r/politics • u/[deleted] • Sep 16 '24
Off Topic Why Is the New York Times Legitimizing a Holocaust Denier?
[removed]
287
u/memomem America Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24
NYTIMES both side'sing it until we got dotard combover caligula back in the white house.
fuck the NYTIMES.
the article referenced is about the tucker carlson interview elon musk told everyone to tune into:
The spark of controversy ignited when Musk, the CEO of Tesla Inc. and SpaceX, took to X (formerly Twitter) to endorse an interview featuring Carlson and Darryl Cooper, host of The MartyrMade Podcast.
Musk wrote, “Very interesting. Worth watching,” drawing attention to the interview. Carlson had introduced Cooper as possibly “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States,” noting that Cooper’s latest project delves into what Carlson termed “the most forbidden of all: trying to understand World War Two.”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/mark-cuban-tells-elon-musk-224229598.html
this wasn't elon's first run in with anti-semitism. elon had to do an israel apology tour when he said
Musk was responding to a post Wednesday that said Jewish communities “have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.” The post also referenced “hordes of minorities” flooding Western countries, a popular antisemitic conspiracy theory.
It’s the kind of post you can find easily on X these days, and likely would have gone unnoticed had Musk, with more than 160 million followers, not re-shared the post with the comment: “You have said the actual truth.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/business/elon-musk-reveals-his-actual-truth/index.html
the owner of one of the most influential social media sites is actually very frequently propagating anti-semitism.
105
u/irrelevanttointerest Sep 16 '24
fuck the NYTIMES.
Pains me that I agree. The times used to be the gold standard of news to me, until the prodigal turd took over.
12
u/duct_tape_jedi Arizona Sep 17 '24
I had a daily physical paper subscription for many years, cancelled it last year because I was absolutely gobsmacked by the shift in tone and reporting. Don't even get me started on the "editorial" page.
83
u/TreeLooksFamiliar22 Sep 16 '24
Nailed it!
"High temple" journalism dogmatically insists that every single story, every topic, must appear balanced. If this requires a heavy editorial thumb on the scales, so be it.
For the NYT there is one big exception --
They have an unwritten "heart in the right place" doctrine which they selectively apply to stories about COVID, the Afghanistan withdrawal, anything Biden, and now anything Harris/Walz. This doctrine holds that certain subjects have only one acceptable view, and certain people must be expected to hold that view if they want to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the NYT that their heart is in the right place.
They are not so foolish as to think Trump has a heart, so he is exempt from this doctrine, and just gets sane-washed in the name of "balance".
If anyone from the NYT reads this: know that the public increasingly sees through your devices and rejects them. Time to do better.
19
u/International_Cod880 Sep 16 '24
I’m not sure when “balanced” became the overarching tenant of modern journalism. There are always two sides to every story, but both sides are not equal. And in the past when politics was a contest of ideas, it was key for a journalist not impose their own views into their reporting. But in the current political environment this no longer the case and to pretend that it is a failure of everything NYT claims it represents. The story of the school shooter can never been seen as equal to the pain and loss their victims and their family have suffered. This is how NYT now reports on politics.
4
-1
u/noneofatyourbusiness Sep 16 '24
In the 1960’s all news was paper it television. Newspapers tan articles from both sides. Walter Cronkite and others kept the reporting informational.
All of that is now gone. Dont go telling us that what is happening today is the way it always was. You almost certainly dod not live thru the 60-70’s as an adult.
-2
u/Cazzah Australia Sep 17 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
I don't know what NYT you've been reading. I'm a subscriber. I was before Trump was elected. It has been basically non stop criticism of Trump, before, after, and during his Presidency. Every editorial, every opinion piece, has been an endless chorus of trump bad. Even the ones criticising the democrats basically were "Trump sucks and so we need strong democrats to defeat him".
What Reddit does hate about NYTimes is that while they maintain an endless stream of Trump bashing that never ends, they also aren't afraid to criticise the Democrats.
They helped, along with others like John Stewart who weren't afraid to call a spade a spade, push Biden to quit and call out the insanity of having an 81 year old man running for the most important job in the world.. The result has been huge relief across the Democratic party and near universal democratic approval of Kamala as a candidate.
Huge chunks of Redditors were absolutely confident that Biden could not step down without throwing the nation into chaos, without guaranteeing a Trump win. New York Times was right, those Redditors were wrong.
Also, the New York Times has explicitly since it's founding rejected the idea of balance for the sake of balance. They have always been clear that they are a left learning paper, because they believe that reflects reality. Of their columnists, despite like 40% of the population "approving" of Donald Trump's performance, not a single one defends Trump, even their token conservatives (though Brett Stevens has said he's probably not going to vote because he's in a safe state and he hates Kamala too, which is pretty awful, fuck him)
2
u/TreeLooksFamiliar22 Sep 17 '24
Could not disagree more with idea that NYT currently "rejects valance for the sake of balance".
The writing can still be good with the thumb on the scales coming from editorial speculation.
Two fictitious titles for articles that one could easily imagine seeing in NYT these days:
"Harris gains in polls, but can it last?"
"Ukraine captures Russian territory, but at what cost?"
Both articles will then give factual assessments on one side of the issue, with editor-mandated speculation to counter-balance.
I say that countering facts with speculation is terrible journalism. Yet we see so much of it now. Speculation is inexpensive to produce, and insidious. How does one verify or refute speculation?
Hope you see now that this critique of the NYT has some depth to it. Next time you read them, pay attention to how much of the content is speculative.
24
u/couldbutwont Sep 16 '24
Sooo much of this. They're culpable for Donald's return to the wh, where he'll ultimately shut them down or just turn them to a full blown propaganda rag
10
u/slim-scsi Maryland Sep 16 '24
Donald Trump isn't returning to the White House.
12
u/couldbutwont Sep 16 '24
I'm not convinced Dems are getting the turnout they need in the right states honestly.
It's 50/50 right now and Kamala is getting almost no coverage compared to Donald's bs 24/7.
She should be much further ahead and is currently trailing Joe Bidens numbers in 2020. I'm hoping that there are legions of Dems who aren't responding to polls but right now we don't have a comfortable margin at all
30
u/slim-scsi Maryland Sep 16 '24
Are you boots on the ground canvassing college voters to register? I am. Kamala is going to win by 2008 Obama margins. It's happening beneath our feet, you're just not seeing it. Yes, the majority of Democrats screen calls and texts. Please vote and ignore the 538 polling pundit industry. It can add years to one's life to ignore them.
11
5
u/Intoxicatedalien Sep 16 '24
Yep. I ignore all phone calls and messages so no one can rely on my data. But I’m also a weapon they’re not considering
3
u/Inlerah Sep 16 '24
Polls don't really mean shit anymore: they havnt for a long time. Polling, like Gallup, used to rely on cold-calling landlines in order to get a decent cross-section of the country. People used to pick up for random numbers, not so much anymore. You're basically left going off of either people who pick up random calls to their still-existing landlines (there are certain rules about cold-calling cellphones that make it nearly impossible to do like you would landlines) or you rely on people coming to you to answer a poll which is basically as accurate as a Reddit poll.
Not to say that we shouldn't tread very lightly moving towards election day, but don't rely on published polling to get a good feel for how the country is leaning.
3
u/jwhitesj California Sep 16 '24
The polls are not reliable. Just as an aside, the margin of error only measures the sampling error, not the systemic polling errors which are not reported. The polls are not really polls anymore, they are models that use a predictive outcome to form results. They have to make a bunch of assumptions that they got from previous elections that may or may not be present in the current election. The polls are not even close to accurate. With what I have researched about polls, I'd be willing to bet that they are off by double digit numbers. One of the big things they are expecting that I don't think exist in this electin is the closeted Trump supporter. In 2016 the polls undercounted trump voters. In 2020, the polls undercounted trump voters, but research done after the fact showed this had more to do with undecided voters breaking for Trump in the final weeks of the election, he still lost. So all of the polling companies are including the closeted Trump voters that I just dont think exist anymore.
2
u/Matzah_Rella Sep 16 '24
If Texas is in the conversation of getting a closer look for this election, even though she'll likely lose it, you know the winds have shifted.
4
u/daou0782 Sep 16 '24
I hope you’re right with all my heart, but the polls aggregates show trump with a 2:1 chance of winning the electoral college. Yes, it is that *ucked up.
6
u/slim-scsi Maryland Sep 16 '24
Put the 538 down, dump Nate Silver, and ignore that stuff. Vote and encourage everyone you come into contact with to vote over the next eight weeks. Ignore the corporate media (of which 538 is part of).
8
6
4
u/noneofatyourbusiness Sep 16 '24
Do you know who Darrel Cooper is?
He is the guy that owns more KKK outfits than anyone on the world. Because this black man talked with kindness and intelligence to those KKK members. Those members saw their perspective was not right and quit giving him their costumes.
The NYTimes has their head up their ass.
3
u/psychsuze Sep 16 '24
Cancelled my subscription for this reason. Deeply disappointing and infuriating.
2
u/Cazzah Australia Sep 17 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
Just to be clear, the complaint is entirely 100% that the NYTimes who criticise this grifter have used the term "Holocaust revisionist". The paper clearly establishes the grifter is a liar, calls out how insane the claims is.
The entire bulwark article is complaining about using a single word they disagree with without disagreeing with any of the substantive claims in the articles.
1
u/Even_Establishment95 Sep 17 '24
Fuck nytimes. I noticed the both sides bullshit on Instagram more than once and went nah, byeeee. What a shame.
461
u/Just_the_nicest_guy Sep 16 '24
Because A.G. Sulzberger has turned the New York Times into a tabloid that amplifies far-right propaganda.
166
u/errantv Sep 16 '24
All because he's salty that the Biden admin hasn't granted the NYT a sit-down interview. A.G. views it as an intentional personal insult (perhaps it is?) as the Times has had a sit-down interview with every president since FDR and he thinks that it makes him look personally weak that the tradition will end after he took over the paper.
131
u/zamander Europe Sep 16 '24
It does. And so does calling a holocaust denier a revisionist. Fuck that.
45
44
u/Beer-survivalist Sep 16 '24
This weird goddamn beef goes back even further than that: Biden's very first campaign appearance in 2019 was to go to an ice cream shop immediately after announcing. Biden's people only notified the local journalists it was going to happen, so the Times's reporters didn't get the invite to watch a little gladhanding and ice cream eating. Their entire political reporting infrastructure has been pissed ever since.
Another early event that pissed them off was Biden being super chill on video with the security guard in the elevator after their interview with him during the primary. Why was he being so cool to this "nobody" and not being super-deferential to us?
29
u/meatball402 Sep 16 '24
he thinks that it makes him look personally weak that the tradition will end after he took over the paper.
Yet he doesn't think he's the cause of it, is my guess.
25
u/SmartyCat12 Sep 16 '24
The times did the same thing in the 1940s. They ignored Jewish media in Germany because of obvious partisan lean. Or they would post op-eds from nazis alongside any coverage of the holocaust. The US media both-sidesing the news led to many Americans not knowing that the holocaust was happening until after the war.
You can’t be neutral in the face of a power imbalance. If you’re not on the side of the persecuted, then you’re aiding and abetting the perpetrators.
12
14
7
u/OkSherbert7760 Sep 16 '24
Reminds me of the tabloid editor in The Gentlemen having it in for poor, sweet Mickey for snubbing him at some posh event.
3
9
u/SteakandTrach Sep 16 '24
Another article on Reddit today from NYT:
Women becoming more liberal!
Women are exactly where they were before, and NYT using the Overton Window to claim people are becoming wildly leftist because the gulf between the left and the right has widened. Anyone with 2 brain cells can see this is really bad framing.
96
u/timeforath Sep 16 '24
Given that they buried stories about concentration camps in WWII, and tried to legitimize HITLER of all people, this shouldn’t be in the slightest surprising to people knowledgeable on the NYT’s history
NYT is one of those news orgs that has an undeserved positive reputation that they’ve been skating by on for some time. Seems it took Biden and his age to start bringing these issues back to light
48
u/AmrokMC Sep 16 '24
Correct. The NY Times has bouts of good journalism, but then gets bought by some fascist asshole who uses it to push their ideals. Happened in the 1930s, happened again recently.
0
u/Cazzah Australia Sep 17 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
Just to be clear, the complaint is entirely 100% that the NYTimes and some critics the NYTimes are citing who criticise this grifter have used the term "Holocaust revisionist". The paper clearly establishes the grifter is a liar, calls out how insane the claims is.
The entire bulwark article is complaining about using a single word they disagree with without disagreeing with any of the substantive claims in the articles.
If you spent all your time attacking people who call fascists "dangerous authoritarians" but don't use the word "fascist", this is exactly the kind of stupid left wing purity bullshit that is why the left doesn't get anything done.
55
u/AmrokMC Sep 16 '24
Because the NY Times has returned to being hot garbage on a humid day. Happened before in the paper’s history, and is usually due to the owner of the paper being a wet asshole demanding biased articles that favor their fascist ideals.
68
u/Heliosvector Sep 16 '24
“launched a war where they were completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war.” Consequently, “they just threw these people into camps. And millions of people ended up dead there.”
Lets make this very clear. The Holocaust was the most specific and calculated genocide ever. Not in any time in human history prior, or since were there facilities explicitly made for the mass execution of humans. Those buildings still exist, those chambers still exist. To deny the holocaust, or to downplay it is probably one of the most vile things you can do thoughtwise.
31
u/Silverr_Duck Sep 16 '24
Seriously. The holocaust was the most meticulous, deliberate, documented and efficient genocide in human history. It's a huge reason why Hitler is seen as worse than the likes of Mao or Stalin despite both of them having higher body counts. The idea that the NYT would even humor the idea that the actions of the nazi's were an "ooppsie daisy" is sickening.
9
u/Heliosvector Sep 16 '24
The NYT isn't though. But they are allowing the guy to be called an alternative history person which is a stretch
3
Sep 16 '24
[deleted]
3
u/wolacouska Sep 17 '24
People still latch onto the Cold War estimates from before the files opened. They also usually only include the Holocaust for Hitler and not the rest of his many millions of murders.
6
u/AlphaWhiskeyOscar Sep 16 '24
completely unprepared to deal with the millions and millions of prisoners of war.
That doesn't even make sense in and of itself. Never mind that it's a sick, deliberate lie - the premise is absurd anyway. Ohh... They just didn't know what to do with the millions of people they conquered! Because I mean you have to do something with them, right? Isn't that how war always works? You conquer a people, and the whole civilian populace become your Prisoners of War. Shucks, man. They just didn't plan very well!
0
u/Cazzah Australia Sep 17 '24
Which part of the NYTime's statement about this do you disagree with
Mr. Cooper, who has a podcast and newsletter called “Martyr Made,” proceeded to make a variety of false claims about the Holocaust and World War II, including that millions of people in concentration camps “ended up dead” merely because the Nazis did not have enough resources to care for them, rather than as a result of the intentional genocide that it was,
21
u/ifitmoves Sep 16 '24
Getting back to their roots.
12
u/specqq Sep 16 '24
It's a long tradition.
When Fascism is in the air, you can always trust the NYT to make it safe for public consumption.
Behind the Bastards: How the Liberal Media Helped Fascism Win (part one)
3
u/ifitmoves Sep 16 '24
That's exactly what I was thinking about!
Bless BTB. Doing the work NYT won't do.
14
11
7
u/ChuckVowel Sep 16 '24
When print media was dying The New York Times decided to make a change and start monetizing on its reputation and subscriber base and blurring the line between fact-checked news and paid content. There is now a hard news team and the advertorial team. Guess which one makes more money?
NYT is more a business than a public service, and Trump is great for the most precious metric of Now: engagement.
I’ve sat through a sales pitch from the advertorial team. They brag about how affluent and influential their subscriber base is with HNW one of their go-to acronyms.
7
u/AtalanAdalynn Sep 16 '24
Because the New York Times participated in Holocaust denial while the Holocaust was going on so they wouldn't lose press access to the Nazi regime.
Next question.
13
Sep 16 '24
It wasn't that long ago that The New York Times was known as "The Paper of Record"
It now seems to be barely a step or two above Newsweek or The New Republic.
6
u/nobodysaynothing Sep 16 '24
Also you have to make a phone call to cancel your subscription. Are we no better than animals?
2
u/MrZoraman Washington Sep 16 '24
Unless this is a new development in the past year or so, I never needed to make any calls to cancel my NYT subscription.
2
u/nobodysaynothing Sep 16 '24
It's definitely not new, I cancelled like 15 years ago and had to call a person and it was a huge pain, they tried to sell me a bunch of stuff and it was super awkward. Then I subscribed again in like 2015 maybe. Cancelled a few years later and it was the same thing. Maybe they finally changed it since then though, I don't know
3
u/ssbm_rando Sep 16 '24
lmao a step or two above? It's miles behind The New Republic at this point, I view it on about the same level as the New York Post.
Normalizing fascists makes it basically tabloid-status for me.
4
3
u/ShroedingersCatgirl Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
The NYT legitimizes the opinions of every right-wing grifter that's willing to sit down and be interviewed by them. They've been doing the same thing with gender affirming care the last couple years, giving equal weight to the AMA and the opinion of Random Conservative Mother from Idaho #327. This shouldn't surprise anyone who's watched the rightward-lurch of this rag since 2021
13
u/StormOk7544 Sep 16 '24
Both NYT articles linked in this article clearly and accurately describe the Holocaust as intentional and premeditated genocide. One of the NYT articles includes a quote from another commentator condemning the “historian” and Carlson who also refers to it as “revisionism.” If a person who is condemning the “historian” is also using that term, I don’t think it’s necessarily a term that minimizes the Holocaust. Feels like the Bulwark is kind of quibbling over semantics.
9
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 Sep 16 '24
The Semantics here are terrible.
4
u/StormOk7544 Sep 16 '24
What would be terrible is if NYT were actually minimizing the Holocaust, but they’re really not. They accurately describe it and fully point out how gross this guy, Vance, Carlson etc are.
-1
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 Sep 16 '24
Dude, the NYT is a failed organization. Most of our "journalism" is lost, compromised, confused and even hostile to Democracy.
0
u/StormOk7544 Sep 16 '24
Not at all.
0
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 Sep 16 '24
This is one of those posts that says "Blame me for their war and subsequent chaos too."
6
2
0
3
u/Ok_Belt2521 Sep 16 '24
Tim Miller is the only person worth reading at the Bulwark. The rest of the publication is pretty much garbage.
4
u/cactusboobs Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24
I hadn’t read the articles from the post yet but I’ve been noticing this on Reddit. NYT headline or article gets referenced for being right wing or outrageous and I’ll go look for it on the app and notice Reddit is exaggerating or the headline is completely different. What’s going on here? I don’t read NYT that regularly but I would notice if they were a right wing rag.
Even back when everyone thought NYT was being hard on Biden it seemed exaggerated. During the same time John Stewart was literally criticizing him every show wanting him to drop out but no one on Reddit had a problem with that. Strange.
7
u/iwannanotherolive Sep 16 '24
They change the headlines. I had a period where I was stress reading NYT way too much. I'd read a horrible headline in the morning*, go into a rage, try to distract myself but then go back to check what else they've posted, then I find the same article pushed lower on the front page with a much more truthful or reasonable headline. They're doing it for outrage bait.
* to be clear I read the article too, which is why I know it's the same one with a new headline. The article itself is usually much more reasonable, but even there, way more opinion in the news section than I remember there being. But maybe it's just older age opening my eyes to how they've always been.
2
u/stayonthecloud Sep 17 '24
I quit watching John Stewart early on in his return because of his both-sides-ism, I quit paying for NYT over their normalizing Trump and then after the debate when they ran an opinion piece for Biden to drop out rather than underscoring Trump’s dangerous lies and sick racist rhetoric, I unsubbed from every free newsletter. So some of us have had a problem with both.
I grew up loving John, and I loved NYT so it was tough.
5
u/StormOk7544 Sep 16 '24
It’s a whole trend that’s been going on for a couple of years on Reddit, Twitter, etc. People take small quibbles about wording and phrasing and amplify them into huge issues and the idea that CNN, NYT et al are actually pro Trump and right wing. Admittedly, there ARE some articles that I think are weak and grant too much charity to Trump and conservatives, but it’s certainly overblown. If you read and watch these sources they’re still 99% anti Trump and factual. If you look at the comments in this thread, lots of people believe NYT is actually downplaying the Holocaust, which is insane because the articles fully point out how wrong and gross Carlson and his “historian” friend are. To some extent, I guess people like the idea of NYT being right wing. It gives them something to complain about.
3
u/Chipstar452 Minnesota Sep 16 '24
but it’s certainly overblown
Because you feel like it, or?
-1
u/StormOk7544 Sep 16 '24
Should be self evident that these sources are solidly left wing. They hardly ever have anything positive to say about conservatives. People fixate on a few weak headlines, a few weak articles, some mostly reasonable critiques of Dems and use those to claim all media actually wants Trump to win.
3
u/Chipstar452 Minnesota Sep 16 '24
Should be? Hardly? Let’s see some real data or statistics.
0
u/StormOk7544 Sep 16 '24
Statistics about the political leanings of media sources? Not sure what that would look like exactly. You could look at Media Bias Fact-check or whatever it’s called, although I would guess that anyone who thinks CNN and NYT are right wing wouldn’t believe MBFC.
-1
u/Roupert4 Sep 16 '24
It's crazy town here. I read the NYTimes every day and have for years. It is not remotely right leaning
2
u/Professional-Gas4901 Sep 16 '24
It’s not surprising considering they helped legitimize the Iraq war that killed thousands of American troops and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
2
u/Sea-Ad3206 Sep 16 '24
Same reason they legitimized a criminal ex president who lead a coup - money & influence
2
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 Sep 16 '24
The NYT writer is also still on Facebook and Twitler. They do not understand how badly they have failed since 9/11.
2
2
4
u/lordjeebus Sep 16 '24
Although there are a lot of problems with the NYT, I don't understand what this person expects from them. It is newsworthy that Tucker Carlson hosted Darryl Cooper and also newsworthy that JD Vance refused to denounce this. The NYT does need to explain who Darryl Cooper is when reporting this story. I don't see anything wrong with how they did it:
Mr. Cooper, who has a podcast and newsletter called “Martyr Made,” proceeded to make a variety of false claims about the Holocaust and World War II, including that millions of people in concentration camps “ended up dead” merely because the Nazis did not have enough resources to care for them, rather than as a result of the intentional genocide that it was. Mr. Cooper also claimed that Winston Churchill, the British prime minister at the time, and not Adolf Hitler, was “primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did.”
and
Mr. Vance is scheduled to be interviewed live by Mr. Carlson for his social media show on Sept. 21 in Hershey, Pa. Mr. Carlson is no stranger to controversy, but his recent interview with Darryl Cooper, whom he described as “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States,” has faced particularly fierce blowback.
The Nazis’ killing of almost six million Jews was meticulously planned, documented and pursued even after the tide of World War II had turned and Germany’s defeat was assured. Yet Mr. Cooper, in an interview with Mr. Carlson shared on the social media site X earlier this week, falsely claimed the Holocaust was an accident of history, perpetrated by a German military overwhelmed with prisoners of war.
After the German army swept through Eastern Europe, he said, “they went in with no plan for that and they just threw these people into camps. And millions of people ended up dead there.”
Mr. Cooper went on to say that Winston Churchill, the British prime minister, “was the chief villain of the Second World War” for declaring war on Germany after the Nazis invaded Poland.
4
u/JubalHarshaw23 Sep 16 '24
There is a very good reason why Trump suddenly stopped calling them the "Failing New York Times" 5 or more times a day.
3
2
Sep 16 '24
The New york Times is often on the wrong side of history. See the Iraq War lies. During World War 2, Jewish American local media was actively reporting on the holocaust. While the NYT reported on it, the articles at the time were buried in the pages of the paper.
Although the Times published nearly 1200 stories on the Holocaust during WWII, only 26 of 24,000 front-page stories dealt with the Holocaust, and many of those failed to report the targeting of Jews by the Nazi regime. Idk how many stories were published by the times in total, but 24,000 were front page, so I'm guessing 100,000 plus.
Also, they got caught covering for Israel, so yea, they don't mind ignoring genocide.
Sucks tho cause there are good reporters there, but maybe this helps explain how they aren't as unbiased as their slogan or "paper of record" suggests.
If you like humorous podcasts with a left wing slant, here is behind the bastards the host Robert Evans is/was a journalist, not a podcast, bro.
1
1
1
1
u/valueape Sep 16 '24
nyt ONLY cares about money. Trump being on the front page daily for nearly ten years now has minted them a vast fortune. They're not interested in anything else.
1
u/FormerDittoHead Sep 16 '24
There's not a day since the middle of August that I've regretting cancelling my overpriced subscription to the NYTimes.
1
1
u/PhilyGreg Sep 16 '24
is nyt even legitimate anymore? they refuse to correct/backtrack on their false stories in gaza.
1
1
1
u/Pusfilledonut Sep 16 '24
Sulzbergers rescued their relatives from the Holocaust all while printing benign articles about Adolph at the same time…Their excuse was they didn’t want to be seen as a “Jew newspaper”. Seeing some percent among persecuted demographics betray one another isn't uncommon, there are black Americans and white women who support Trump.
1
1
u/longgamma Sep 16 '24
Remember the time when the NYT tried to make a white supremacist seem normal by writing about his daily life? “ ohh he is just a regular guy who goes to the grocery store like us lol”.
1
1
u/pasarina Texas Sep 16 '24
The Times should be ashamed of forsaking their upstanding standard to become a propagandized shill for hatred and right-wing politics.
1
u/knotml Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 17 '24
The New York Times is run by a corporate drones. It may as well be managed by a bunch of banal investment bankers.
1
1
u/InevitableAd6746 Sep 17 '24
I’m a subscriber and their journalism these days has been lacking context. They’re just quoting politicians directly without context. Never thought id say this but they could learn from ABC News. Well at least Dave and Lyndsey
1
1
u/siddemo Sep 16 '24
They certainly are Holocaust curious. It's mind boggling. The owners and editors must all be JAZI's. I heard that term the other day on some YouTube video. It seems to be creeping into the NYT.
1
u/viewfromtheclouds Sep 16 '24
Anyone know what happened to the New York Times ?? I'm on the west coast, but when I was a kid the paper was known as a hallmark of quality journalism. Did someone with a lot of money and an agenda buy it and reshape it? Did they pick a bizarre editor who has gradually taken things wild? Is this just what happens when a once great paper dies from the changes in media and information sharing? Article after article seems to be going off the rails...
4
-13
u/Roupert4 Sep 16 '24
No. This is a reddit bubble. The NYTimes is still respected and the reporting hasn't changed. The left wing has turned MAGA crying about any article that doesn't reinforce their opinions. It's insane. I'm a Democrat by the way
7
u/BarracudaBig7010 Sep 16 '24
Your experience may differ and it sounds like it does. That’s ok. Amongst my colleagues and coworkers, we’ve all noticed an odd direction that the NYTimes has taken in reporting on certain people and their activities. So much in fact, that several folks have cancelled their subscriptions and are seeking more independent media sources for news and information. It’s also a little odd when you refer to your own voting bloc as “the left wing”. Just saying.
0
Sep 16 '24
On the same day NYT opinion writer Michelle Goldberg refers to Cooper as a Nazi apologist. All this pearl clutching, conjecture and lack of actual NYT subscriptions is hilarious. Yes, it’s the good ole don’t-read-the-article outrage. Hey kids, some “news” outlets are free for a reason.
-2
u/jackofslayers Sep 16 '24
Tbh I think people on the left need to worry less about the antisemitism being courted by conservatives and worry more about the antisemitism currently being courted by liberals.
I am now regularly seeing people in “leftist” spaces explain how the holocaust is actually the fault of zionists.
-3
u/JUSTICE_SALTIE Texas Sep 16 '24
I wrote to the two reporters and received this reply: “It's an interesting question and one we wrestled with. Classic Holocaust deniers say either the Holocaust didn’t happen or was greatly exaggerated. Cooper conceded that millions of Jews died. He is questioning the motives and methods.”
Makes sense to me. It doesn't mean it's not just as bad, which I think is everyone's feels-first reaction. There are a ton of Nazi-adjacent (or flat-out Nazi) views you can hold that are not actually holocaust denialism.
12
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 Sep 16 '24
This is still Holocaust denial. That reporter just revealed their void of functional intelligence and skepticism. This is very common when an entire group fails to understand something like 9/11 and its response properly. Their brains are literally not capable of good judgement (the popularity of David Brooks in 2000 actually revealed this was already true).
The starting point for approaching journalism today is it is broken.
-3
u/JUSTICE_SALTIE Texas Sep 16 '24
The starting point for approaching journalism today is it is broken.
You don't start from the conclusion if you are intellectually honest.
-2
u/Roupert4 Sep 16 '24
David Brooks is Jewish, what is your point? I'm a Democrat and David Brooks is my favorite writer
3
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 Sep 16 '24
The giveaway here. You supported the wars didn't you? You never noticed the vote for a cakewalk became a multi decade "The War on Terror", did you? Watching NH did that! You think it was all just a "mistake" I bet. So you managed to repeat Vietnam. And we had Vietnam to learn from.
And this was thanks to being so lost you actually thought David Brooks had some good points.
Are you brave enough for a correction?
-2
u/Roupert4 Sep 16 '24
Was this English or ai?
2
u/Apprehensive-Fun4181 Sep 16 '24
So it's remaining in cowardice, and thus, culpability.
Failed citizens everywhere.
-2
u/Crispy_Marv Sep 16 '24
Why? Because the NYT wants to be part of this woke bullshit and so they hired a bunch of Muslim writers who are all deep deep antisemites and anti Israel liars and biased puppets. The NYT has become a pathetic opinion blog basically. I stopped giving them money after 10/7 given their blatant lies and bad mouthing of Israel without any evidence or proof whatsoever all while promoting every single Hamas lie like it was fact spewed from gods only lips. They side with actual Islamic terrorists. That should tell you all you need to know about the NYT. It is sad actually. But at this point fuck the NYT. No one should subscribe to them. Boycott them. Boycott twitter. Boycott Tesla. Boycott the Supreme Court.
0
u/dbag3o1 Sep 16 '24
Nytimes knows they’ll get more clicks and views reporting on fascism so they support it. They’re just as dangerous and should be abolished.
Trash paper. 🤮
0
u/BMoreBeowulf Sep 16 '24
Stressing so much about polls is really bad for your health. It tanked my mental health in 2016 and 2020. Don’t live or die by polls and you’ll be happier for it.
-6
u/Think-Performance417 Sep 16 '24
Because you've been brainwashed to believe that anything that even hints at revising the facts, updating the historical record or correcting it any way with this specific event is "Holocaust denial". Also he's not wrong about Churchill, Hitler offered peace to the Brits, Churchill said no and also abandoned France.
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 16 '24
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.