According to the newly leaked transcript of a New York Times staff meeting last year, editorial page editor James Bennet wants his employees and the public to believe that the paper of record is dedicated to open debate, not committed to any particular ideology, and opposed to "simply assert[ing] that we know what the right answers are."
No big deal here. Sanders supports capitalism also. He is just against the bad things corporations do. How does a major newspaper get enough advertising to sustain itself if it is opposed to capitalism? Thanks to the internet, real newspapers that publish on paper have been struggling.
There are reasons why the NYT is not and never will be my main source of information…
I find the notion that the Times is “pro-capitalism” amusing. What they really are is “pro-crony-capitalism”, i.e., we want favors for ourselves, our buddies, and “people like us, supported by the government.” The New York Times wouldn’t know actual, free-market capitalism if it fell over it.
IF the NYT’s wanted to know what the sheeple think they would read the excellent comments on their site. They gave Trump a red carpet ride while bashing Clinton daily. Maybe pro-capitalism but not pro-democracy just like Daddy Koch.
Well you know Lrx, that was put into context of supporting tax cuts for corporations.
Once can be in support of capitalism, and also want more equitable distribution. One can be in support of capitalism and day in and day out apologize for what has become the most inequitable societies on Planet Earth.
Heck, the peoples of the countries with economies fashioned after the Nordic Economic Model wouldn’t get rid of capitalism either.
Oh if we could only trade their system for ours.
‘“The New York Times is in favor of capitalism because it has been the greatest engine of, it’s been the greatest anti-poverty program and engine of progress that we’ve seen.”’
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…” FFS, I bet Bennet has not ever read Dickens but am willing to concede that he may have seen Mr. Magoo’s A Christmas Carol.
NYT editorial page editor James Bennet said “The New York Times is in favor of capitalism because it has been the greatest engine of (sic), it’s been the greatest anti-poverty program and engine of progress that we’ve seen.” Assuming that premise, can we conclude that black slavery in the antebellum South was a great anti-poverty program and engine of progress? The institution certainly made a lot of money for the capitalists. Likewise the invasion of Iraq, which was shamelessly promoted by the NYT. Also all the other Middle East oil wars like the 1953 coup that installed the shah after the democratically elected government nationalized oil production. And the 1954 coup in Guatemala when the democratically elected government tried to return unused United Fruit land to the peasants. Those were wonderful anti-poverty programs and engines of progress, by NYT logic, I suppose the current state of American politics, in which only the richest 1% have a voice, is a sign of progress and a great anti-poverty program. The financialization of the American economy, by which Wall St. and the big banks accrue unbelievable fortunes by gambling with taxpayer money while producing absolutely nothing is also an anti-poverty program and an example of great progress. C’mon, NYT opinion page, even you aren’t that stupid!
If the NYT’s was really for fairness and equality in taxation, when corporations (who are considered as people) had their tax rate cut from 35% to 21%, why didn’t they advocate that all “people” have their tax rates cut to 21% as well?
No ideology?! Give me a break. Capitalism is theft; engenders permanent and growing inequality; seeks to commodify every aspect of our lives and loves; and will eventuate in ecological ruin and permanent war.
The Times is pro capitalism?!
The Vatican is pro Catholic?!
Great analysis !!
NY Times… the only news that’s fit to flush.
A paper that hawks its services to 1) large players 2) advertisers 3) readers is apt to be pro-capitalism. James Bennet’s admitted prejudice is unsurprising.
What immediately should strike us as outrageous here, though, is his attitude that “pro-capitalism” is somehow ideologically neutral or non-specific or nondescript or benign, that it might somehow be “less ideological” than pro-communism or pro-fascism or pro-monarchy or pro-Democrat or pro-Republican. The outrageous reason that it might not, I suspect, is that Bennet’s pretense is endemic across commercial media.
20th century “journalistic objectivity” consisted of writing with a language that gave the impression to careless reading that reporters and editors had no opinions or point of view about what they were reporting. Besides the patent absurdity of imagining that anyone can view anything from no point in particular, this idea was further bent by the practical approach of commercial journalists that “objectivity” meant giving an equal nod to both powerful parties even in the usual circumstance: that accuracy demanded contravening them. This, of course, led to not just subjective writing, itself an inevitability rather than a crime, but chronic inaccuracy. Still, this was tempered by the necessity of maintaining some reputation for accuracy in order to gain the attention of readers in order to sell their attention to advertisers. Thus we saw such great institutions backed into revealing The Pentagon Papers and the events of Watergate.
Since the relative failure of this old commercial model in the early years of the new millennium, however, these large institutions have succumbed to selling favors in various ways, often by accepting content produced out-of-house by parties with one or another pressing interest in public relations.
Of course, this shoots down almost any hope of accurate or representative reporting of anything that might become controversial–or, put otherwise, relevant. The Times is no longer of the times.
During the campaign, the way the Times’s comments section was handled was a joke. It continually pushed pro-Clinton commenters to the NYT Picks section (and many of these had “verified” status, so they could be counted on), while pro-Sanders comments were rarely selected, or selected only in numbers so as to appear to be a small minority. After Rolling Stone pointed out how the Times changed the headline and emphasis of a front-page story that initially was favorable to Sanders, it didn’t take the Times long to get rid of its Public Editor. Just cutbacks at news organizations due to modernization? Not if you believe the Times when they say that their subscriptions have increased.
Your comment Steven, is probably the best reason of all for never again voting for either party of the Duopoly.
The waste of money and human life that our government has sanctioned by turning our military into murderers all over the globe is so disgusting that most everyone we know, continues to support this Madness by voting for politicians who support the growth of Empire.
I’m glad they are pro-capitalism. That means they’ll understand that losing subscribers is an excellent example of market driven Darwinism.
While trying to get some organizers of the March 4 Science to consider some political positions, I got a lot of resistance to a critique of capitalism. One organizer likened critics of capitalism to climate change deniers and flat earthers. His argument was that, even if one claims that capitalism has resulted in millions killed or oppressed, capitalism is responsible for 5 billion being lifted from poverty and is, therefore the most beneficial human construct in the history of human beings. Disturbing that some science loving folk seem so blind to the social and environmental devastation of capitalism.
No surprise then that they’re so often lying sacks of sh!t.
NYT has a censor…AIPAC.