>> Now the narrative is provided by the opaque party apparatus of the DNC and GOP.

No. I still get the NYT daily email briefing and it shows a clear bias and agenda every day. Which reminds me, I need to cancel that.

You are seeing one of the parties opaque view. The DNC seems to have a better handle on their operatives than the GOP. That resignation letter from a few days ago for that particular organization shows a very toxic place to work at. Where if you do not toe the line you are attacked daily. Fear and intimidation and loss of group are proven ways to make your point the loudest. Mr. Bernays should be proud of the monster he set loose upon us.

You label the NYT as biased not because of its bias, but because you disagree with its reporting (i.e. your own bias.) instead you will go to somewhere you agree - and you will be worse off for it.

Things can be biased towards the truth just as much as the untrue. The NYT does have some truly eye-roll content for me - but they also have some very good articles. Just like the WSJ has eye roll content.

>> You label the NYT as biased not because of its bias, but because you disagree with its reporting

That's really impressive psychoanalysis on your part. NOT. I've considered that and looked at it from a number of angles and the conclusion is that they are biased.

My own biases are not partisan, but tend toward a dislike of things like hypocrisy and misconstruing facts - behavior I see often at NYT and WaPo.

> That's really impressive psychoanalysis on your part. NOT. I've considered that and looked at it from a number of angles and the conclusion is that they are biased.

Not? Haven't heard that one since the 4th grade. Keep on "owning the libs" man.

I don't disagree, I see something that looks like a bias too. But on some of the issues (wearing a mask, climate change) the GOP is so off the mark how can the NYT not come across (appearing) biased?

I've also noticed the past few months they now make an even greater effort to call out racism by some politicians. Is this an agenda or just factual observations? There are a lot of discussions on race right now and a lot of dog whistles. I go back and forth, but for the most part I think the NYT does a better job than most.

Their opinion section is atrocious.

> But on some of the issues (wearing a mask, climate change) the GOP is so off the mark how can the NYT not come across biased?

Unbiased should not mean "always making it look like both parties are right". That is bias on itself. If I lie about you, really lie, objective non-biased thing is not to say "watwut and cyberlurker disagreed, the truth is in the middle".

I agree. I should have said "how can the NYT not come across looking biased" on the issues of masks and climate change (or any issue with a scientific consensus that one side inexplicably challenges).

Bias which way?

> "seems to have completely abandoned any belief in science and civilized discussion and just spouts whatever appeals most to their base."

You could make the same case that "the other side" does same with all the recent attacks on academia, scientists, & celebrities regarding science around genetics, gender, etc

Would that 'science' happen to be the very productive discussion of reminding transgenders of their birth sex every day a la Ben Shapiro?

My comment tried to be clear that I'm not talking about political agitators, please don't make a straw man to detract from main point.

Congratulations, you don't even live here and you've been enlisted to take sides. This is the power of American media. Division is profitable, so we capitalize off of it and drive wedges further and further between people who actually aren't much different.

Are the GOP obstructionist creeps? Yes. But the DNC are only slightly better. Both parties are wings of the Capitalist Imperialist Party, who will stop at nothing to hand control of the country over to banks and corporate interests while creating false divisions over fringe social issues to distract everyone.

"Democracy" at its finest.

The media indeed. It was them who told the GOP to try to put a woman who could not name a single supreme court case one step away from the presidency in 2008. The party of personal responsibility is not personally responsible for being seen as complete insane in sensible countries.

Next time you are flabbergasted upon reading a headline, or seeing an 8 second excerpt - take a moment and view the entire source material. Be it the press briefing, speech, or document. What is often revealed is that the bulk of the content is uneventful and the moment in question is either the result of an unusual sentence structure/pauses, a poorly expressed idea that was revised or clarified in later sentences, or an ad-libbed paraphrase/metaphor/idiom that made more sense considering the surrounding context.

As you see how many flabbergasting moments are not quite as portrayed or are outright constructed, you will understand why articles like the OP are relevant. Selective gotcha reporting is the game, and it is detracting from reporting on the actual policies and failures of the administration.

For example, here is a fact check on the "drink bleach to cure Corona" rumor that you mentioned:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/11/joe-biden/...