THREAD TITLE EDITED TO MATCH LINKED ARTICLE. This is incredible. I've never heard of such a thing happening. I'm sure this isn't the first time this has happened. This absolutely proves that much of our media are simply typists for the DNC. https://nypost.com/2022/08/11/bari-w...m-scott-op-ed/ A former New York Times opinion page editor alleges that her bosses refused to run an op-ed submitted by Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) without first getting approval from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
That also proves that anything to the left of Newsmax is controlled by the DNC. Makes as much sense. However Fox News is sometimes too liberal for some of you.
I DON'T see anything in the linked article saying that: "Ny Times is an arm of the DNC" The Title that shows up for me is: Bari Weiss: New York Times editor wanted Schumer to OK op-ed by GOP Sen. Tim Scott
Thats what Tim Scott gets for (apparently) not catering to lobbyists for any of the major controlling interests in the NYT. Shame shame Tim Scott, that's no way to represent... Of course, its entirely likely Tim Scott caters to other lobbyists for other controlling interests in other big business. Thats how congress 'works'.
There are many arms to the DNC. The following is a list of entities that literally worship the DNC: - The View - CNN - MSNBC - ABC - The Young Turks - The entirety of Hollywood - Saturday Night Live - Literally every late-night show - BBC - Facebook, Twitter, etc.. - More major companies/corporations you could name. - The federal government. It’s totally seeped into the military, the FBI, the ATF, etc.. - WAPO and nearly every single major “news” papers out there. You could play this game all day long.
The Times being the propaganda arm of the left, or just one of those arms, is not an opinion, it’s a fact.
Looks like the NY Times needs Democrat leaders to approve of op-ed pieces written by Republicans. That makes then DNC operatives.
I don't think anyone would ever claim CNN is sometimes too conservative for some of you. At least I've never seen many liberals complaining about their conservative news coverage.
Good list. The Democrats don't have to worry about them coming through for them in the next election. They're working their tails off already!
Can you tell the difference? Like the idiot's opinion that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election...The idiot's opinion which launched the 2 Trump impeachments?...Garland's idiotic opinion that no one is above the law (except for Hillary, Sandy Berger and Hunter Biden), for examples?
It looks to me that-- while I am not saying that this story is not something worth discussing-- you are making hyperbolic extrapolations. I will concede, however, that the dearth of detail in the article, forces one to have to speculate; this is a flaw to be pinned upon the Post, however, not to be used to justify the worst possible interpretation against the Times. If we were to look at it in the same manner, but from the other side, one could come to the equivalently valid conclusion that, since the Post is in direct competition with the Times, in the NYC media market, that this piece must necessarily have been nothing other than a self-serving attempt by the Post, to erode their competitor's credibility. To consider this in a more thoughtful way, using less exaggerated assumption, it would seem that the NYT editor doubted the sincerity of whatever legislation, on which Senator Scott was supposedly working. My first thought, in this case, is that they should have asked the senator to provide them with the rough details of his legislation, as it then stood, along with the other senators, if any, he had approached with his ideas (and what their reactions had been). This would be to help assure that the paper was not being used for right wing propaganda. I agree that the Democratic leader of the Senate, seems a poor choice, for getting an honest assessment of any proposed legislation (from either Party). I think the assumption is warranted, though, that some degree of trust in Schumer, by the Times editor, had come from their very long acquaintance with him, as New York's senator. Again, an alternative way of viewing the incident, to it being a case of collaboration between the Times and Schumer-- which I am not denying, could be the case-- would be that it was understood by both the paper & the senator that, since Schumer very much wanted the paper's support, in its huge market, in which reside half of the senator's constituents, he would not abuse his relationship with the Times, by giving them bad intel. What makes this a bit of a sticky wicket, is that any newspaper's sources for info about what is being cooked up, in any Congressman's pot, can only come from political insiders, who all must be assumed to, at the very least, carry a bias.
