MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Stossel: Deceitful Bias in The New York Times

The New York Times drives John Stossel crazy. He wants to rip it up, because so many stories have a left-wing bias.

The New York Times drives John Stossel crazy. He wants to rip it up, because so many stories have left-wing bias. But he still reads it for the good parts. The Times does spend money to send reporters all over the world. Another reason is his neighbors read it and he wants to understand what they believe.

Here is some of the bias Stossel found in the paper last week:

The Times news section claims Trump's tweets on Islam succeeded in "Uniting Britain in Outrage." If you read the story, you see the outrage is just from the opposition Labour Party, "several" members of the Conservative Party, and comedian John Cleese. That's the whole country uniting in outrage?!

Another supposedly objective news headline says that ending Obama's net neutrality bureaucracy will hasten the internet's death. Stossel says that's ridiculous. All repeal would do is restore the freedom that allowed the internet to blossom in the first place.

The Times ran a full-page story glorifying Antifa thugs. The Times makes them sound fashionable and fun: "Black is Always in Fashion." It goes on to say "you know the look. Black work or military boots… ski masks… jackets, North Face brand…" Stossel argues The Times would do better reporting by exposing these violent people instead of praising their fashion.

He still reads The Times because what's in the "paper of record" is important, and fact-checked. Unfortunately, much of it is mean-spirited and absurdly biased.

Produced by Maxim Lott. Edited by Joshua Swain.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The Times ran a full-page story glorifying Antifa thugs. The Times makes them sound fashionable and fun: "Black is Always in Fashion." It goes on to say "you know the look. Black work or military boots… ski masks… jackets, North Face brand…" Stossel argues the Times would do better reporting by exposing these violent people instead of praising their fashion.

    That story was Fabulous.

  • Rhywun||

    I didn't know the NYT could get any less relevant but they constantly surprise me.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I tweeted it at Jeffrey Tucker and it instantly banned me from his account. I feel I can't blame him, but still.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    If you read the story, you see the outrage is just from the opposition Labour Party, "several" members of the Conservative Party, and comedian John Cleese. That's the whole country uniting in outrage?!

    To be fair, as far as the NYT is concerned, those are the only Brits that matter.

  • ||

    jackets, North Face brand…

    I'm sure North Face will be thrilled to be the preferred jacket of the bourgeois resistance. They're probably working on their 'Tossing Molotov cocktails in S. California' line as we speak.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And, of course, the irony that these people are decked out in 300 dollar jackets.

  • some guy||

    And that they have enough free time to be protesting in the first place without having to worry about losing a source of income.

  • Tony||

    Ooh I have one of those. When I wear it now am I signifying that I'm against Nazis? Cool!

  • ||

    When I wear it now am I signifying that I'm against Nazis? Cool!

    It's only cool if you do it ironically, resisting your fascist oppressors by smashing the display window of a North Face store while wearing a North Face jacket.

  • markm23||

    Real Antifas do it ironically by emulating the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts) while protesting "fascism".

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Stossel for president.

  • BYODB||

    Yep, the NYT does have a lot of resources. Unfortunately they tend to use those resources to twist facts and engage in naked public relations instead of journalism. That's one reason why I don't subscribe to them. Another reason is that they don't need my money, they're supported by a billionaire who uses the paper as a mouthpiece for their own interests, just like most large newspapers these days.


    Of course, this has literally always been the case for the big papers in big cities. It only takes a cursory read through any media history book to realize that yellow journalism is actually the normal operating procedure for journalism. Even if it did actually go away for a while, which itself is debatable, it's alive and well these days.

  • Fmontyr||

    Good god almighty! Haven't you heard of Fox News where the most significant thing is about the bimbos being harassed by dirty old men and their reporting being the worst in the business?

  • The Last American Hero||

    Most people don't consider Fox News to be "the nation's paper of record", or "well researched and fact-checked".

  • Fmontyr||

    And what about Fox News which Dolard Trump is so fond of?

  • JFree||

    He still reads the Times

    Well that's the source of the problem right there. Easy to fix.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    He said it in the talk yesterday. He wants to know what his neighbors are reading, and so that he can engage with the other side. Which I think is a good reason.

  • Longtobefree||

    Nope. It just encourages them.
    Don't buy it, don't read it, don't allow anyone to use it as a source for anything.

  • JFree||

    That seems more like a copout. The best way to engage with your neighbors is to engage with them directly - not to try to parse their minds by reading what you think they read and then getting annoyed at that.

