You could say that about a lot of places these days.

> As for NY Times I don't feel see any agendas in the titles, am I missing something?

In the first case they're both covering the exact same story but putting the opposite spin on it. Trump recommends that people wear a mask but then he often doesn't wear one himself.

He says he doesn't wear it when he's only around people who have already been tested, which could be true enough but I suspect a big reason is that it impairs communication. Human communication is lossy and full of redundancy to compensate. If you don't quite hear something but you can see their lips moving you still know what they said. People say as much with facial expressions as with words. But not if you have a mask over your face.

Trump's primary job right now is communicating, so "get Trump to wear a mask whenever he's talking to the public" becomes a priority for anybody who doesn't like him, because they have a plausible-sounding line about him setting an example, so it's a win-win for them -- either they paint him as reckless for not wearing a mask or they get him to wear it which impairs his communication. The media writes a hundred stories about it a week. Fox is only even covering that story to try to defend him, the others are using it as a political weapon and they know it.

A mask also reminds everybody of the pandemic and a pandemic is always going to be bad for the incumbent. Which is the issue with the other story -- not the contents but the priority. Trump has been wanting to reopen the country, so reopening problems in some places are bad for Trump, so that's their top story. Important things happening in Hong Kong right now. I think there's some BLM stuff going on too.

It would be one thing if this was an anomaly, but it's consistent.

The Times literally has a thing on their site right now called "Meet the Supporters Trump has Lost."

And since Murdoch likes to run his news outlets with an iron fist, these news outlets tend to report the news in a manner that strongly reflects Murdoch's thinking at the time.

Any thing Murdoch has owned and run has always comes with a level of Murdoch bias.

Now it’s all narrative and the focus is pannational. Not much has a local flavor. It’s not what’s good for Canadians or Ghanaians, it’s what can Canadians and Ghanaians do to make the world better (despite there being lots of things Ghanaians and Canadians could be doing in their own backyards to improve the life of their own downtrodden.

It feels like a recast comintern.