[Aunche]

It's disappointing that people increasingly expect news to be propaganda for their own side. The news is meant to be a source of information. You don't have to agree with everything an article has to say to get useful information from it. There is no shortage of quasi-revolutionary content on the internet if that's what you seek.

[acessoproibido]

News has always been propaganda for one side, its just sometimes more or less obvious.

Personally I prefer the ones that make it clear where they stand as opposed to subtly influencing you while masquerading as "neutral".

[Aunche]

It's 2026. Everyone knows that NYT is written by liberal elites for liberal elites (or aspirational liberal elites) who spend their money to read such articles. Even if you think it's propaganda, legacy media offers information and a perspective that cannot be found everywhere else. It's the same reason why traders read Zero Hedge even if they aren't ultra-libertarians.

It may comfort you to imagine the NYT's editorial stance as the last thing holding back a revolution, but I guarantee that is not the case. That may change some wannabe liberal elites to wannabe revolutionaries, but the elites who you actually want to change will get their news someplace else.

[acessoproibido]

I think you misunderstood my comment?

I mostly agree with you, I also read zero hedge, al jazeera and other media whose stance I don't broadly agree with.

To me NYT is actually pretty conservative, but YMMV

[conception]

When information is politicized (eg do vaccines work) then being a source of information can been seen as propaganda for your side.

[add-sub-mul-div]

It's disappointing that people don't know the difference between having a stance and propaganda.

[Aunche]

If it's just a stance, then why care so much about it? Presumably it's so that this stance influences their readers.