Perhaps the NYT isn't left-wing in a global context, and it is likely centrist in New York City, but it is definitely to the left of the median US voter. They're probably anti-union in this case because they're on tenuous financial footing, and unions in New York have a history of squeezing their employers out of business.
> it is definitely to the left of the median US voter.
No, it isn't, and it's not remotely close.
The median US voter is far more left wing than you would know from politics and media. Most voters actually support an arms embargo vs Israel, support universal healthcare, support action on climate change, want an end to the prison industrial complex, want minimum wage increases, gun control, an end to predatory college costs and loans, stronger worker's rights, reproductive rights, cannabis legalization, reduction in militarism, affordable housing, etc.
The NYT is central to fooling these "median voters" into supporting politicians and parties that have absolutely no intention of supporting genuine left wing action.
To say the NYT supports unions in general is to ignore very recent history, such as their coverage of Amazon and Starbucks union efforts. You also need to ignore a very very long and well described slant against left wing causes in general. Here, have a nice digestible Chomsky piece from nearly 30 years ago: https://chomsky.info/199710__/
See also: the NYT's coverage of trans issues, which in recent years has tried to both-sides the topic in a way that gives fundamentalist hate groups equal oxygen as the fucking APA. No self-respecting leftist publication is handing the mic to Mumsnet users and conversion therapy advocates. (Contrast that to the New Yorker, which is hardly a commie rag and yet has been unambiguously progressive on that front, among others.)
An apt quote from Pynchon's Bleeding Edge, which was published in 2013 but set in 2001:
> How right-wing, Maxine wonders, does a person have to be to think of the New York Times as a left-wing newspaper?
There's nothing particularly radical about wanting more fair healthcare, labor rights, education, housing etc.
As I pointed out, the majority of Americans want those things. It's pretty basic human decency, empathy, efficiency, etc.
And yet, when you raise these _majority_ viewpoints, someone pops up from behind a Bush to call you 'tankie'/'commie'/'literally Stalin'. That's not an accident. There are some people who like things the way thay are, and about 6 of those people own 90% of all media.
We spent over 8 trillion dollars (!) in the Middle East, murdering millions, all based on lies; and now our Democrat candidate is overjoyed to get endorsements from the architects of those wars... At every stage, from plotting to image rehabilitation, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria to Lebanon to Yemen, etc, to Gaza, the NYT was with those warmongers all the way.
> Perhaps the NYT isn't left-wing in a global context, and it is likely centrist in New York City, but it is definitely to the left of the median US voter.
That isn't true at all. You're probably thinking of the NYT 20 years ago, under the Bush administration. Do you read the newspaper, or are you parroting talking points? I used to subscribe until the blatantly conservative bias became overwhelming.
> They're probably anti-union in this case because they're on tenuous financial footing
Didn't they just report a 13.3% increase in YoY profits on their most recent financial quarter? Your chart shows a company with healthy growth for several years running. A billion dollars in profit last year and on track to do it again this year isn't "tenuous".
You can't just look at results over the last four years when you're analyzing a newspaper that's 172 years old. They've had massive declines in recent years, which caused huge cutbacks. I think it's reasonable for them to try to preserve their options to cut costs in the future.
Their methodology is literally, "We didn't like the results we got so we assumed they were wrong and ignored them."
> Surprisingly, ABC News was rated Lean Right (1.18) in the July 2024 Blind Bias Survey. A total of 478 respondents rated ABC. This rating differed from AllSides’ current rating of Lean Left (-2.40) at the time, and triggered the Aug. 2024 Editorial Review.
> AllSides speculates this outlier response is because the survey content was collected on July 15 and 18, 2024, which were just days after the July 14 assassination attempt of Donald Trump.
> The Lean Right rating was incorporated into the final rating for ABC News, but was weighted less to account for outlier conditions.
This is literally just putting your foot on the numbers to make it show what you want - the network showed more right-leaning content and they said, "Well that doesn't count." Why doesn't it count?
Look at the increasing number of criticisms of Times coverage from the Left. Look at their trajectory since the Cotton editorial. Look at how they're covering this election. It's not a left wing paper, under A.G. Sulzberger.
> You can't just look at results over the last four years when you're analyzing a newspaper that's 172 years old. They've had massive declines in recent years, which caused huge cutbacks. I think it's reasonable for them to try to preserve their options to cut costs in the future.
