The Atlanta Journal-Constitution joins the New York Times in calling for President Biden to exit the 2024 race after last week’s debate.
The AJC is own by Cox Enterprises. If you want to know who they donate to and think you’ll be surprised, you won’t.
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/cox-enterprises/summary?id=D000000768
Ss the atlanta journal-constitution a liberal newspaper
According to the search results, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is considered to be slightly Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions that lightly skew liberal. Additionally, it is rated as High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact-check record.
Only if by “liberal” you mean what it means everywhere else in the U.S.
And you might as well link to Media Bias Fact Check if you’re going to paste from it. Which would be the company that’s become very pro-Israel as of late. Not exactly a position for “liberals” in America, as your sort likes to call everyone to the left of Trump.
That wasn’t pasted from Media Bias Fact Check. I got it by asking Brave search and it listed several websites, MBFC not being one of them
Cool, link to where you got it from.
They got it from an AI because doing your own research is too hard, apparently. These are all Brave browser AI summaries.
This chucklefuck who doesn’t know how to do research thinks he can wing it using an AI.
EDIT: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html
Here’s the NYT apologizing for their massive fuckups in the leadup to the War in Iraq because they were too busy NOT questioning anything the Bush administration had to say and were busy covering up stories for them. WHOOPSIE DOODLES.
Sounds real fucking liberal to me. /s
They may be owned by Cox Enterprises but “While the newspaper is owned by a private company, its news decisions are made by the journalists in the AJC’s newsroom.” https://www.ajc.com/about-us/who-we-are/DT6HW7HAYVFG7N2N6TIIHHTTVE/
And you know that’s true because they told you it’s true and why would they say otherwise unless their parent company had some sort of political agenda? But looking at those donations, can we truly say they have a political agenda? They seem like they’re solid centrists to me what with all those donations to Republicans and their groups.
They donated to Democrats as well, but either way, I haven’t seen any proof of them controlling the articles or opinions in the paper
Synema is not a Democrat, and it says so right there on the linked page. She switched to Independent after righteously screwing the party along with Manchin. For what it’s worth, Manchin changed to Independent as well.
They mean Frank Pallone. That’s the one Democrat. He’s in New Jersey and they’re based in Atlanta.
So I sure would like to know why they are donating to Frank Pallone as the one Democrat they donate to.
Wonder why they left the Democrat party?
They donated to one Democrat. The other thing that is listed as blue is an organization that wants more queer politicians of any political stripe in the United States. But I suppose anything that promotes queer people as human and needing representation is just part of the “woke mind virus,” so you’ve convinced me. Cox is 100% communist.
Lol. Lmao even.
Get fucked GQP.
What’s the GQP?
As in Q, the crazy conspiracy thing.
If you mean GOP, I don’t understand…Georgia’s largest newspaper or the New York Times aren’t right leaning at all
The NYT editorial board is definitely right leaning.
is the new york times a liberal or conservative paper
The New York Times is often perceived as a liberal or progressive newspaper, but its political stance is more complex and nuanced. Here’s a breakdown:
Historical context: The Times was founded as a conservative newspaper in 1851, and it maintained a conservative editorial stance until the early 20th century. However, during the 1960s and 1970s, the paper began to shift towards a more liberal perspective, reflecting the changing values and attitudes of the time. Editorial board: The New York Times’s editorial board has historically been liberal, but not uniformly so. While it has supported progressive causes, such as women’s suffrage, civil rights, and environmental protection, it has also endorsed conservative candidates and policies on occasion. Columnists and opinion writers: The Times features a range of opinion writers and columnists, including liberal voices like Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Charles Blow, as well as conservative voices like Bret Stephens and David Brooks. This diversity of opinion reflects the paper’s commitment to presenting a range of perspectives. Coverage and reporting: The Times is known for its in-depth reporting and investigative journalism, which often focuses on issues like government corruption, corporate malfeasance, and social justice. While this coverage can be seen as liberal-leaning, it is also driven by a commitment to fact-based reporting and a desire to hold those in power accountable. Subscriber demographics: According to Vox, The New York Times’s subscribers skew “older, richer, whiter, and more liberal” than the general population of the United States. This may contribute to the perception that the paper is liberal, but it’s essential to note that the paper’s editorial stance is not solely determined by its subscriber demographics.In conclusion, while The New York Times has a liberal bent, it is not a uniformly liberal or conservative paper. Its editorial stance is shaped by a complex interplay of historical context, editorial board perspectives, and the diverse range of voices and opinions presented in its pages. ----Brave Search
Man, maybe you’re getting downvoted hard because you’re busy using an AI to do your fucking thinking for you instead of digging up relevant information yourself to prove it.
