NYT pro-level both-sidesing

[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.