No, you misunderstand. The comment asserts that the NYTimes, specifically, is biased, and this bias is harder for people on the left to see, because it aligns with their sensibilities. Meanwhile, it's easy for people on the right to see it.

The comment doesn't say anything about people on the right being immune to it (and I would suspect there's a similar effect there in reverse, for eg Fox News).

I wasn't subscribed to any publications on the right (though in addition to the left-leaning publications I already mentioned, I was previously a WSJ subscriber once and an Economist subscriber a few times) so there wasn't anything to unsibscribe from.

I don't see misbehavior on the right as a justification for lazy, manipulative groupthink by the NYT, or outright bullying. Especially when they are clearly capable of good reporting.

the comment you replied to didn't comment about the right, but that bias is "harder to spot/acknowledge for people on the left"

The implied reverse therefore would be that it's easier for people on the right to see bias in the media. Not that the right dont have bias.

> The implied reverse therefore would be that it's easier for people on the right to see bias in the media.

Yeah, that's also what I read. And as evidence to the contrary I pointed out that some people had their world view changed so much that they tried to overthrow the government.

Which tells me that they didn't see the agenda they were being pushed.

Which contradicts the comment's point.

Note that in no way do I disagree that the left has a problem too.

Nah, those people just needed an excuse, they were already past the tipping point. They exist on both sides and one side got called out for attacking the capitol while the other is "mostly peaceful protests" because they are only destroying police and private property.

As in, both sides are equally bad for similar but different reasons but we only hear about a singular event that some whack jobs on the far right pulled off. Compare to my local media as an example which buried the story about the violence around a "citizen" road block until a seven year old was murdered as her family tried to go past. Even then it was buried with stories of police violence or right wing threats.

No, those of us who lean to the right know the nut jobs and there that line begins but there where that line is for my left leaning friends is beyond me to understand.

> but we only hear about a singular event that some whack jobs on the far right pulled off.

Really?

I would invite you to foxnews.com. As an example for the last week the front page has been plasted with Cuomo.

And CHAZ? A complete disaster that was absolutely not a secret.

You say that the line is clear on the right, but I think it's just that it's clear to you. The fake news that the election was stolen is actually mainstream, on the right. Trump had some ordinary people injest bleach, you don't think many more believed the other lies?

Do you think most people on the left supported the 2020 summer riots? Or defund the police? Even polling of black people had a huge majority against that nonsense. Some do. But then some on the right think Biden's about to be arrested when trump returns with the military in two weeks.

My point is that "especially on the left" has no connection in reality. "Also on the left" does.

Maybe I'm just a blind leftie, but I think one side got called out for attacking the capital because that's what they did. And the other side had thousands of protests, 90+% of which were completely peaceful. Granted, it's a small sample size of on the insurrection side, but 100% violent, versus < 10% violent.

> I must say though that Fox News has gotten downright rational (on all things) since then. Politically biased, sure, but they're actually news lately.

I've noticed that national news outlets in the US tend to be better when their preferred party is in power and worse when the opposition is in power. I suspect it's because in the latter case the news outlets slant all of their coverage towards negativity and discrediting the opposition.

I thought CNN was much more tolerable during the Obama administration, but watching them over the last few years has consistently left my frustrated. Meanwhile, the reverse has been true for Fox News. That said, I don't consume much from either outlet.

Maybe trump is an outlier, but (at least up until the election) I found Fox News to be completely bananas the last four years. So far they've been better under biden than trump.

But yes, they were bananas under obama too.

I don’t think any of the parent commenters were trying to say this phenomena didn’t happen on the right as well. Obviously we’ve seen a huge swell of right wing media trying to coerce the viewer into a certain set of opinions.

If anything that’s all the more reason to be very mindful of the same effect occurring in other media publications.

The quote "It's harder to spot/acknowledge for people on the left" sounds to me like patronizing "I'm simply right, whereas you are fooled by your media".

It shows a strong assumption that while that commenter is able to see the difference between bias and misinformation, the left cannot. And I don't buy it.

Neither people who watch Fox News nor people who watch NBC News buy it hook line and sinker.

So considering there was an attempted coup, and that many people still believe the election was rigged and that trump will come back in power (arresting biden) in the beginning of March doesn't exactly speak well for the "especially on the left".

Although my side (the left) often says things like “reality has a left leaning bias”

And it’s totally true when you’re countering the real charlatans of the right like Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz (to focus on American politics) But not a valid blanket statement whatsoever.