[kergonath]

The NYT is… not great in its European coverage. Often pushing a narrative along the lines of “look how much it sucks compared to here”. I don’t follow CNN or Fox News, and definitely not the White House’s press releases.

If you want decent coverage in English, the BBC and the Guardian are better, though not without blind spots.

[dougmwne]

The NYT has a pretty strong anti-EU bias. I suspect it has a lot to do with American interests and the ownership of the paper. Just about every article about EU affairs has a very negative and skeptical stance. They REALLY hate the EU certification of PDO for food labeling, which in itself I think is a big clue about who’s interests it represents.

[throwaway0a5e]

>Often pushing a narrative along the lines of “look how much it sucks compared to here”.

Which seems nonsensical considering their readership is strongly correlated with the subset of Americans who think we should do things like Western Europe. I'm sure they have metrics and have A/B tested it but still, seems weird...

[kergonath]

> Which seems nonsensical considering their readership is strongly correlated with the subset of Americans who think we should do things like Western Europe.

In a somewhat myopic way. Social security is great, but laïcité is bad. Scandinavians can do nothing bad, but the rest of Europe is a big mess. Free speech (as it is seen in the US) is a fundamental right, but not for those who criticise organised religion (like those European blasphemers).

Reports of anything in places like Germany, France, Spain, or Italy is always ambivalent.

From my experience this reflects the majority point of view in American liberals.

[unethical_ban]

>but not for those who criticise organised religion

You think American liberals want to silence critics of organized religion? Have you met a liberal?