    If you find it difficult to engage with neighbors because they themselves annoy you - then a)stop doing that or b)learn how to do it better via Dale Carnegie or livingroomconversations or somesuch. Chances are - you'll find out you agree on a lot more than you think - or you can disagree quite civilly. You'll never get there by bringing in the usual 'well-known' anything.

    There's no reason why NYT - or any other mass market intermediary/medium - should be chosen to have ANY intermediary/'advisory'/expert role in ANY of our personal connections. They are, by definition, mass market or wholesale and top-down. Personal communications are retail and bottom-up.

  • BYODB||


    The best way to engage with your neighbors is to engage with them directly - not to try to parse their minds by reading what you think they read and then getting annoyed at that.

    I've thought about this for a long time, and that's ultimately the conclusion I came to. I think that reading other people's supposed sources is why you see so many bizarre strawmen these days. It's because when someone's argument sounds a little like this other argument you read in this publication, it's easy to fall into lazy thinking and assume that's the argument someone else is making.

    I'm not saying I'm successful at listening to people's arguments individually, but I at least try to be aware of this pitfall.

  • Robert||

    You're giving John Stossel advice on how to be persuasive or influential??

  • JFree||

    Not at all. He does the mass market wholesale top-down joust-with-a-strawman stuff well. THAT is why he reads the NYT. They too are part of that world.

    Not because he wants to talk to or understand his neighbors. That is just BS.

  • Rhywun||

    He still reads the Times because what's in the "paper of record" is important, and fact-checked. Unfortunately, much of it is mean-spirited and absurdly biased.

    Important? I can think of a few stories they're completely ignoring in favor of getting a little tingle for their antifa friends. Fact-checked? There are blatant lies on practically every page. I get it - he needs to read it for work. Those of us who don't can be more honest about the rag.

  • ||

    I read WaPo instead of NYT because it comes with my local paper subscription (yes, I get a PHYSICAL PAPER delivered to MY HOUSE...so fucking old. Anyhow...). It is so damn hard to read it. Every headline just reeks with bias. Opening up the phone app just now and I see (highlights mine):

    * Hospitals find asthma hot spots more profitable to neglect than fix
    * Legal experts scoff at Trump layer's theory that 'president cannot obstruct justice
    * Tillerson gets chilly reception from European allies

    These are not from the opinion section. All of this is supposedly unbiased even-handed news. WaPo still opes their app with the grotesquely pretentious "Democracy Dies in Darkness". To steal a Stossel line, GIVE ME A BREAK.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I know, when are they going to change the tag line to "Democracy flourishes in Orangeness". It's been nearly a year now.

  • KevinP||

    16 Fake News Stories Reporters Have Run Since Trump Won
    Which news outlets? The Guardian, New York Magazine, Politico, CNN, New York Times, Time, Slate, Vox, Washington Post, and the Associated Press figure prominently in the reporting and distribution of these fake news stories.

    Here is just one sample: fake news on Betsy DeVos:


    Quote:
    Betsy DeVos, Grizzly Fighter
    During her confirmation hearing, education secretary nominee Betsy DeVos was asked whether schools should be able to have guns on their campuses. As NBC News reported, DeVos felt it was 'best left to locales and states to decide.' She pointed out that one school in Wyoming had a fence around it to protect the students from wildlife. 'I would imagine,' she said, 'that there's probably a gun in the school to protect from potential grizzlies.'

    This was an utterly noncontroversial stance to take. DeVos was simply pointing out that different states and localities have different needs, and attempting to mandate a nationwide one-size-fits-all policy for every American school is imprudent.

    How did the media run with it? By lying through their teeth. 'Betsy DeVos Says Guns Should Be Allowed in Schools. They Might Be Needed to Shoot Grizzlies'
  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It still feels like DeVos, more than anyone else, struck the most fear into people over any other Trump appointee.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I think mostly because she is the undoing of the Title IX "dear colleague" CF.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Even before that. She received more hatred and attention during her hearings than seemingly any other appointee. There is a great fear of that position. I

  • BYODB||

    The answer is obvious: education is the one thing Progressives need more than anything else to indoctrinate people.

    If you teach kids that the constitution is a 'living document' that doesn't meant what it says, and that the President can do whatever he wants, than when they grow up it will be news to them that those things aren't actually true.

  • Chuck in CR||

    "when they grow up it will be news to them that those things aren't actually true."

    And it will be called fake news at that!

