Home | About | Donate

NYT Editor Insists the Paper Has No Ideology...Except for Being 'Pro-Capitalism'


We may need to have a discussion with the NYT about what “capitalism” is.

When the NYT says it’s only ideology is support of capitalism, does it have in mind the kind of open and highly competitive small-scale regulated capitalism that Adam Smith and David Ricardo described or do they have in mind the kind of unregulated lassez-faire capitalism promoted by the Neoconservatives? There is a huge gap between these two views of capitalism and such a wide gap really deserves a free and open discussion. It would be good to have the NYT play a role in promoting that discussion.


Refer them to Marx. Super simplified here but capitalism according to him, was a necessary stage in economic development that would raise the people from poverty and develop the industries neede to progress. However capitalism would reach a point where is becomes pernicious and he hoped that would lead to a socialist then a communist economic system where the workers would control the distribution of the surplus. The NYT just cannot get past the fact that it is past time for capitalism to give way to a better more equitable economic system…


NYT how about a First Amendment ideology? This should be your focus, not pro-capitalism.

And I am talking about the true First Amendment. Not one couched in BS corporate persoonhood.

Corporations are not people (persons) and Money is not speech!!!




I agree with Chris Hedges when in an interview with Paul Jay he states (my bold):

“I think the media, the American media at its best, which is, you know, institutions like The New York Times had become anemic, and at its worst, which is the commercial airwaves, have just become tools of corporate propaganda. And there’s a crisis within the media establishment that is very, very profound and very frightening.”


Take your pick:

To more superficially view the pro capitalist bent of the ny times, all one has to do is glance through the Times, most notably the Sunday paper featuring the nauseating “Style Section” and the wedding section (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/12/odds-getting-new-york-times-wedding-section/334684/)

Their ads are repulsive, featuring what look to be anorexic 18 (or less) year old models donning designer outfits next to ads for designer Patek Philippe watches (they seem to have a thing for designer watches)

The juxtaposition of their ads with stories about poverty or humanitarian crises is the epitome of crazy making----hypocrisy at its finest.

The “times digest” is a truncated version of the regular ny times—below is a summary of what it is and who it caters to (my bold----“yachts”?—really??):

TimesDigest, a ten-page synopsis of The New York Times, is published 365 days a year and distributed in more than 50 countries. The publication reaches more than 190,000 readers on all seven continents and the seven seas. Among the subscribers around the globe are hotels and resorts, corporations and organizations, cruise ships and yachts as well as United States Navy ships.


Capitalism is an ideology. As well as being a theory of economics.
Sanders has never gone beyond talk, so his true philosophy of governance is an unknown.


We’re brothers from different mothers, you and I.

Bernie Sanders would have won in a landslide, hadn’t it been for the DNC, the Democratic Party Establishment, and most importantly Hillary Clinton herself who choreographed the destruction of Bernie’s surging campaign.

They are to blame for the mess this country’s in.


The nyt CORPORATION is always lecturing on democracy (Greek for “the people rule”) - corporations are totalitarian, top-down command structures : the owners/bosses bark out orders, the workers/employees obey, or else. So, by definition, this is their ideology.


The Times is horrible, sorry. They have employed decent reports and writers, but Chomsky long ago showed how biased they are, and I will never forget how they covered the coup in Venezuela, the incident with RCTV, and a wide range of other issues. Beyond that, they say they hired a nut that denies science in regards to global warming, so clearly a person writing for them doesn’t have to be based in objective reality. If they really wanted a diversity of opinion, they’d include radical leftists among their writers, and they’d be able to provide more actual diversity. Chomsky pointed out how institutions like the Times have such negative societal impacts, principally because of the narrow range of opinion and debate they offer. They present a narrow range of opinion, often print propaganda created by Wall Street and the Pentagon, and often outright ignore issues.


Do you have a source/citation for this assertion?


Beware, a mountain of bullshit is coming. We have instances of successful socialism and communism here in the US, and there are developed countries that have far more socialism than we do, and they’re better off because of it. There are market socialist models that call for a mixed economy, not radically different than what social democrats call for, and there are more radical, market-less, and even stateless versions of socialism. Socialism has a broad back, and opponents of socialism are often ignorant to that fact. Some would like to question the existence and success of socialism, while ignoring the fact that what they often call capitalism hasn’t ever existed, and they refuse to admit that capitalism is a key driver in environmental degradation, has been horrible in the neoliberal era in developed countries and has been a key factor in the undermining of democracy. They also refuse to admit that capitalist methods of development and the management of services is often far inferior to socialist means. Chile’s privatized pension system (a complete train wreck of a system), as well as their total privatization of education and some infrastructure, the disastrous privatization of infrastructure in the UK, our largely privatized healthcare system, the relatively poor performance of private utilities, etc.


Quite so… the intellectual dishonesty of Bennet was readily apparent at that remark.


If Adams Smith lived today, he would be left of most so-called progressives.