LA Times Planned 'Case Against Trump' Series Alongside Kamala Harris Endorsement Before Owner Quashed It | Exclusive

You'd think that would be the problem, but the New York Times was run by a Jewish man during the Holocaust who buried the story to curry favor with the powers that be. He felt that at his level of capital, he'd be unlikely to suffer the way that German Jews were, even when Naziism became popular here, and therefore decided that covering up genocide was the safer bet for him politically and financially.

When it comes to this kind of shit, political affiliation is merely a symptom of the disease: being a fucking asshole. It turns out that the most important thing to the American media is money and power. Fuck the people.

And that's on top of Fox, CNN, Sinclair (40%? of local news), etc.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/opinion/editorials/kamala-harris-2024.html

I don't love the Times editorial/opinion boards but they're hardly the same as WaPo and the L.A. Times. They also happen to be one of the only places to get decent coverage of global conflicts, along with Bellingcat and War Nerd. They should absolutely make significant changes in their, frankly, shit tier Gaza coverage. They're also reporting on increasing attacks against the LGBTQ+ community in the Ivory Coast.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/world/africa/ivory-coast-lgbtq.html

And secret prisons in Bangladesh, where prisoners are tortured and disappeared.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/17/world/asia/bangladesh-disappeared.html

And (like everyone else) that Israel killed Lebanese journalists. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/world/middleeast/israel-strike-lebanon-journalists.html

They also featured firsthand accounts by doctors and a teacher of the horrors of IDF intentionally targeting children.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/09/opinion/gaza-doctor-interviews.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/08/opinion/gaza-teacher-students-school.html

So yes, NYT has awful coverage of Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. Institutions are complicated and agenda-driven. They also have better coverage of conflicts in the rest of the world than most news outlets.

They also, unlike the Post and L.A. Times, actually picked a side, which is what's specifically relevant to this post.

It’s not about conservative hands or foreign hands. It’s about wealthy hands. They don’t want to shoot their wealth in the foot by pissing off powerful people who could turn around and hurt their money. Burn their fucking money and distribute their goods and meat among the people to barter with in a new society built from the ashes of their goddamn empire.

New York Times are now in conservative hands

The NYT is?

Always have been.

Now... now!? They've been doing that for centuries.

I don't know what the Fairness Doctrine would do in modern times. Its legal basis was in broadcast TV and radio, not the news media in general. It never applied to newspapers or cable news, and it wouldn't apply to the Internet. I don't know why it still gets brought up except as a point of history.

LAX for short?

For the next two weeks, it's propaganda, as it's been for the last three decades, because they do need consent this time. But if Trump wins this one, then those in power won't need that anymore.

But even when it's propaganda, it's strange just watching the effect of rich people's influence pulling a hundred-million Americans' opinions toward Trump. It's like being able to see visible gravity, it seems so obvious when you can see it, but then you realize that those hundred-million people can't see it or even understand it as it's pulling them off the edge of a cliff.