[ANPEQ-1]

As a former NYTimes employee, I can assure you that 99% of the work is not done in good faith. It's all activism now, top to bottom. There's a few good eggs granted, but the newspaper has an agenda and uses their pseudo-objectivity/newspaper of record as cover and concealment.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Newspapers have always had an agenda. Op-eds particularly have always been a cesspool of political nonsense.

The difference now is the agenda is obvious because more viewpoints are available online, and in the past the agenda would - sometimes - be supported with hard journalism from real sources, including field reporters.

Now there's a lot more newswire and PR copy pasta and Google searching.

[ANPEQ-1]

"Newspapers have always had an agenda"

I'm fine with this, so long as they don't insist on their objectivity. Otherwise everything they say must be filtered through an undefined lens that readers either a) don't have time for and are thus victimized by the 'untruth' or b) believe and desire the confirmation bias and are thus victimized by misinformation.

[cwkoss]

"activist with an agenda" or "defender of truth", you can't be both at the same time, yet many journalists think their role should be both.

[cwkoss]

I've seen some Twitter discussions between journalists about how they consider it important to be "activist journalists" in the modern era.

It seems bias is becoming encouraged, quite disappointing.