News has always been propaganda for one side, its just sometimes more or less obvious.
replyPersonally I prefer the ones that make it clear where they stand as opposed to subtly influencing you while masquerading as "neutral".
It's 2026. Everyone knows that NYT is written by liberal elites for liberal elites (or aspirational liberal elites) who spend their money to read such articles. Even if you think it's propaganda, legacy media offers information and a perspective that cannot be found everywhere else. It's the same reason why traders read Zero Hedge even if they aren't ultra-libertarians.
replyIt may comfort you to imagine the NYT's editorial stance as the last thing holding back a revolution, but I guarantee that is not the case. That may change some wannabe liberal elites to wannabe revolutionaries, but the elites who you actually want to change will get their news someplace else.
It's disappointing that people don't know the difference between having a stance and propaganda.
replyIf it's just a stance, then why care so much about it? Presumably it's so that this stance influences their readers.
reply