It’s wrong in the ethical sense for the New York Times to implicitly accept as normal politics a refusal to allow democracy to undermine ethnic supremacy.
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org, the website of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. Since 1990, he has edited Extra!, FAIR’s print publication, now a monthly newsletter. He is the co-author of Way Things Aren’t: Rush Limbaugh’s Reign of Error, and co-editor of The FAIR Reader: An Extra! Review of Press and Politics in the ’90s. Naureckas was born in Libertyville, Illinois, in 1964, and graduated from Stanford University in 1985 with a bachelor’s degree in political science. He has worked as an investigative reporter for the newspaper In These Times, where he covered the Iran/Contra scandal, and was managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere, a newsletter on Latin America. Since 1997 he has been married to Janine Jackson, FAIR’s program director. You can follow him on Twitter at @JNaureckas.
FAIR thanks the activists who contacted the New York Times, and the Times for correcting the record.
Ask the New York Times to correct the claim that Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent was criticized for “having soft-pedaled evidence of genocide” that hadn’t happened yet.
Please tell USA Today to mention climate change prominently when writing about energy issues.
For more than a century, the Times has played the same role in Democratic politics—defending the party’s Big Money wing against populist encroachments. But rarely has the paper’s pleading on behalf of elite interests in the Democratic Party been as frenetic as it has lately.
“Standing by” is not what the United States did during the Indonesian genocide of 1965–66; rather, it actively supported the massacres, which were applauded at the time by the New York Times.
American Made depicts Central America as a Cold War battleground, with no mention of the fact that hundreds of thousands of civilians were being murdered by US-backed governments. But bringing up that part of the history would definitely put a feel-bad spin on what was meant to be an entertaining romp with a lovable rogue.
I found two graphics on the gun crisis particularly interesting: one because it brought hope, and the other because it blew that hope away.
The vaunted Washington Post factchecking team is once again applying its microscope to Sen. Bernie Sanders. The awkward thing is that the fact in question involves the Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, the world’s second-wealthiest person.
The gaps between the status quo and our survival are why we need a new media system. You will not learn from corporate media how much danger their advertisers are putting us in, or what we can do to stop them.
“There are millions of people who are engaging in political protest and political organizing who have never done so before.”
USA Today’s sources on how “US missile defense plans” will protect you from the “N. Korean Nuke Threat” mostly have a direct financial connection to the US missile defense program.
The New York Times has a fairy tale it wants to tell you—about the magical land of Centrism and how it needs to be saved from the sinister Lefties….
The New York Times’ Thomas Edsall declares “the end of left and right as we knew them.” But how well did he know them?
Jonathan Chait’s argument is that the voters who switched from Obama to Trump had conservative social views—so if Democrats need to do anything to win in 2020, they should move to the right on race and immigration policy.
The day after the British elections, NPR.org showed considerably more interest in a candidate who ran dressed as a “space lord” than in the leader of the Labour Party.
The conflicts of interest posed by think tank funding are an endemic problem in establishment journalism, which often presents industry-funded institutes as neutral experts.
What is misleading, and dangerously so, is the New York Times’ effort to minimize the dangers ACA repeal poses to sick children in order to maintain its self-image as evenhandedly critical of both major parties.
The New York Times’ op-ed page’s latest right-wing hire, Bret Stephens, doesn’t like Donald Trump—but he loves Trump’s worst ideas.
The suggestion that Iran might be sharing intelligence with ISIS is absurd. ISIS’s stance toward Shia Islam, the kind practiced by most Iranians, is openly genocidal.
Please ask West Virginia to respect the First Amendment and drop all charges against reporter Dan Heyman.
The New York Times, in its obsession with reporting that the truth is somewhere in the middle no matter what the facts say, is now downplaying the risk to sick children posed by elimination of the Affordable Care Act.
The orthodoxy on the New York Times op-ed page isn’t “liberalism”; Bret Stephens is the third representative of his ideological niche, the anti-Trump conservative, to currently have a home there.
Maybe next time Reuters could wait for a somewhat stronger suggestion—involving actual evidence, perhaps—before running a story that could inflame the new Cold War.
Murdoch has long made a practice of funneling large payments to influential politicians via HarperCollins book contracts, in what amounts to a system of legalized bribery.
Note the assurance with which Zakaria insists that a military attack on a sovereign state, unauthorized by the United Nations and unjustifiable in terms of self-defense, signifies a new respect on Trump’s part for “global norms” and “international rules.”
USA Today’s headline writer picks up on notes of reassurance in an article on a global warming disaster.
The problem was not that Sessions “did not disclose” his meetings with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak; it’s that he lied about them under oath.
The Weekly Standard, lest we forget—as Rutenberg clearly has—was second to no publication in using shoddy journalism to sell a war that would leave countless hundreds of thousands dead.
The problem with the account by New York Times Washington correspondent Binyamin Appelbaum is that the Fed is doing exactly what Trump, throughout the 2016 campaign, repeatedly demanded that it do.