NYT pro-level both-sidesing

[dpibel]

From today's "The Morning" email from the NYT:

Why does it seem so hard to keep government information classified? Donald Trump and Joe Biden both took top-secret documents to their houses. Hillary Clinton kept State Department emails on a personal server. This week, the White House added a journalist to a group chat about bombing Yemen.

. . .

There are computer systems designed to discuss war plans and other secrets. They are accessible only in secured rooms, and it’s very difficult for foreign powers to penetrate them. You can’t bring your personal devices into these rooms, which are not connected to the web.

But all that security makes them cumbersome and annoying. In most secured rooms, you can’t toggle between work and social media, the way most of us do. You can’t scroll through a classified feed while watching “The White Lotus.” For all but the top officials, who have Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, or SCIFs, built at their homes, you have to go into the office to check on “the high side,” the slang for the secret computer networks.

Government officials, including new political appointees like the ones in the Signal chat, are trained on the proper protocols, and it can be a crime to violate them. But it’s hard to toggle between an economic speech in Michigan, which the vice president was giving on the day he weighed in, and the monkish habits needed to interact with restricted material. Biden administration officials sometimes used Signal, too, though more for directing colleagues to SCIFs for updates than for sharing the government secrets that could be found there.

Note how the lede makes Biden's retention of classified information just like Trump's. Oh, and don't forget Hilary's emails. All just like this little Yemen thing!

And, gosh, secrecy is hard. Especially for fast-moving captains of industry. And didja know Biden's people used Signal, too? Maybe properly, but they still used it.

This isn't reporting. It's editorializing.

[jrthin]

1. Rhetorical question: Why is anyone still reading or subscribing to the NYTs.

[SocialDemocrat61]

2. No

I refuse to fund their propaganda.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

11. Sad how far that paper has fallen. And the RW claims it's "way to the left

Is there any mainstream newspaper that dares print the truth?

[maxsolomon]

18. Not to DU's high standards.

Unless you consider The Guardian to be a "mainstream newspaper", but they're UK-based.

[lapfog_1]

3. we aren't PAYING them to check in with "The White Lotus" while discussing secure material

you f'ing idiots at the NYT.

I somehow did this for my 10 years in the federal government. In fact, when I was working I wasn't checking personal email, social media, etc while I was WORKING period... whether doing something classified or not.

I kept two laptops, two cell phones, etc for my entire tenure. I still do to this day. This is from my personal laptop. And today is a "free day" at my employment ( even though I will check in at work for a while later ).

This ISN'T that hard.

And the reason they were using "signal" is so that no records of them discussing committing possible war crimes would be preserved, not because they wanted to time share between discussing ( and laughing ) about killing a few dozen women and children in addition to "terrorists" without there being a record that could be used to put them in prison for life long after Trump is gone.

so much for the "liberal" press

[stopdiggin]

4. also a fairly cogent (and accessible) handling of the issue

the Times has also called the Signal debacle a massive cluster_____ - on other occasion and in other pieces. (and a brief check will show there are multiples)

Our outrage would probably be better spent (and directed) - on those outlets (readily identifiable) that are actually actively defending the indefensible? But - outrage noted.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[jrthin]

8. The NYTs give w/one hand and takes back w/the other.

My outrage will be directed at ALL those who I find are helping to chip away our democracy. For many, many, years, the NYTs have been in the forefront of chipping away at democracy through their both-side-ism articles, false and misleading headlines, and their opinion page. Let's never forget Judith Miller on a hill seeing weapons of mass destruction, or calling for the ruin of Martin Luther King, Jr. Screw the times and now also the Washington Post.

[stopdiggin]

10. as opposed to those that are busy shoveling manure

with BOTH hands - 24/7. (which rather remains my point)
And with the irony remaining that the the MAGA loons are equally convinced (and frothy) that the Times is a slanted left wing rag ...

But - this particular argument has been circled 'round, and done to the point of tiredness ...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[jrthin]

12. Then stop following the particular argument that has circle "round, and done to the point

of tiredness."' Obviously those who want to go round and round with the argument aren't tired of it. Let it be! And btw, sometimes MAGA loons, like a broken clock, are right. The NYTs as their history has displayed is a slanted rag, mostly in favor of republicans and conservatives.

