages in captivity.
It was initially reported in Australia as a disagreement between the pilots. I can’t help see that as a cynical attempt to downplay the role of radical Islamists and the targeting of Jewish people. The public media in Australia needs to be sanctioned! This is “freedom of the press” designed to promote a particular political point of view. It needs to stop!
I think it's a reference to the article title, which mentions lying. But this appears to be rehashing very well known political slants that all media have.
“What's next ... a shocking exposé that the Wall Street Journal is conservative?”
Except that when it comes to its news delivery (as opposed to the Opinion / Editorial page), other than the fact that it is generically pro-business, it’s really not.
The are the epitome of establishment central-left liberalism. It is truly absurd to claim that they are illiberal leftists ... I suggest you discuss this with the people of the Last Ditch bar and get their take on the Times.
If they were illiberal leftists it is very unlikely they would have given columns to conservatives such as Bret Stephens and (until recently) Ross Douthat. Unclear which Clinton policies you are referring to.
If you want to say it’s a clone of the ~2003 NYT, then that would be at least adjacent to the truth.
The WSJ news reporting is certainly not across the board conservative, and on several topics (climate change, e.g.) it is left of center, but overall it is the one major media that is centrist.
Where previously it was somewhat right of center. So on your point that it has moved left from where it previously was, I fully agree.
But claiming that it is a clone of *today’s* NYT is beyond OTT; it’s just untrue.
“Let me be clear. I respect the Times.”
Given the reality and the rest of your piece, the obvious question here is: why?
You can respect individuals at the biased media organization. That’s fine.
But respecting the institution itself?
It has earned our non-respect.
The value of hijacking institutions lies precisely in the fact that people continue to afford the institutions respect that was earned by people who are long gone.
…or as in this case with this author, articles get wholesale respect based on the fact that the prime - but not sole - determiner of the content is known to the author to be deserving of respect.
…even as he knows that the institution may alter or remove content in those very articles to serve its leftist cause.
That’s exactly what I was thinking. Why respect overall an organization that obfuscates, omits and acts as a biased activist, on the side of terrorists no less, all the while claiming to be a neutral voice of journalism. Respect is earned, how is respect due to the NYT.
I get the author’s point. Reading the Times requires a filter. Some of the articles are just hopelessly ideologically slanted. But many of the articles are some of the best researched and thorough reporting available. Probably about one-third of the time I stop reading after a few paragraphs, and one can usually figure out which ones those are from the subject matter.
I fully get and accept the author’s point as he subsequently framed it elsewhere in this comment section, yes.
But it doesn’t change the fact that the institution overall, and its leadership, have earned contempt, not respect.
In my view, it’s not an either/or judgment. Respect for some work; contempt for other work.
To each his own.
I submit that you should consider, however, that on literally every piece that you claim appears to be well researched, unless you already know everything about the subject, the possibility that information harmful to The Omnicause was left out or removed remains high indeed.
Even if I concede that in those cases nothing false has been presented.
Part of the bias is in the determination of what is and is not news.
Which is not to deny the author’s claim that individuals he knows and respects are likely publishing good work, and possibly even only rarely leave out “unhelpful” bits.
What stuck out for me in the Times article this morning was the statement (paraphrasing) that the attacker either wanted to down the plane to kill the Israelis ‘or’ wanted to commit suicide. There is no ‘or’ in this quotient. The guy was obviously doing both. So to cite suicide as a standalone goal is ridiculous.
If only the world could convince suicidal Muslims to do their thing at home, the problem would solve itself. But since we can't even get them to pray at home, or in a mosque, rather than public parks and streets, I'm not at all optimistic about that strategy. Gosh, so many confusing customs for one group of folks, eh?
Having a point of view is not a sin when it is presented as such. The problem with the Times, and unfortunately many other media organizations, is that points of view are disguised as news and reporting, with cherry-picked evidence, inconvenient facts conveniently omitted, favorable facts blown out of proportion, and stories fabricated, all in service of that point of view. Rename the NYT’s so-called “News” section to Opinion or Point of View, and I’ll be totally cool with it. Otherwise, what they are doing is public opinion manipulation that has truly tragic consequences (rising antisemitism, lives ruined by transgender ideology, etc., etc.). And that, in my view, IS a sin.
My bet is that many reporters these days literally cannot understand that they possess a point of view. Instead they take for granted that certain beliefs are true and not beliefs at all. If they encounter views that don’t accord with their assumptions, those views are wrong. I blame the grown ups in the room for not having the courage and grit to challenge this generation. The first person who should be subjected to uncomfortable questions is oneself. A reporter who can’t ask ‘what am I missing here’ is just a stenographer.
