[tensor]

Unfortunately the NYT editorial board has become quite political in a way that I don't think journalists should. I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital.

They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian sources. Maybe from a strict mathematical definition that is still a "majority" but it's certainly not what anyone imagines when they hear the word. There were many other biases in the form of omissions or wording like this in their reporting too.

Interestingly, a few years ago I did notice that the NYT and also other newspapers started attacking tech companies relentlessly. At the time it really seemed like there was a coordinated intentional effort. Interesting to see that at least in the case of the NYT that is true.

In any case, I no longer trust the NYT as an accurate source that strives to be unbiased. They clearly have an agenda that is more to the right than I'm comfortable with.

[dekhn]

The NYT is the mouthpiece of the centrist establishment. If the NYT is too "right" for you then you probably want WashPo or HuffPo. And if those are still too right, you're an ultra-progressive and I don't knwo what they read.

[tensor]

I do like WashPo, though HuffPo is far too left. I generally prefer places that are as neutral as possible. As a Canadian I find CTV news to actually be very good, despite not being a very large news outlet. They are down the middle and avoid inflammatory headlines.

edit: Interestingly I also like the Globe and Mail, and people debate whether that is slightly right or slightly left.

[atdrummond]

It’s hilarious that your critique of them is that they are far right. They might be doing something right if they have somehow managed to piss off both the left and right.

[tensor]

I never said they are far right. I said that they are more right than I am comfortable with. I now consider them to have right-center bias, with some instances where they go a bit further. Also, it's a fallacy to think that pissing off both sides somehow mean they are doing something right. It can also just mean that they are not good at any particular thing.

[akozak]

That's an extremely bad way to decide what to believe.

[pbourke]

> I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital.

It certainly seems like you wouldn't have any bias when discussing this topic as well.

> They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian sources. Maybe from a strict mathematical definition that is still a "majority" but it's certainly not what anyone imagines when they hear the word.

What non-strict, non-mathematical definition of the word majority do you propose?

[tensor]

I'm not a journalist and my comments are not an attempt to be. On what word to use, I would use "54%" or maybe "roughly half." Either paint an accurate picture to the reader of the reality.

[chomp]

How about “Although a majority of funding came from Canadian sources, nearly half (46%) came from foreign donations.”

Seek the whole truth, don’t settle for media narratives.