zlacker

Partisanship is on a scale. It is not a binary thing.

NYT may be partisan, yes, but, qualitatively speaking, it's laughable to compare NYT and OANN or NewsMax. They are not even in the same business.

>>manuel+(OP)
It’s very easy to come to that conclusion about your own sides media. Perhaps you should ask some republicans about how objective the NYT is, and ask for evidence. You might be surprised.

>>manuel+(OP)
Also we are in a thread where reporting on a virus that has killed 3m people is in question at these big outlets. There are few bigger issues. This is very worrying for these supposedly less partisan outlets.

>>zpeti+H1
> It’s very easy to come to that conclusion about your own sides media.

The fact that a group of people believe certain lies, doesn't make those lies acceptable, either.

I couldn't care less about what republicans think of NYT versus OANN. Yes, they may think that OANN is a better source. Still, they would be wrong.

>>zpeti+H1
CNN or the NYT are also reporting differing arguments/facts and correct themself if they made a mistake. Havent seen that happening on OANN or NewsMax without a court order.

>>Paradi+cl
For a contrasting point of view, here's an article from a conservative, religious writer who follows how the media covers religion stories from 2014. In this article (and is a common theme in his writing), he discusses "Kellerism" a term named after Bill Keller, a former New York Times editor who said in 2011 how the New York Times does not seek balance in a whole bunch of areas. The author, Terry Mattingly, has over the years documented many cases in which CNN, NYT and other similar outlets don't cover stories that intersect with religion or religously affiliated people or communities fairly (seemingly, in many cases, because the authors covering the stories lack the basic knowledge to even raise questions allowing for balance).

https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2014/8/2/this-keller...

>>jkings+cN
The remarks that sparked the analysis are hardly proof of the NYT being "unfair" to conservatives, unless stating that, say, creationism is not science, and gay marriage is legal, could be considered as such.

>>manuel+(OP)
Partisanship is committing to a party; it is signing up with a team; it is taking sides. That is binary.

Don't confuse that with having an ideology or a commitment to certain ideas.

You can be partisan (or have an ideology) and still be trustworthy, but the trouble with that is, you actually have to be trustworthy.

I'd rather compare the NYT with The Economist on this point.

>>manuel+(OP)
This is a straw-man. People are not legitimately comparing NYT to OANN and NewsMax, they are comparing NYT to the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.

>>jkings+cN
My point is not that NYT and co are reporting according to some arbitrary fair and balanced standard. The point is that they are reporting differing views/arguments at all which is not something OANN or NewsMax do.

>>Paradi+si2
I can't say I've ever read OANN or NewsMax, even though I am conservative. I have read the New York Times before though, and as the linked article and several others by the same journalist indicate, evidently the Times is selective about showing differing views.