“My bet is that many reporters these days literally cannot understand that they possess a point of view.”
There no doubt are a few particularly stupid, particularly ignorant midwits who fall in this category.
But to claim it of most, and especially of those at the NYT, in 2026 is just ridiculous.
In fact most people who go into journalism these days do so explicitly to be social justice warriors, not to ”break news” à la Lois Lane and Clark Kent.
Ever since Trump became the GOP nominee in 2016 and then won, they have been quite open that Orange Man Bad justifies them being partisans “needing” to affect outcomes, not merely be “reporters”.
Once you have read a NYT article on a subject you have professional expertise in & you see all the inaccuracies and lack of context in the article, you wonder if their coverage of topics you know nothing about have similar inaccuracies.
Gell-Mann Amnesia, defined.
I never heard of Gell-Mann before, and you are right
David, why respect overall an organization that obfuscates, omits and acts as a biased activist, on the side of terrorists no less, all the while claiming to be a neutral voice of journalism. Respect is earned, how is respect due to the NYT? I’m quite sure it isn’t.
The continued desire to give it respect when it’s not earned and therefore not due is why the NYT will never right itself. Being around for a long time shouldn’t be a litmus test for veracity.
My respect for the Times is more granular than all-or-nothing. Perhaps this has to do with my time working in the field, as I find most readers do take an all-or-nothing approach largely because they don't have the time or interest in dissecting the nuances. If a paper proves itself shoddy, they're done. But I take swings at the Times precisely because I haven't given up on it (even if it has mostly turned into a gaming and propaganda platform these days). So while I reach for the vomit bag when I read their black, trans or Palestinian coverage, I do respect specific reporters and specific bureau chiefs such as Keith Bradsher, their Beijing bureau chief, whose work is very data-driven, very technical, and Motoko Rich, currently Rome bureau chief but previously Tokyo, who is known less for data and more for old-school shoe-leather reporting. Also, Kenneth Chang on the science desk. (You can see my decades in Asia have produced a certain bias.) So that's where and why I maintain respect. Not simply because it's been around for a minute. Thanks for the pushback, though. I'll add a note about some of this in the piece.
Does anyone go to the NYT if they need the truth?
I do. I try to be discerning and so I pay attention to specific bureau chiefs who I respect, or specific beat reporters, not the whole thing as one giant entity.
We are not their audience- blessed
I just assume the NY Times is lying about everything these days. It's run like a college newspaper, at best.
NAILED IT. I agree. Overall I respect the NYT. But especially on culture war topics since 2015, there have been many outright lies, obvious biases and dishonest reporting pieces.
Perhaps having a point of view is not a sin, but not knowing that you have one IS. Fuck the NYT and the horse they rode in on. It’s not harmless to pose as an impartial outlet when you’re not. And I suspect they do actually know that they have a point of view, they just believe it to be superior. Again fuck them, because I am thoroughly sick of propaganda dressed up as news.
There are certain topics, including those you highlighted, in which the NY Times has not only lost the discerning readership’s confidence but has actively pushed an ideologically driven narrative, ignoring or distorting inconvenient facts where needed.
Israel is the most glaring example. At no time did the NY Times inform its readership of the significant constraints under which its stringers in Gaza operated. I suspect this was to “protect” them from violent and likely deadly Hamas retribution. But if it is at the cost of journalistic integrity, it’s best to report nothing. Apparently the Grey Lady learned nothing from CNN’s debacle in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Only after his execution did CNN reveal that its news had been carefully curated so as to maintain access to Hussein and his government officials.
And what precisely was the editorial decision behind never including Israel’s estimates of dead terrorists in reporting Hamas’ casualty figures?
The untrustworthy, partisan coverage on certain - but far from all - topics reminds me of Benjamin Franklin’s description of John Adams, “always an honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes, and in some things, absolutely out of his senses.”
In 1969 I was assigned to research the origins of the state of Israel for a college seminar. In doing the research I noticed the pro-Zionist point of view of the New York Times throughout the 1950s was striking. My professor made the comment that our foreign policy in the Middle East would be better run out of Washington than New York. It could be argued that Israel would not exist were it not for the extreme pro-Zionism of the Times in the late 1940s and 1950s. This is totally understandable and defensible given the context of that era in the shadow of the holocaust.
