The NYT was shitty long before that. They famously did not cover the Holocaust. Not the run up, and not even during the war.

When the camps were liberated, Americans at home had no idea who was in the camps.

The owner of the NYT was later asked about their failures in covering the Holocaust and the buildup, and said with a shrug "the NYT didn't really cover the Holocaust".

As a note the owner of the NYT was Jewish. But didn't want to be associated with poor Jews.

I really wish Rooki would listen to the community about this silly bot. But they won't, and their staunch defense in the face of criticism suggests an ulterior motive.

Tinfoil hat time: I think they got a Ground News sponsor for Lemmy (GN started an ad campaign just as this started) and are trying to look unbiased by having both GN and MBFC... in every single news post.

They also kept doubling down on their reporting of systemic sexual violence on Oct 7. Family members of the victims disputed that sexual violence was a component of their murders. They have not retracted this reporting.

The "great" part about how absolute shit NYT is, is how after the "great media consolidation" ~15 years ago when most of the major outlets were bought by billionaires the first thing they did was cut their investigation and research departments in favor of "copying" the NYT stories...

They don't care about quality, or content, they're the typical business school jackass type that thinks "ThE BrAnD mEAnS eVeRyThInG!" As in: you'll eat whatever I serve and you'll keep doing it because of the name I bought.

Same shit is happening with so called "AAA" game developers (Bethesda... Among others) except this isn't fucking clothing. Gucci sells because people want the name. The Washington Post can go fuck themselves, no one but Bezos cares about the name.

Paywall free: https://archive.ph/I2G3o

I feel like some loud conservatives made NPR freak out and now they're trying to sprinkle in stories like this.

Because the moment conservatives run things again, they'll absolutely continue gutting public radio.

Some of the "misleading" statements were Harris neglecting to enumerate the reasons why a stated policy goal might not succeed, which would be incredibly unusual to include in a speech of this nature.

I guess the point the author was trying to make was that saying you "will" do something in office is a promise, and if you don't have the ability to guarantee that promise can be kept you shouldn't say that thing at all? I love me some NPR but they're really bending over backwards with some of these...

It's that they're fact checking trivialities. You have one fact check where Trump says "The stock market was up 10,000% during my Presidency". Then there's another fact check where Kamala says "I remember seeing the sunset in Pittsburgh that day" when she was already gone by mid afternoon. These are rated as equal lies in the tally.

It's not so much that they are deliberately pro Trump. It's that their need for false "balance" and "objectivity" stops them from calling out any one side when the lies are so much more egregious.

There's a recent Behind the Bastards podcast that covers how the liberal media handled the rise of Adolf Hitler, including the New York Times. The reasons for their behavior haven't changed, they never did any post-war introspection on what went wrong, and they're making exactly the same mistakes with Trump. The only media that can look back on that time and be proud of how they reported it were explicitly communist newspapers that never tried to hide their bias.

Trump can complain about the "liberal media" as much as he wants. He needs them to behave in exactly the way they do or he wouldn't get anywhere.

Secretly? Ever read a Maggie Haberman column?

By this point it's well established fact that the Times is far more likely to attack Democrats over relatively trivial points when it ought to be attacking Republicans over important points. There's various speculation as to why. Ownership of the newspaper is a factor. Trying to appear centrist is definitely a second factor.

And that newspaper does a very bad job of it. But I sympathize with any paper who tries to be centrist because at some point you either align your reporting with reality or you lose credibility. And many of us realize years ago that the Times just doesn't have much credibility to spare.

I think the point here is it's a really stupid and pedantic criticism that they don't apply equally to Trump and Vance.

That's a pretty controversial take. I don't think anyone would call 5am "night" if they woke up at that time, but just really early morning. Same with 11pm being evening is more to do if weather you're still awake or not. These are fuzzy definitions that are more about vibes than precisely what the clock says.

Same with the seasons really. There's the definition you've given, and then there's the one that's more about the seasonal differences in the region. Winter where I live for example starts in November (probably around Remembrance day if I were to pin it down). It's silly too wait until the solstice to consider it winter when there's been over a month of snow on the ground and freezing temps.

In Australia, G'day works 24 hours.

Evening or Morning would work there. Good Night is typically a parting idiom. Even if it's technically correct.

You are correct. Good night means that whatever you've been doing is over. The media is bending over backwards trying to appear "fair", but it just results in moments like this.

It's the tan suit scandal all over again.

No, you'd say "good evening" in the U.S.

"Halt! You are in violation of curfew!"

I've found that the answer depends on what region of the US you're from. The UK probably does it differently, but I'm with @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world. If it's dark out, you're definitely greeting with "good evening."