  • fdog50||

    Also, the Democrats' main support group is the NEA. They always want someone heading Education who will do as the NEA tells them.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I've come to love TDS, and the Grey Lady seems to be full of it. Meanwhile, Trump continues to full judicial vacancies with the likes of Gorsuch and Willett. So let the media have it's day bouncing from one entertaining outrage to another, while the legacy ensconces for generations.

  • Tony||

    How does it feel to have sold all your credibility and moral authority forever for a couple judgeships? Damn the GOP has fallen hard.

    Then again it did have a guy who diddled little boys in charge when I was young enough to be one of his victims, so maybe its claim to moral superiority was always as big a sham as it seemed. You knew it was all along, didn't you?

  • Tony||

    If you think the NYT is bad, get a load of this rag called Reason. Nearly every single story openly admits to having a libertarian bias!

  • MarkLastname||

    As I understand it, the NYT doesn't openly admit to being a Leninist rag. It just profits printing Leninist bullshit while pretending to be mainstream news.

  • Tony||

    As I understand it, the NYT breaks nationally and globally important news on a nearly daily basis while conservative retards who keep fucking things up bitch about it telling the truth about them from time to time.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Jayson Blair.

  • Tony||

    ...? John Stossel.

  • Finrod||

    As I understand it, ...

    There's your problem.

  • Longtobefree||

    John, maybe it is so cold n New York that your brain froze, but nobody cares about the New York Times anymore. They have had so many stories proved false that the best case assumption is that all the reporters and the entire staff are incompetent. The other choice is that they are DNC employees.
    Even the date on the front page needs to be fact checked!
    It has not been 'the paper of record' since the third Pulitzer was recalled.

  • Chuck in CR||

    "The other choice is that they are DNC employees"

    If we actually read the content of HRC/DNC e-mails it is obvious that that side of the media are CGI employees.

  • Libertarian||

    My wife and I often buy the NYT on Sunday, occasionly on other days. The thing that drives me nuts (in addition to many of the things mentioned above) is the constant mention - or nameless sidelong references to - Trump. The weekly book review section just drives me batty in this offense. Would love someone to do a count of articles and book reviews and publicize the percentage that smear Trump.

  • Tony||

    What about Trump makes you think newspapers should refrain from smearing him? His excessive moral rectitude or his total lack of corruption?

  • Finrod||

    Why do you think newspapers should be smearing anyone, slaver?

  • Mongo||

    I bet the black bloc is facepalming after seeing the capitalist organ do a style piece on them.

  • Mongo||

    I was hoping that Stossel would mention the ads and was rewarded with a series of slick imagery.

    I've always dug the NYT's ads.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    I think things all went south when journalists started to claim their job was to be objective purveyors of the truth.

    I'd be much happier if all publications wore their biases openly and marketed themselves on those biases.

  • XM||

    Be careful John, NYT might publish an editorial urging readers to contact Reason offices to tell them NYT is worthy of Pulitzer.

    "Their numbers are public, so it's ok! Tee Hee" - stupid liberal hack

  • Doug Heffernan||

    Stossel: "Mostly I read the times because all my neighbors read it, and they believe what's in here. I need to read this to understand what they believe.

    Stossel: "I hate so much of what's in that paper, but we'll read it so you don't have to."

    So, Stossel needs to read the NYT so that he can understand what his neighbors believe?

    But us common folk don't have to read it, because Stossel (and others; "we'll") will read it?

    I guess the rest of us don't need to understand what our neighbors believe. Stossel will filter it for us and let us know.
    Thanks, Stossel.

  • Doug Heffernan||

    Stossel: "Most of it is just Trump hatred, day after day. Not just in opinion pieces, but in news stories and headlines too."

    Stossel: "Did you know that President Trump united the British in Anger? Wow! United the whole country?"

    (Stossel says this while the video displays a headline which states "Trump Unites British in Anger")

    Stossel: Actually, no. If you read the story you see it's just:
    "...the opposition Labour party"
    "...several members... Conservative Party"
    "...comedian John Cleese"
    That's the whole country "uniting in outrage"? Gimme a break."
    [end Stossel quote]

    Neither the headline nor the story state anything about the whole country.

    Unite:
    to share a common opinion, attitude, etc
    to cause to be in a state of mutual sympathy, or to have a common opinion or attitude.

    The story is clear, as Stossel admits. Any reasonable person reading the headline would not derive the meaning of the "whole country" being united. Unfortunately, Stossel is not reasonable.

    The chances of Stossel making any sort of similar assesment of fox news: zero.

    The points of "authority" dispersed throughout the video are all from fox news. It seems that Stossel thinks the truth comes from there.

