> who is also part of their own union (Times Guild).

This doesn't remove the conflict of interest because it's not the same union. Those in the other unions may well be more sympathetic to the company than to the strikers, especially given the timing of the strike.

It's likely interfering with their jobs right now in pursuit of a negotiation that they don't stand to gain from.

So maybe I mis-read but...

The comment I was replying to suggests the reporter is pro-NYT but you are suggesting that the reporter is pro-Union?

Maybe the reporter did a great job after all :)

Nope, I'm saying that them being part of an unrelated union does not change the fact that they have a conflict of interest in reporting here.

If we used the Wall Street Journal, they'd also have a conflict interest, because their company competes with the New York Times.

I really think this is silly. If there is anything specific you don't think the New York Times article is presenting fairly, please share that.

> former NYT employee here

> The Times has been pretty good and covering itself imho.

This is silly. It's like the people who say that the Bible is true because the Bible says the Bible is true.

I don't get this read, or your analogy really. Seems more like "former bible editor here; the author of the psalm about bible editor unions is also a member of a bible editor's union, so is probably not super anti-union. They're unlikely to be just presenting the pope's narrative."

Like I said, I don't get your analogy.

NYT's political coverage has been extremely poor this year, with very obvious editorial control preventing negative coverage of Trump.

It's not obvious to me they have a bias here, but given the clear systemic issues in other reporting it's reasonable to bring a skeptical view to their own reporting.

Yeah, it get why its not obvious. That is why I was weighing in. Nothing more.