While New York times is far better than the New York Post. And the Washington Post is far better than Washington times. They are all for profit ventures owned by thieving wealthy capitalists. They’ve always pushed their own perception and agenda. Whether or not we ever realized it. And that agenda has never been about sustainability, fairness, or accuracy. It’s always been this way to one extent or another. It’s just that the consolidation of ownership etc as made the market much less competitive and accountable.
I don’t believe Washington Times is actually intended as a moneymaking endeavor. It’s a weird little mouthpiece funded by the Unification Church. As a DC region native, I’ve seen them give that rag away at every opportunity and sell it at cost – according to the Times itself, it lost a billion dollars over 33 years before turning a profit for the first time in 2015.
whether or not it is intended to make money directly. they aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their heart. They’re making money back on it somehow even indirectly. And part of it is a brainwashing and placating a section of the populace to turn them against their own interests and fight against everyone else. That’s why there’s so much money in AstroTurfing for oligarchs. No one will agree with them out of principle unless there is enough principle to pay them adequately.
You’re misunderstanding. The Washington Times is a fire oligarchs throw money into by giving away for free and selling it at cost so they can spread far-right wing propaganda (and print Mallard Filmore strips.) It’s a much more extreme example of what you’re talking about.
Is NYT paid to totally distort the truth like they did in that article?
Hundreds? I mean, I guess that’s true, if you say 88 hundreds… Almost 90 hundreds.
I’m not even to the interview, and I’m already having trouble swallowing this article.
Edit: I guess “Spez talks to NY Times” was hyperbole… There’s no interview, lol
“Spez gets fellated by the NY Times”
While New York times is far better than the New York Post. And the Washington Post is far better than Washington times. They are all for profit ventures owned by thieving wealthy capitalists. They’ve always pushed their own perception and agenda. Whether or not we ever realized it. And that agenda has never been about sustainability, fairness, or accuracy. It’s always been this way to one extent or another. It’s just that the consolidation of ownership etc as made the market much less competitive and accountable.
I don’t believe Washington Times is actually intended as a moneymaking endeavor. It’s a weird little mouthpiece funded by the Unification Church. As a DC region native, I’ve seen them give that rag away at every opportunity and sell it at cost – according to the Times itself, it lost a billion dollars over 33 years before turning a profit for the first time in 2015.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/14/washington-times-reaches-profitability-after-33-ye/
whether or not it is intended to make money directly. they aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their heart. They’re making money back on it somehow even indirectly. And part of it is a brainwashing and placating a section of the populace to turn them against their own interests and fight against everyone else. That’s why there’s so much money in AstroTurfing for oligarchs. No one will agree with them out of principle unless there is enough principle to pay them adequately.
You’re misunderstanding. The Washington Times is a fire oligarchs throw money into by giving away for free and selling it at cost so they can spread far-right wing propaganda (and print Mallard Filmore strips.) It’s a much more extreme example of what you’re talking about.
NYT: manufacturing consent since before you were born, and after you die