  • XM||

    If a headline of an article says "Something unites Americans in anger" it's more than fair to assume that the actual article is reporting on the entire nation being united.

    It's a blanket statement. You're playing semantics.

  • jomo||

    Oh look, another article about how quoting Trump's willfully-offered crazy statements is "leftist bias."

  • Rockabilly||

    The New York Times loved this Youtube video

    ANTIFA Attack Father and Son in Berkeley

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPqgnC1gW-A

    The dad asks "why are you beating us up for?"

    "Because The Times says we're cool man. Like my big black boots and communist flag?"

  • AngelaM||

    Gee, what what a shame, Mr. Stossel doesn't like the headline writers of the NYT or the ads they accept. The horror of it all. Still he admits that the articles are fact checked and the Times takes its' position as the Paper of Record seriously. News Flash- most people who read the Times don't read it for either the headlines or the ads. The headline may be a grabber as intended but the articles are balanced, as he admits. So the Reason headline that Stossel hates the NYT for it's bias may not be totally unbiased either.

  • JuanQPublic||

    The Times, and especially WaPo, use hysterics in their headlines in the same way that Breitbart does, yet their defenders give them a pass, and harp on and on about "fake news" and "propaganda".

    The NYT is somewhat better than WaPo, but not greatly.

    The bulk of their revenue is from selling an audience to advertisers. So how do you do that? Write hysterical headlines to expose the audience to advertisers.

    So the Reason headline that Stossel hates the NYT for it's bias may not be totally unbiased either.

    Stossel's pieces are clearly opinion pieces. Of course they are biased. Actually, all media is biased. If there are humans deciding what is and isn't "news", its biased. It just depends what its biased for.

  • XM||

    There was a discrepancy between the headline and the article.

    Do you realize that headline are SPECIFICALLY designed to catch the reader's attention and introduce the article? That's why they use certain fonts and word choices. Newspapers update or revise headlines if editors feel the wording is misleading.

    If no one reads ads, then companies won't pay newspapers to put their ads.

    Stossel's point is that the articles aren't "balanced" - and he highlights that by pointing out to the hypocrisy of a newspaper engaging in a partisan propaganda against the "rich" while publishing ads that promotes pricey vacations.And when did he admit that those articles are balanced?

  • JuanQPublic||

    The Times and WaPo have been in full Trump hysteria for a long time now. If you only read their headlines in the month after Trump's election win, you would've thought you were living in late Weimar Germany.

  • John B. Egan||

    Gee! Stossel has been such a middle of the road commenter all these decades too.. (Snicker!)

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    S'up Hihn!

  • IMissLiberty||

    I was very upset with PBS' "Finding Your Roots" which in a recent episode expressed puzzled judgement against a free black ancestor who worked for the South "defending slavery." They knew it made no sense, but they were completely uninterested in trying to find out why he did it or speculate on what might be wrong with their assumptions (they should have trusted their instincts that it made little sense).

    They concluded that the man was a victim, which I thought was very insulting.

    It never occurred to them that the South was attacked by the North for peacefully seceding from the Union, and that he might have been defending his home, his family, his friends, and neighbors.

    To make things worse, they assumed that the War Between the States was all about slavery, demonstrating that they understand war at the level of a child. For a show about understanding one's roots, and one's ancestors' place in history, it was jaw-droppingly ignorant about the complexities (especially regarding economic and political power) of that war. Brother didn't fight against brother because they wanted to do so.

  • Fmontyr||

    Poor John Stossel, when will he grow-up and learn that some bias exists in media depending who is running it. John, I know that you know FOX NEWS since you appear there from time to time and have no problem with that. Aren't you just a pot calling the kettle black?

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Pssst, piss off, dead thread-fucker.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Like John, I still look at the NYT page most days. But I think now part of my motivation is viewing it as a dysfunctional progressive reality show. The liberal bias has grown over decades, but the hysterical ranting bloomed after Hillary lost (talk about destructive self deception) and Trump won (ALL their panties are now twisted into knots, especially on the male columnists). They really publish just one "crisis" piece after another, supplied with copious comments (up to 4000 rants for a typical tantrum).

  • whoosiebob||

    The Simple Fact Is:

    Social Programs were meant to be a Safety Net
    http://nsprod.blob.core.window.....01/400.jpg

    Not a Flippin' Hammock!


    Cut the Strings

  • Fmontyr||

    Stossel, you are such a hypocrite for appearing on Fox News while calling the NYTimes biased.

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online