[stopdiggin]

15. nah. as long as someone feels obligated to trot out a particular tired old saw

I will feel obligated in countering ...

And, by the way - the MAGA loons would only be correct - if in fact the NYT was a left wing rag. So - the 'broken clock' analogy - kinda falls on its face .... But, anyway ... Cheers!

[dpibel]

17. At least you concede the bias

That's what the "also" in your subject line means, isn't it?

As you say elsewhere in this subthread, MAGAts think the NYT is biased, too.

The problem with that equivalence is that when MAGAts are asked for examples of this left-wing bias, crickets ensue. They believe it because they're told it's true, not because they read and draw their own conclusions.

Those who think the NYT has a distinctly anti-Democrat stance, OTOH, can point to 8 years of slagging Bill Clinton (did you know that the Whitewater non-scandal was an NYT production?), a presidential election campaign of slagging Hilary Clinton, and endless screeching about the dotage of Joe Biden.

Those who think the NYT may even have a rightward lean can point to the fact that it was the preeminent propaganda tool in thrashing up support for GW Bush's splendid little war. And the fact that the NYT has spilled a great deal of ink normalizing Trump.

So, as usual, the argument (and I use that term loosely) that both sides think ill of the NYT, thus it must be great and true and unbiased fails for the same reason that most both-sides arguments do: The two sides are not, in fact, equal at all.

[stopdiggin]

19. I can point to 'loads' of reporting where the Times has taken a chunk out of Republicans

and Republican administrations as well. Do I anoint them with a perfect record and infallible judgement? 'Course not. Do I perceive them as having a strong GOP bias? Patently absurd! (to any sort of objective analysis or viewing) And, yes - continue to think that responsible journalism involves offending all sides - from time to time. Equally object (and will continue to) to the premise that the only responsible journalism lies in being a mouthpiece for 'my side'. What utter nonsense!

[dpibel]

20. Fair or not fair?

You maintain that the NYT attacks on the Clintons and Biden, and support for GW's groundless war were correct?

Sure. They do some serious reportage. But to pretend that there's any sort of balance to the damage that they've done ("responsible journalism involves offending all sides is meaningful only if, long term, it balances out) is, frankly, counterfactual. They occasionally say something ill about Mr. Trump. Therefore, they can be forgiven for a 40 year history of bashing Democrats. That's, for lack of a better word, fatuous.

I congratulate you on trotting out a straw man! You are a wise and balanced and insightful person, whilst I am but a foolish person in search of a mouthpiece for 'my side' [sic].

You seem to believe that pointing out blatant bias in the NYT's coverage is a demand that they be a mouthpiece.

On edit: Do what you said you can do. Point out the "loads." I have, after all, given you a considerable (so far unrefuted) load of NYT Dem-slagging.

[stopdiggin]

21. what on earth makes you think I should (or would) be compelled

to dance to your tune? I feel quite comfortable in the argument and assertions that I have made. (without thinking it necessary to compile, or really even contemplate, any manner of childish homework assignment ! ) How silly!

Are you trying to suggest that the Times does NOT publish a great deal of work critical to Trump and the GOP? How foolish and absurd! What rubbish!

[dpibel]

22. This you?

Last edited Fri Mar 28, 2025, 01:40 AM - Edit history (1)

"I can point to 'loads' of reporting where the Times has taken a chunk out of Republicans."

(Helpful hint: It's post #19 in this thread.)

I was just taking you at your word. I guess that was silly of me.

You volunteered what you could do. And now you're all atwitter about a "childish homework assignment."

You should see about getting your story straight.

[stopdiggin]

23. if I WANTED to, yes.

But the idea that I WOULD in order to satisfy the 'task' set to me by some online poster ... Yes, my friend - that is pretty foolish.

And, again - are you attempting to claim that the Times does NOT produce such reporting? (in quantities?) Or just that I should 'produce' such items - in order to satisfy some childish whim on the part of yourself?

Not playing - but, thanks.

[dpibel]

24. There's always the supporting your argument part

You can characterize me taking your offer at face value however you like.

But "cuz I say so" is not actually particularly convincing argumentation.

And, yes. I am saying that, whatever quantity you might want to assign to NYT reporting that is biased--by which I mean, as in the example in the OP, adding commentary to facts or presenting facts in a non-neutral way--against Republicans or conservatives or corporations, that quantity is much smaller than material that is similarly biased against Democrats.

I don't even think that's particularly controversial.

[stopdiggin]

26. the 'argument' doesn't need support

any more that an assertion such as, "Driving cars contributes to a carbon footprint.", or, "Minnesota gets cold in the winter." - needs attribution or defense. And we're not going to play such silly games.

The fact of the matter is, almost all rating systems (as well as every one that I checked this morning) - along with commonplace opinion and perception - have the NYT as solidly center to center-left. Thus making your dogged assertions that the Times has a concerted (or consistent?) bias toward the right - inconsistent with pretty much all other opinion (both common and professional) out there. In short, the rest of the world sees (and measures) the content there in a rather starkly a different terms - making you (and perhaps a handful of friends here on DU) the outlier, rather than the reverse.

"I don't even think that's particularly controversial."

Sorry, friend - but it seems almost certain that it is .. (by any conventional measure) And in fact, it seems as though the vast majority of opinion goes against you.

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/thechart
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
https://my.lwv.org/california/torrance-area/article/how-reliable-your-news-source-understanding-media-bias-2022
https://newsliteracy.psu.edu/news/mediabiasfactcheck-com-as-a-tool-for-lateral-reading
https://guides.library.harvard.edu/newsleans/allsides

[Prairie Gates]

5. The way that they diminish the importance: Oh, you want to watch White Lotus

while you're planning to bomb an apartment building? Too bad! You can't do that in a SCIF!

The person who wrote this trash is a disgusting pig.

[Bettie]

6. Y'know, that server Hillary Clinton had

seems to have been the only one not hacked during that election cycle. So....

I'm so tired of all of it.

Up is down, right is wrong. I just can't today.

[bronxiteforever]

7. It's Regime media.

[maxsolomon]

9. "the morning" IS editorial.

it's clear from the conversational tone.

this sentence isn't helping Trump's minions one bit:

Biden administration officials sometimes used Signal, too, though more for directing colleagues to SCIFs for updates than for sharing the government secrets that could be found there.

[dpibel]

14. News analysis, actually

And there is a difference.

Whatever one wants to label it, it is premium, Grade A bothsides.

Even the sentence you quote hedges: "more for" doesn't mean exclusively, after all.

[maxsolomon]

27. "News Analysis" gives reporters leeway to include opinion

and a more conversational tone than the standard NYT straight news reporting style.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

13. I check Fox most days there's a big screwup hoping to see some sanity.

The announcer said “there is one person in this that really needs to be talked about.” And I was foolish enough to think they were going to say Trump or Waltz or Hegseth. And then they said “Jeffrey Goldberg!” Am I insane or are there a whole bunch of crazy zombies AND evil to the core people manipulating these zombies? I will bet they’re going to go after Goldberg big time and instead of anyone REALLY to blame being charged with anything like treason, espionage, or fired we will see Goldberg and other people at the Atlantic being charged with espionage.

I officially give up on this country. I will never hope again that enough people will become sane or even halfway intelligent EVER again to make a difference. It is hopeless.

We all should have known better when Karl Rove didn’t get frog-marched to prison.

[Ms. Toad]

16. Jaw dropping.

This should have been the lede:

Biden administration officials sometimes used Signal, too, though more for directing colleagues to SCIFs for updates than for sharing the government secrets that could be found there.

Seems to me that is the critical distinction: using Signal to say - "hey, get your butts to someplace secure so you can get critical information" versus "let me just send you that secure information via an app we actually warned you recently was insecure."

[dpibel]

25. You'd almost think there was an agenda...

But I'm sure we're just misreading a completely unbiased account.