New York Times

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
A sad shadow of a once great News Agency. Admittedly biased (by their own Ombudsmen and editors). They still have occasionally good content, but that can't make up for their more frequent bad, or their willingness to be biased (which is another way of saying deceiving, commit lies of omission, or not trusting their readership with the whole truth). More than that, the left seems to have idol worship for everything published, and the TV's fawning over whatever they say, fuels the backlash against them.

Admitted Bias

To the informed, there's zero doubt about the Times bias. To the point where those denying it are just demonstrating their ignorance or bias on the topic. I'm not saying every article or topic is bad, but it seems like every fake scandal that later turns out to be exaggerated and wrong, they were on the wrong side of. If you think I'm exaggerating their bias remember the following (from their own staff):

  • Liz Spayd (Ombudsman 2016) admits they were biased and did a poor job of balance in the election. [1]
  • The NYT (Jim Rutenberg) wrote articles in the NYT admitting they were biased wrt Trump, but it was their duty because Trump was mean (politically incorrect). [2]
  • This is nothing new. Arthur S. Brisbane (Ombudsman 2012) admits progressive idealism permeates the paper (and others agreed with the observation) [3]
  • Margaret Sullivan (Ombudsman / Public Editor 2012) also admitted the paper had a liberal bias.[4]
  • In 2004 the prior Ombudsman (Daniel Okrent) had said the same thing... only worse, “yes we’re biased left, but it’s because we’re right”. To quote him, “[the op-ed] is thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right”.[5]
  • And the publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. said it’s not so much as liberal but “urban” bias. But that’s a euphemism for provincial coastal progressivism (which is the same thing).

Well other than 4 ombudsman, multiple writers and the fucking publisher all admitting they were not a News organization, but a biased propaganda outfit (e.g. they had more interest in further their agenda than telling the whole truth), what do you have? Oh, so much more.

Observed bias

Other places noticed the bias as well:

  • New York Post has commented on it [6]
  • There were sites dedicated to monitoring the NYT bias... but it became so obvious that they shut it down. It's like reporting that Michael Moore is a fat socialist, it's so obvious that people get bored. [7]
  • Columbia journalism school case study on bias at the NYT:[8]
  • Then there's anyone that has a clue about economics who has read Paul Krugman, their economics spokesperson. There's whole sites dedicated to his biases and hypocrisy -- flipping 180° on his positions, depending on if the President has a (d) or (r) after their name. But he's the top of the iceberg.
  • Their positions on the NRA, Race, Consistency across administrations. You can predict how the NYT will respond to a current event by asking what the DNC position is, and how they would spin it, then reading that position in the NYT. [9]


This isn't new, the NYT often sympathized with Anti-Americanism and false narratives. Read about:

  • Walter Duranty, and while the Ukrainian Gennoacide is going on, he's not only covering it up, but attacking other journalists as non-credibly for trying to expose it. (The civil rights Paul Krugman of his day). [10]
  • Rampant fans of Maoism, while 10's of millions were getting mass murdered, or cultural revolutions (oppression of conservatives) is going on, the NYT is playing fanboy to their cause. [11]
  • Their support of Castro and supporting of his claims that he was "not a communist" and they had no influence in his regime
  • Attacks on Reagan for calling USSR the "Evil Empire" (shhh, don't mention the Gulags and mass murder) [12],
  • And in general, an Anti-military position, combined with anti-Iraq War stories were always big news (while anything that showed justification, like Oil for Weapons, torture by the baathists, or other things were minimized). Code Pink was celebrated when GWB was in office, and never ever reported on again once Obama (the drone strikingest Peace Prize Holder in history).
  • Their support (and discounted advertising) for anti-tolerance Soros fronts like MoveOn, Black Lives Matters, Occupy Wall Street.
  • Even when the Boston Marathon Bombing happened, the NYT was out there speculating it must have been those evil right wingers again... and the palpable disappointment, and apologist position (for the bombers), when it turned out to be muslim refugees. [13]. But get one fanatic on the other side that has no ties to anyone (like Dylan Roof) and they play it off as institutional problems within the mainstream right.


