Does that make a difference or are y'all just constantly moving goalposts to fuel the narrative that media is inherently left-leaning?

Because it's really not - especially not in the US. Go look through their articles. How many serve corporate interests? How many are fundamentally ultra-capitalists?

You guys act like these are commies. No, they're right-leaning, just not far right insane wackos (Fox News). You're right, they're not out here questioning how black Kamala is. No, that absolutely does not make them left wing.

> ...to fuel the narrative that media is inherently left-leaning?

Right around this time 8 years ago, the election was over... in the media. Clinton won, trump didn't, in like September of 2016. Like, the world was collectively shocked. Because, according to the media, trump was cooked.

How does that square?

A big part of why Clinton won in the media while her rivals didn't is because she was the least left-leaning Democrat president candidate since, well, Clinton. Clinton's' vast corporate support is because she would lean to the right of the average American on most economic issues and was business as usual, in vast opposition to her rival.

Compare for example media treatment of Sanders or even Warren when he opposed her and you can see that it's not her leftist tendencies that made her win in the media.

> Compare for example media treatment of Sanders or even Warren when he opposed her and you can see that it's not her leftist tendencies that made her win in the media.

Respectfully I don’t accept your premise here. You’re saying she was center of left? But still “left”, as it were? And you agree the media crowned her king months before the election?

So the media ordained her the winner. You do agree or you do not?

I am saying that the media was enamored with her because she represented a shift rightwards compared to her predecessors, and that her campaign successfully shifted the leftmost acceptable economic policies to be to the right of the electorate.

In that the media vastly prefered her over Trump, it was because she was pro-establishment and better aligned with corporate interests, not because she was economically to his left. The case of Warren and Sanders (where famously the media was happy to compare Sanders to Trump, reinforcing the idea that their opposition to Trump is not due to his right-wing economic policies) as well as the comparison to previous Democratic candidates is evidence I think is much more compelling than the assumption of leftwing/rightwing partisanship.

> … her campaign successfully shifted the leftmost acceptable economic policies to be to the right of the electorate.

Huh. If that were true she would have won. So it can’t be true. Unless your claim is “the right was too far right” in which case your “right-of-the-electorate” cannot be mathematically true.

Were you trying to make a different point? The current one doesn’t hold water.

> If that were true she would have won.

Not who you're discussing with, but Hillary did win the popular vote by about 3 million votes.

Fair point.

70% of people who voted for Hillary Clinton said that they voted against Trump, not for her. And people don't vote for whatever candidate is closer to them on the left-right spectrum, they care about personality, about how the candidate makes them feel. In those terms Trump was extremely polarizing, many people whose policies were closer to Trump than Clinton voted for Clinton because Trump was, as a person, unacceptable.

Besides, there are people who just don't vote if your platform or personality is not engaging. That was a big phenomenon with Clinton and is generally what decided whether or not Democrats win: the higher the turnout, the higher their chances. If a Democrat runs to the right, they lose turnout from leftwing voters who stay home, they don't (just) win votes from the center.

Also, Clinton did win the popular vote, despite all of this.

I'm not moving any goal posts. The original ask was for an article on the front page. It wasn't on the front page when I checked. I was literally just confirming that it was in fact on the front page.

All I did was confirm something and you formed an entire narrative about me. I literally have no clue what you are going on about since it has nothing to do with my post. Your post sounds schizophrenic.

This would have been a much better comment without the last sentence.

The person I was responding to said I thought Harris is a communist. Where did he get that from? Nowhere. He invented it out of whole cloth. He also implied that I am a supporter of "far right insane wackos" for asking for a basic confirmation.

He formed an entire narrative about me from asking a simple question. A question that nobody sane could really come to the conclusions that he came to.

Perhaps it would be better if I didn't word my response the way I did, but I am just so tired of being accused of all sorts of things just because people think I am opposed to what they believe for asking for clarification. He doesn't know what I think and instead of asking he went on a rant about what he perceived my views to be. It is utterly ridiculous and it is so tiring.

I didn't, and I said nothing of the sort.

I said the NYT, and other media outlets, are not "far right insane wackos". Some people then run with that and say they're left-wing. That's not the case.

NYT is center-right, maybe center, and absolute worst-case slightly center-left. Our perception is warped, because we compare it to the likes of Fox News. Which is so unbelievably far right, that just about anything looks left-leaning in comparison.

> went on a rant about what he perceived my views to be

This didn't happen. Please, reread my comment and you'll notice I said absolutely nothing about you or your beliefs. I spoke of extreme right-wing beliefs. Whether you identify with that or feel shame about that is not my problem. If you're privy to creating personal attacks to fuel a sense of victimhood, that's on you.

Funny how you are now actually moving the goal posts. Originally it was "they're right-leaning". Now it is "absolute worst-case slightly center-left". You are admitting they may not be right wing and yet you accused me, who was simply asking for clarification, of moving the goal posts.

There is no point in continuing a conversation when you are just projecting exactly what you are doing on me.

You managed to ignore the rest of my comment, so appreciate the honesty.

I mean by "worst case" you could form an argument that says something like NYT is slightly center-left. And that's the best you can do.

The propaganda that the media is left-wing or left-wing extremists is just that, propaganda. On a related note, there are exactly 0 communist democrat candidates in the US.

In reality, most of our sources and policies on a federal level are strictly right-wing. This only gets more right-heavy when you consider that the US is the most right-leaning first world country.

What we, commonly, perceive as "right wing" is actually far-right politics. For example Fox News is not right-wing, they're far right. Trump isn't right-wing, he's far right. Biden isn't left-wing, he's center, etc.

It was, but it's fallen off at this point. Now most of the front page and editorial is about the US presidential debate that is about to happen, the coverage of which looks like any other mainstream establishment news publication in the US.

Compare that to an actual leftist publication like The Nation, where the second most popular article is literally about the enduring legacy of Marx's Capital (lol): https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/wendy-brown-marx-c...

Or over at Jacobin where this is the top story: https://jacobin.com/2024/09/ruwa-romman-dnc-speech-palestine