Trump boasted news networks like Fox, OANN, and NewsMax, which arguably are the least credible sources out there.

Fox lawyers even argued that the Tucker show is not "news", and should not be treated as such.

So, no, he was not right about this either. He just peddled the idea that the only credible broadcasts were the ones praising him.

The trouble is the NYT and others still claim to be objective and not really partisan. They still market themselves as the bastion of real journalism.

At least with fox and oann you know they are fully partisan.

Partisanship is on a scale. It is not a binary thing.

NYT may be partisan, yes, but, qualitatively speaking, it's laughable to compare NYT and OANN or NewsMax. They are not even in the same business.

It’s very easy to come to that conclusion about your own sides media. Perhaps you should ask some republicans about how objective the NYT is, and ask for evidence. You might be surprised.

CNN or the NYT are also reporting differing arguments/facts and correct themself if they made a mistake. Havent seen that happening on OANN or NewsMax without a court order.

For a contrasting point of view, here's an article from a conservative, religious writer who follows how the media covers religion stories from 2014. In this article (and is a common theme in his writing), he discusses "Kellerism" a term named after Bill Keller, a former New York Times editor who said in 2011 how the New York Times does not seek balance in a whole bunch of areas. The author, Terry Mattingly, has over the years documented many cases in which CNN, NYT and other similar outlets don't cover stories that intersect with religion or religously affiliated people or communities fairly (seemingly, in many cases, because the authors covering the stories lack the basic knowledge to even raise questions allowing for balance).

https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2014/8/2/this-keller...

The remarks that sparked the analysis are hardly proof of the NYT being "unfair" to conservatives, unless stating that, say, creationism is not science, and gay marriage is legal, could be considered as such.

My point is not that NYT and co are reporting according to some arbitrary fair and balanced standard. The point is that they are reporting differing views/arguments at all which is not something OANN or NewsMax do.

I can't say I've ever read OANN or NewsMax, even though I am conservative. I have read the New York Times before though, and as the linked article and several others by the same journalist indicate, evidently the Times is selective about showing differing views.

> It’s very easy to come to that conclusion about your own sides media.

The fact that a group of people believe certain lies, doesn't make those lies acceptable, either.

I couldn't care less about what republicans think of NYT versus OANN. Yes, they may think that OANN is a better source. Still, they would be wrong.

Also we are in a thread where reporting on a virus that has killed 3m people is in question at these big outlets. There are few bigger issues. This is very worrying for these supposedly less partisan outlets.

This is a straw-man. People are not legitimately comparing NYT to OANN and NewsMax, they are comparing NYT to the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News.

Partisanship is committing to a party; it is signing up with a team; it is taking sides. That is binary.

Don't confuse that with having an ideology or a commitment to certain ideas.

You can be partisan (or have an ideology) and still be trustworthy, but the trouble with that is, you actually have to be trustworthy.

I'd rather compare the NYT with The Economist on this point.

Of course we know fox is partisan, but it's certainly not because they admit it about themselves. They vaunt themselves as "fair and balanced", while clearly acting otherwise. Is this so different from the NYT presenting itself as "objective and not really partisan", even when we know otherwise?

I don't entirely disagree, hence

> satellite network of reactionary right wing outlets that are about as bad

Predictably, as is custom at this point, our respective appraisals of the other side depend on the side we're on. Fine - but that's beside the point. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, et. all are, most charitably, factories of lies by omission. It's been clear to a lot of us that COVID was born of a colossal mistake by CCP scientists doing GoF research since February or March of 2020. The mainstream so-called news knew just as long - they're not stupid, they're manipulating you along an undisclosed agenda.

Just because you can point to someone else you believe to mislead in a more egregious fashion doesn't somehow alleviate the fact that we have exactly zero credible news sources.

I do not think it is clear at all, even today. What is completely clear though is that corporate media and academia went to great lengths to protect bat/wet-market origins theory and went completely inquisitional on anyone who raised doubts. This is not how media or science supposed to work unless we live in China or USSR

> It's been clear to a lot of us ...

This is a belief. This is a believer speaking.

He's wrong about those outlets being reliable, but those outlets weren't considered reliable before his presidency either. The term "fake news" wasn't even in the lexicon before 2015-16, and it certainly wasn't something that most people considered would be coming from outlets like NYT or the Washington Post. That's absolutely something that he was right about. It may be a case of a broken clock being right twice a day, but that doesn't mean he wasn't right.

> The term "fake news" wasn't even in the lexicon before 2015-16

Not the exact term itself, but the significancy of it. The "lying press" is a pejorative used since at least the XIX century [1].

Are we looking for 100% reliability here? Then, yes, we could call the NYT or the WP "fake news". But that is just hyperbole, directed at creating doubt and uncertainty where it does not exist. Once Trump followers had a excuse to label the NYT as "partisan" or "fake", it was easy for Trump to steer the narrative any way he wanted.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying_press

It's the eternal struggle between neutrals and conservatives: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/05/01/neutral-vs-conservativ...

That's not at all what Trump meant by "fake news" - what he meant by "fake news" was, "their narrative goes against mine, it's a like, so buy into the narrative from this other media outlet that supports me instead."

Trump was hot garbage and nothing he said could be taken seriously, at best it was his demented world view at worst it was outright lies to soothe his white-racist base. News is obviously biased but your statement of "if something is reported..." is also conspiratorial nonsense. Sure they fuck up but mostly they are dead on when you extract the facts from the the opinion.