This was one of the most respected papers in the world. Not any more. And in their recent past, they've been caught doctoring news, suppressing it, and perverting it. That's my problem -- not with what they did up to the 70's. 80's. or even early 90's. But since 2000, they've had the National Enquirer scoop them on News Stories (hard journalism) that they KNEW about were actively suppressing.

  • John Edwards scandal
  • they spread stories that they knew were false (or should have)
  • they got caught suppressing stories like Benghazi, IRS Scandal, Wikileaks on things they didn't like
  • while they got way ahead of the truth on stories like Trump Russia connection, because it fit their political agenda
  • Look at them on Climate Scarism (no credibility left) :
  • Invent shit like "Pence is going to run against Trump in 2020" -- which Pence calls "Laughably Absurd]". Who are you going to believe?

And the consequence is they have they crashed in trustability, the whole industry has crashed in trustability around them. They destroyed trust in the media (or are at least contributors to the problem). [14]. The question is if 75%+ of people out there, don't trust the Newspapers, then don't you think they might be doing something wrong? And don't you think there's something wrong with the other 25%? (That just happen to be strongly liberal/democrat)? And College Graduates have less trust than the less educated, so their narrative that it's just the uneducated conservatives that don't trust them is bassackwards. The more you do research, and fact check them, you're less likely to trust them in the future.


There is room for hope. When you track subscription rates they've plummeted over the decades. More and more people are wising up to not reading partisan propaganda rags to get "news":


They really want to program into their readership that there's two classes of people: your betters and the hoi polloi (the rest of us): the ones that don't have the lavish weddings, have ungodly sense of fashion or trends. In the rest of the nation, man buns and perfectly coifed beards and plaid shirts on a guy faux-lumberjack that has a list of his favorite "products" for hair and body, but can't work an axe or saw, is something to be mocked. In NYT it's something to be celebrated like fake Boobs in Hollywood.


But they still win more awards than other papers? Yes, far lefties give other far lefties participation trophies, that doesn't mean they're any good, it means that they say things other far left organizations want to hear. Look through the list of Pulitzer Prize winners for conservatives. There's a handful in there, but it's about 10:1 towards lefties. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for most drone bombings of any other President.

More Demonstrations of bias

NYT Gun Editorial

The NYT embarassing editorial on guns, shows what's wrong with the paper. They either don't have fact checkers, or count on their readers to either not know the turret or not care.

NYT FakeNews about Guns


There was another anti-gun hit-piece in NYT, where they gave up all semblance of journalism and integrity, and decided to turn over their editorial pages to founder of UT Students Against Guns on Campus (with no common sense or rebuttals allowed, as usual). The lies of omission make you dumber for reading the article, as you'll come out less informed and more confident of the opposite (like Progressives on most issues they know nothing about). And then some wonder why the informed on topics mock the NYT as a caricature of what Journalism is supposed to be?



Halliburton is an “evil conspiracy” that George W and Dick Cheney are conspiring to pay off the company that is cheating us? Usually those saying it ignore the far bigger corruption of their favorite Presidents; FDR, Bill Clinton, Johnson, JFK, Nixon and so on. Yet, there’s no evidence of corruption or payoffs in the Halliburton case (unlike some others I mentioned).


  1. Liz Spayd:
  2. Jim Rutenberg on admitted bias against Trump:
  3. Arthur Brisbane admits progressive bias:
  4. Margaret Sullivan admits bias:
  5. Daniel Okrent 2004 on their bias:
  6. NYPost on Times Bias:
  7. Times Watch:
  8. Columbia on NYT Bias:
  9. Examples of NYT DNC Party Platform positions:
  10. Holodomor:
  11. Foster Hailey, New York Times Magazine, (December 22, 1946), pp. 40-41.
  12. Attacks on Reagan:
  13. Poor terrorists:
  14. Crashing trust in NYT and Newsprint in general: