Are you suggesting that the NYT is faking its own editorial view point?
Of course not. How would that even make sense?
Note that w/r/t the parent of my post above, and my subsequent response, we've clearly moved beyond talking solely about the currently linked article, and are talking about something broader.
Do you think it's possible that the NYT has authors with different perspectives and that every article written may not come from a consistent viewpoint?
> Simply put, editorial and opinion sections are supposed to be like that. It's not an error; it's by design, and it's a design that has existed for as long as editorial and opinion sections have existed.
There's a difference between cherry picking stories to support a narrative, and bending the truth. The NYT is engaging in the latter.
Can you expand on that? Reading through the comment threads on this piece, I’ve noticed this idea of the NYT being intentionally misleading in various forms (“they lie,” “they mislead,” “they make implications,” etc).
That isn’t my perception of the NYT at all - but I’d like to hear more of what you’re saying. Has any research been done on the overall veracity of the claims the NYT makes in their articles, or on the ways that they may or may not mislead people through implication?
(although it was hard to parse your lack of quote-mark)
You're right. It's possible (but far from certain) that the NYT folks believe themselves to be more objective than they are (or are capable of being). But a delusional belief in one's own objectivity and aiming to tamp down on public shows of bias is not the same as the implication in the comment I was replying to (which implied a self-awareness of bias that was being intentionally hidden publicly).
The above description of the NYT, however, is (a) not only a conservative's idea of what an opposing partisan newspaper would look like, it's almost a parody of such an idea (b) only sustainable through the lens of confirmation bias.
reply