Nice attempt at sidestepping how often they capitulate to Republican administrations.
I’m getting downvoted because it doesn’t fit their narrative. I don’t care about that though. It’s expected
An account that echoes right-wing talking points in most of their posts doesn’t have room to complain about “narrative”
lmao narrative
Jesus Christ get a grip.
I guess the NYT definitely didn’t hype us up for war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nope, never.
The NYT never breathlessly repeated the accusations of Weapons of Mass Destruction without questioning their sources as to the validity of those claims, yup.
You gotta be fucking shitting me.
EDIT: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html
The NYT outright admitting they just sold the entire country lies for the Bush admin.
Find something that’s less than 20 years old. That’s such a dumb argument anyway. 99% of the news agencies in America at that time wanted to go to war. Everyone wanted revenge for what had happened.
No, it’s because you structure your points into dog shit. Narrative aside…. Your argument is terribly weak and everyone is far too busy to donate their free time as a pittance to you getting a clue.
Signed - someone with a normal level of perception
Yes it is nuanced. Their editorial board is still right leaning if not on the right.
Georgia’s largest newspaper or the New York Times aren’t right leaning at all
In fucking fantasy-land maybe.
New York Times literally sat on a story about illegal wiretapping on US citizens by the NSA for over a year at the behest of the Bush administration.
I would think someone with the username NoSuchAgency might be familiar with that…
The main people who the NYT are aimed at are literally rich New Yorkers with an extra house in the Hamptons. You can look at their Leisure section and it becomes ridiculously clear they’re catering to an elite set and not regular people.
Sorry, but the rich elite generally are way more conservative than your average person, even if they claim liberalism.
EDIT: Let’s not forget how absolutely HYPED the NYT was for THE WAR ON TERROR.
EDIT II: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html
is the new york times a liberal or conservative paper
The New York Times is often perceived as a liberal or progressive newspaper, but its political stance is more complex and nuanced. Here’s a breakdown:
Historical context: The Times was founded as a conservative newspaper in 1851, and it maintained a conservative editorial stance until the early 20th century. However, during the 1960s and 1970s, the paper began to shift towards a more liberal perspective, reflecting the changing values and attitudes of the time. Editorial board: The New York Times’s editorial board has historically been liberal, but not uniformly so. While it has supported progressive causes, such as women’s suffrage, civil rights, and environmental protection, it has also endorsed conservative candidates and policies on occasion. Columnists and opinion writers: The Times features a range of opinion writers and columnists, including liberal voices like Paul Krugman, Maureen Dowd, and Charles Blow, as well as conservative voices like Bret Stephens and David Brooks. This diversity of opinion reflects the paper’s commitment to presenting a range of perspectives. Coverage and reporting: The Times is known for its in-depth reporting and investigative journalism, which often focuses on issues like government corruption, corporate malfeasance, and social justice. While this coverage can be seen as liberal-leaning, it is also driven by a commitment to fact-based reporting and a desire to hold those in power accountable. Subscriber demographics: According to Vox, The New York Times’s subscribers skew “older, richer, whiter, and more liberal” than the general population of the United States. This may contribute to the perception that the paper is liberal, but it’s essential to note that the paper’s editorial stance is not solely determined by its subscriber demographics.In conclusion, while The New York Times has a liberal bent, it is not a uniformly liberal or conservative paper. Its editorial stance is shaped by a complex interplay of historical context, editorial board perspectives, and the diverse range of voices and opinions presented in its pages. ----Brave Search
It’s really sad how you’re trusting an AI to get anything accurate after the fucking glue on pizza thing.
Look it up. It listed plenty of sources you can look at
It’s not my job to prove what you say is true and it’s not my fault that you rely on an inherently flawed and untrustworthy source.
Do better.
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html
This is the NYT literally apologizing for their massive fuckups in the lead up to the War in Iraq where they basically just accepted the Party Line of what was going on. Democrats fell in line as to not be viewed as “soft on terror.”
They took Republican administration officials at their word and didn’t do anymore digging.
…but sure hyping up a war pushed by a Republican administration based on lies made up by that same administration is soooooooo liberal.
🤡
