Dak
mentat
Not to be a brainwashed peon, but this isn’t evidence that the NYT publishes biased reports—although that’s a nonstarter really because all news is biased.
Politicians have always forged inroads with the media, and it’s entirely unsurprising to hear that reporters give certain politicians a heads up when damaging stories/information are going to be published. This revelation (if it turns out to be true) doesn’t change the fact that the NYT still published its findings. It simply gave the Clinton administration a warning to expect bad news. There’s nothing unprecedented about that.
There was never a Hillary Clinton administration (fortunately). It was the Obama administration. Was the Dubya administration given the same "courtesy"? Is the Trump administration given the same "courtesy"? We can be pretty sure of the answer. Furthermore, such an arrangement is indicative of sentiments, which - as you already noted by your acknowledgement of bias in media - shape the sorts of stories which are "newsworthy". There's no real journalism left within media houses. It's illeducated young partisan hacks writing drivel for people smarter than them but who ignorantly believe they are reading intelligent work by truthseekers. There's a significant amount of naivety among the intelligent. The upper half of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The lower half consist partially of a majority of journalists.
The internet has rendered the need for media houses close to zero. We can hear and read from the mouths of the horses themselves, as it were, as they so choose to speak.
Last edited: