Home | About | Donate

The Dumbed-Down New York Times


The Dumbed-Down New York Times

Robert Parry

In a column mocking the political ignorance of the “dumbed-down” American people and lamenting the death of “objective fact,” New York Times columnist Timothy Egan shows why so many Americans have lost faith in the supposedly just-the-facts-ma’am mainstream media.


Thank you Mr. Parry for addressing this very important topic. I'll not speculate as to whether Mr. Egan's efforts are of misinformation or disinformation, or perhaps the combo platter. The "poor Ukraine got invaded by Russia" narrative is, of course, being used to "justify" NATO (America) coming to the "rescue". I shall say this, though, Mr. Putin is a mighty patient man. He deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but, of course, he'll not be awarded it. Business as usual...


Was Mr. Parry self-taught or did he have a teacher?
If it was the latter then what does that say about teachers?


The NY Times has been a water-carrier for The MIC and the more questionable actions of Multi-National Corps. around the planet for decades. It has cheerleaded the crooked and amoral actions of Wall Street as long as it benefited the wish list of their cities' elites. Their poster child for the 21st Century is, of course, Judith Miller. Or, Blankfein and Dimon, if your looking for Titans of Treachery in the financial dealings of investment banking and derivative swindles. As to the Ukrainian situation, the NY Times funcfioned as a propaganda machine for the Neo-Cons, even after their treasonous actions in Iraq, Libya and. the Syrian conflicts. Additionally they support the not-so-sleight of hand actions of The Alphabets in the ongoing destabilizing of democratically elected gov'ts in S. America and Africa. While saying they're merely reporting the " real politik " ; they function as a public relations outlet for hollow and deadly policies of a thoroughly discredited Federal Gov't. Which is now merely a time-sharing venture of the bought and paid for Uniparty, Inc. Which they support wholeheartedly, of course. A friend recently. took a three week vacation primarily in the cities of New York, London and Paris. The takeaway describes why the Times has become such a cracked shell of a paper, " New York is a dirty, unkept London, and both seem to lack the.classy street cred of Paris. " The NY Times really is a bad prop for a place, and a diminished idea, of an Olde American Empire. Its' cheesy support for worn out and discredited alliances in the world's nasty hot spots makes its' establishment-oriented agitprop look puny and cheap, too. The NY Times reflects the city it's named after; dirty and unkept, indeed.


So true. The MSM is a propaganda machine for the government. Any thinking person that wants the real news should do the research, there are many websites that will give it to you straight.
Since most people want to catch the news on the fly, they never hear or see news that is unbiased. Try getting an alternate view across to a New York Times reader. They think you're nuts.
Such a shame when an informed citizenry is so instrumental to good governance. When you get half truths or flat out lies from the news it takes choice out of your hands. Which seems to be the goal in this country.


It almost appears that this process by the media of dumbing us down by telling us lies and half truths might be purposeful?
Who profits from an uninformed citizenry?


Good article by Mr. Parry. And what is comical is that the N.Y. Times is called " liberal" by so many MSM pundits! From my perspective, the only thing liberal about the Times is it has always been liberal about obfuscating the truth. This rag has been and still is, nothing but a cheerleader for wars and has lied about everything from Iraq to 9/11!


I would really like to see more people boycott all corporate controlled news sites and broadcasters. Those sites live and thrive on clicks and views, because their ad dollars are tied to how many readers or viewers they can show they get on a regular basis. If more people stopped going to the New York Times, and TV infotainment like MSNBC, it would slowly starve the beast. I have not gone to the NYT for many years now because their bias is so palpable that it is unnerving. MSNBC might as well be the official mouthpiece for the DNC and the Clintons.

Boycotts work, especially if they gain steam and grow. I haven't watched MSNBC for several years now, and have talked others out of going there. Spread the word, starve the corporate propaganda machine.


Seeing how elections are rigged time and time again, the only meaningful vote you cast is the vote you cast in the marketplace every time you click and every time you spend money. Cast your vote in the marketplace wisely.


I should add that National Propaganda Radio (NPR) is run by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a large and malevolent corporation indeed. That would be one great place to start boycotting.


People who think must be Putin trolls.




NYT is thoroughly discredited on foreign policy and has been for some time (waves at Judy Miller).

It's one reason so many loyalist Dems know so little about what's going on in foreign affairs, because they're so conditioned to relying on the Times and NPR, not realizing yet that both sources are utterly coopted.

At this point, left-liberals should just put the rag down once and for all. Read LMD or something.


In 1977, Carl Bernstein--of Watergate fame--reported that "more than four hundred American journalists....in the past twenty-five years have secretly carried out assignments" for the CIA.

What was true then is true today.
Only nobody reports it.


I generally like Robert Parry, but this is a dumbed down article if ever there was one. He neglects to mention the "litttle green men," that is, the Russian soldiers who were in unmarked uniforms. He ignores Donbass. He doesn't mention the intercepted communications showing that Russia wanted to takeover Crimea. He pretends that the tanks rolling over the border just plain didn't happen!!!

Sometimes people, in their fervor to show everyone that they hate US foreign policy, forget that there are other terrible people in the world, like Putin. Just ask Russian journalists who report on him...oh, wait, you can't. They keep getting executed.

The problems between Russia and Ukraine did not start in 2014. Remember Viktor Yushchenko? There's been a long battle in Ukraine over whether to join with Europe or Russia, and it's not been one without fatalities, and both Russia and the US have been doing what they can to influence things there.

This article by Parry, however, appears to be historical revisionism. Even now, Russia is amassing troops on the Ukraine border.

If the NYTpiece is propaganda, then the same must be said for this article as well.


Parry has been objectively reporting on the Ukraine coup since it began. You should read his earlier articles to get a better perspective on what actually went on.


I came away from this article wondering exactly which side Parry favored? The one time Parry writes a short piece instead of a tome and he leaves it a mixed bag needing clarification at best. It is undeniable that the Times (as are most mainstream media) is an erudite propaganda arm which artfully redefines, relabels as well as mislabels and all the rest that goes with manipulation of the reader and the imposition of a narrative line to be taken up by the public and later discussed at length by the punditry.

Was it that neonazis did what or was it that Putin's Russkies did what? Which did what and where exactly and when? Were they there already but invaded by definition aka the Times descriptive sensibilities or did they change overnight from being guests to being invading occupiers who were already there at the time ...just prior to the election? This article doesn't know which propaganda version to castigate best. Their's, our's, Washington's or Putin's? What about Trump's?

How confusing it is to think that Trump actually knew something about an issue that might force someone to read what he says about it! Unprecedented!


There was a change of power in Ukraine, some call it a revolution and others a coup, and there's little doubt the the US supported it (the evidence here is good) though just what kind of supprt isn't as well established, though the State Dept. seems to have had influence in picking the new leader.

Concurrent with that (rather than in direct response to it, making one think that it's possible Russian intelligence on this was pretty good, but that's speculation), Russia's military invaded Crimea, where it has a large and imiportant military base. I don't think that there's a question that Russian forces crossed the border, or that they were fighting out of uniform.

Parry seems to want to start the narritive at what he calls the coup, ignoring all that came before it, and accuses the NYTof wanting to start the narrative after the coup, with the annexation of Crimea by Russia.

Personally, I think the narrative needs to start before that, possibly with Yushchenko but certainly with the Euromaidan protests, which, I think, make what happened harder to call a "coup" in the generally understood sense of the word, i.e., a military coup or something like what happened in Honduras and is happening now in Brazil.

It's also worth remembering the Orange Revolution, in which the widely believed to be rigged election of Yanukovych was annulled by the court and a re-vote, done under intense scrutiny, was held in which Yushchenko won. Later, of course, he was poisoned with dioxin.

There are many problems in Ukraine, but to think that Russia is a passive bystander only trying to do its best for everyone is to deny reality.


Does anybody read MSM rags anymore?


I take it you're a Tom Freidman fan.


Lol ...a passive bystander indeed! Nevertheless, let's not dwell on Peter the Great either. The Crimea is of course Russia's New Orleans but without the Louisianna Purchase. The original intent of Jefferson was to purchase New Orleans as the riverine gateway into the interior. A must have for the new USA and one Jeffey was willing to go to war over to get. Instead Nappy offered a cut rate deal because he was in a snit over Haiti at the time. Can you imagine the USA without having possession of New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi? The Crimea is an essentiality to the Russian state just as is New Orleans to us.

Meanwhile, through deals and treaties and now referendums and ersatz elections (to say nothing about expelling the Crimean Tartars which everyone seems to forget), neonazis strong arm tactics and the same from the other side and what do you get?

Diplomatic leverage which some idiot (conservative wanted to make a name over) decided to take issue with and brought NATO to an impossible position just to see what would happen? Somebody was dumb while somebody played dumb but wasn't! The end result is that ...the New Orleans of Russia - the Crimea remains in Russian hands but now as the result of an invasion/coup/covert usurpation through occupation or whatever you want to call it...what used to be is now the same as it was except NATO has a technicality in place of a precedent.

In the real world, no one expects Russia to give up its New Orleans. Or they shouldn't.