I think they operate with enough government skepticism that I can use them as my primary source of news in the morning, but I try to make sure that they are not my only source of news, especially for the most highly controversial issues.
Probably the most frequently cited example of where the New York Times (and other papers) have been accused of not telling the whole story, or avoiding the story altogether, is their coverage of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Coverage of their meetings rarely seems to delve much into the issue of why these events draw so many protesters. Usually they devote a paragraph or two to it at the end of the article. In their defense, however, the issue is not nearly as one-sided as some of the protesters would have you believe. Indeed, the issue of lending money to poor countries in order to help them succeed (or to profit off of their suffering, depending on whom you talk to), is probably one of the most complex issues in all of politics.
Personally I'd like it if they'd devote a little more time to questioning the government about things like the purpose of, say, spending huge amounts of money on combating marijuana use. But generally speaking I've found that if I listen to NPR and read the Times on a regular basis, I tend to stay pretty well ahead of the facts on the issues of the day. Which is to say that I am rarely surprised about things I hear from other sources, and if I am, I can usually attribute it to not having read the paper enough.
I would also say that anyone who avoids reading the New York Times because it's "too biased" is probably depriving themselves of a lot of potentially pertinent information that they would not be able to get anywhere else.
Probably the most frequently cited example of where the New York Times (and other papers) have been accused of not telling the whole story, or avoiding the story altogether, is their coverage of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Coverage of their meetings rarely seems to delve much into the issue of why these events draw so many protesters. Usually they devote a paragraph or two to it at the end of the article. In their defense, however, the issue is not nearly as one-sided as some of the protesters would have you believe. Indeed, the issue of lending money to poor countries in order to help them succeed (or to profit off of their suffering, depending on whom you talk to), is probably one of the most complex issues in all of politics.
Personally I'd like it if they'd devote a little more time to questioning the government about things like the purpose of, say, spending huge amounts of money on combating marijuana use. But generally speaking I've found that if I listen to NPR and read the Times on a regular basis, I tend to stay pretty well ahead of the facts on the issues of the day. Which is to say that I am rarely surprised about things I hear from other sources, and if I am, I can usually attribute it to not having read the paper enough.
I would also say that anyone who avoids reading the New York Times because it's "too biased" is probably depriving themselves of a lot of potentially pertinent information that they would not be able to get anywhere else.
Reply
Leave a comment