The NYT Editorial Board told you that “Every Day is Jan. 6 Now,” & “the Republic faces an existential threat,” and then its entire news operation & editors went right back to doing whatever 👆 is on a daily basis. I guess they didn’t really mean it, or it was all a joke 🤷♂️
many NYT subscribers believe in a newspaper that doesn't actually exist
So tasty, it's obscene!
I have a very smart, very progressive, very political, Times subscriber friend react with total confusion when I told him the Times was a fascist rag a few months ago. A couple weeks ago he told me he understood what I meant
it's maddening because SOMETIMES, it does. Some of the journalists, some of the time. But then, there's the rest of the time.
and that's the thing, many first-class reporters and some very good columnists being consistently undermined by colleagues, editors, senior management, and a publisher who have a different agenda and who are piloting the ship
SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION oh sorry where was i
remembering a canadian NYT subscriber i goaded into cutting me off by telling him "the new york times advocated for the armed conquest of your nation and you insist on keeping your NYT subscription and defending their honor? have you neither spine nor sense of dignity?"
Two most reliable news sources are no longer. @washingtonpost.com is pure crap & @nytimes.com is on the way to becoming that. Now I go to @apnews.com @sandiegouniontribune.com and, of course @thebulwark.com
Boston and Philly papers are pretty good
They're all mostly paywalled though.
Discovered a way around that, go to website “Archive.today” Paste the paywall link where indicated up top and you should be able to read the content. Some publishers block this but, ime, most do not, incl New Yorker & WSJ. I’ve accessed everything I wanted to.
Wired and Rolling Stone have been bring it for a while. Teen Vogue too, of course.
Who’d have thought Teen Vogue?
They keep paying for it! What are they doing?!
Also many journalists look to a NYTimes legend that doesn't really exist and yet, still allows them to guide their own reporting.
That stuff was a ploy for subscribers. They probably giggled at it.
Literally, about how @nytimes.com covers American politics changed, from the point at which it wrote that masthead editorial & today. Its editors have just continued with the same decades-old playbook as if nothing had happened. New levels of torturous euphemisms & normalization ever day.
In fact, a centuries-old playbook:
I think the NYT's failure is essentially moral: when crimes and the overthrow democracy are happening in plain sight, everyone -- media outlets included -- has to take a stand on what is morally right. The Times has become a cariacature of itself. People need to stop reading it, period.
most generous interpretation is they were sincere about it but believe the threat won and the Republic is no more, but shareholders still require returns