Nevertheless I was quite persuaded by Winston Churchill’s admonition that Israel would be a mistake for it was a region full of fanatics “who can never change their minds nor change the subject”. Another memory from that time was Uri Avnery’s book “Israel without the Zionists” and also George Marshall’s opposition to the recognition of Israel. I was unconvinced that the Jewish state was a good idea for either Judaism or the world. In the long run I felt that the existence of Israel could potentially catalyze an increase in anti semitism around the world and provoke endless warfare in the region.
Maybe the New York Times is now seeking atonement?
I find this ahistorical. In the 1950s, publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger remained firmly anti-Zionist, arguing that Judaism was a religion and not a nationality, and that defining Jews as a national people risked compromising the civic identity of American Jews. In 1950, a Time profile described the Times as “pronouncedly anti-Zionist.” And yes, this bled into the paper’s reporting. It gave unusually serious attention to the American Council for Judaism, a small but outspoken anti-Zionist Jewish group. Sulzberger resisted describing Israel as a “Jewish state.” The paper was extremely reluctant to send Jewish journalists to Israel. There are many more examples of such things. It wasn’t pro-Zionist.
Good insight but not sure it goes in one direction. I’m thinking of people like Walter Duranty, Judith Miller and more recently Rukmini Callimachi.
Yes, good point.
Serious question - why hasn’t the Times, along with the BBC and CBC - been thrown out of Israel? Trump would have no problem with throwing out the Times, and the Marco-Islamist regimes in London and Ottawa already support genociding the Jews. Why tolerate their anti-Semitic mouthpieces?
This was the final disgusting straw for me:
“On May 11, 2026, the New York Times published an opinion column by Nicholas Kristof titled “The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians.”
That same day, the Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes by Hamas Against Women and Children released Silenced No More — a 300‑page investigation representing two years of work, 430 interviews, more than 10,000 photographs and video segments, and 1,800 hours of visual material documenting systematic sexual violence by Hamas on October 7 and against hostages in captivity.
Same day.”
It was initially reported in Australia as a disagreement between the pilots. I can’t help see that as a cynical attempt to downplay the role of radical Islamists and the targeting of Jewish people. The public media in Australia needs to be sanctioned! This is “freedom of the press” designed to promote a particular political point of view. It needs to stop!
"This is “freedom of the press” designed to promote a particular political point of view." That makes it propaganda.
Is it really news that the Times is liberal? What's next ... a shocking exposé that the Wall Street Journal is conservative?
What does liberal have to do with lying?
Where was it that Tony said something about lying? He just posited that the Times is Liberal.
They Front their biases more by leaving out information than by lying. Although, they frequently make exceptions to that and lie anyway.
I think it's a reference to the article title, which mentions lying. But this appears to be rehashing very well known political slants that all media have.
I think it’s beyond political slants.
“What's next ... a shocking exposé that the Wall Street Journal is conservative?”
Except that when it comes to its news delivery (as opposed to the Opinion / Editorial page), other than the fact that it is generically pro-business, it’s really not.
Check Allsides.com if you don’t believe me.
They are no longer liberal.
They are decidedly illiberal leftists.
The are the epitome of establishment central-left liberalism. It is truly absurd to claim that they are illiberal leftists ... I suggest you discuss this with the people of the Last Ditch bar and get their take on the Times.
They are no longer center-left.
They stand in opposition to almost every single policy of the last 6 years of Bill Clinton’s presidency.
I genuinely cannot tell whether the rest of your response is sarcasm.
The fact that there are many today who are even further radically left than they are does not make what they advocate “center-left”.
If they were illiberal leftists it is very unlikely they would have given columns to conservatives such as Bret Stephens and (until recently) Ross Douthat. Unclear which Clinton policies you are referring to.
The Wall Street Journal was conservative. A long time ago.
Today it's a clone of the New York Times. And a valuable clone, because Lefties insist that we act like it's still conservative.
Claiming that the Journal or Fox News is not conservative is a good sign of being an extremist!
“Today it's a clone of the New York Times.”
Sorry, this is wrong.
If you want to say it’s a clone of the ~2003 NYT, then that would be at least adjacent to the truth.
The WSJ news reporting is certainly not across the board conservative, and on several topics (climate change, e.g.) it is left of center, but overall it is the one major media that is centrist.
Where previously it was somewhat right of center. So on your point that it has moved left from where it previously was, I fully agree.
But claiming that it is a clone of *today’s* NYT is beyond OTT; it’s just untrue.