They had massive declines from the mid-oughts to 2018 in line with the rest of the newspaper industry. They've reinvented themselves as a tech media company and are on a better track now, so it makes sense that the employees who made that happen want the same union protections as the rest of the employees of the newspaper!
They also were never doing so badly that they weren't still making millions of dollars in profit, which I'm not willing to call "tenuous" for a newspaper that's 172 years old.
It's wild how few people in this thread are unaware of the massive blowback the NYT has faced from the left, but I guess most people are generally not in sync with the left to begin with :P
Really telling that the NYT's attempt to please everyone has pleased almost no one, though. Progressives are angry that hate groups get airtime in the name of "objectivity". Conservatives still think it's a left-wing paper and won't read it. Liberal centrists are playing Wordle?
The NYT isn't left-wing in any context, other than one a segment of the US inherited from Glenn Beck some time in the 90s. It is an establishment paper, and energetically capitalist and interventionist.
> They're probably anti-union in this case because they're on tenuous financial footing
Why does your link say that their profit is up 60%(!) since 2020?
-----
edit: tbh, I think people think the NYT is left-wing only because they associate NYC with Jewish people, and they're still steeped in conspiracy theories of "Judeobolshevism." So I guess that's on the Dreyfus affair (through Ezra Pound, Eustace Mullins and the Birchers.)
The NYT is a paper owned by a rich family that has always praised every dictator the CIA has praised, and passed on any lie they were asked to.
So what you're saying is that the NYT was doing badly, then had a massive bounce-back. I am supposed to ignore the bounce-back, and accept the contraction that ended at least a half decade ago as an explanation for what is happening today. Why would I do this?
Public opinion has little bearing on the decisions that NYT makes, until a critical threshold is passed. The aim of the union is to bring that critical threshold of displeasure into focus and to approach it until NYT relents.
The politics of the median voter in the US is not relevant for this discussion.
That item is the lowest cost of the options depicted, and has more reviews (which are proportional to sales) than the rest combined. I think most algorithms would put it on top.
The results for the search "funda" are all smartphone or tablet covers, or covers for laptop. Except for that one Amazon Basics product which is a cover/protector for hard-drives.
Below its ranking (scrolling, not visible in the screenshot) are products with exact same score + more reviews + "funda" in the title. Shouldn't those, by your understanding, rank above the Amazon Basic product then?
Maybe; depending on their age, the content of the product page (videos, comparisons, etc.), delivery time, and the rate at which those who see the listing purchase it (after searching funda). I am guessing that Amazon uses some sort of Bayesian+ algorithm to figure out what to list.
> "What does work is making it easy to do business - cutting bureaucracy - and tax breaks. No one wants the headache of starting a business here. And the few that do, against all odds, get something off the ground, they quickly move their corporate headquarters to more tax friendly nations."
I am not an insider who has any special knowledge of the motivations of companies exiting Europe, but I suspect that those companies are at least as worried about regulatory uncertainty as they are about tax rates. The EU has a history of suddenly killing 'undesirable' business models and products through regulation. The EU also seems to make it generally difficult to scale up and scale down businesses, due to labor market regulations; if you're having a rough spell, you basically can't lay off your least productive workers and try to 'regroup', you might as well just sell off the productive business units, and shut down.
I think you're trying to refer to the Digital Markets Act indirectly at least with part of your comment.
Actually, I mostly believe in this regulation. Gatekeepers are a new kind of monopoly/government. This, too, discourages innovation. The US should have a spine against these companies. I'm glad the EU is, at least, trying to.
It also doesn't really affect small business. Or, indeed, helps them. I hope they can, in the end, force Apple to allow more than safari browser on iphones so PWAs can be a real thing.
GDPR, on the other hand, is hell for small businesses. It's complicated and scary. Understanding and implementing the rules is expensive. It's broader than you think - restaurants, for example, are often technically breaking the rules. Most businesses are breaking the rules somehow without knowing it. This is the sign of bad law.
From a consumer perspective, the cookie thing was just not thought out and extremely negative. Bad rules written by unthoughtful legislators. If they wanted to ban third party tracking, they should have just done that.
> I hope they can, in the end, force Apple to allow more than safari browser on iphones so PWAs can be a real thing.
You really have to respect Apple though: Despite the fact that they have approximately 30% market share in smart phones globally, and even smaller fraction of the overall browser market, they have single-handedly prevented PWAs from becoming a thing.
It’s even more amazing when you consider how Apple was not able to prevent Android-native and Windows-native apps (which have a smaller addressable market than PWAs)! Apple must have projected all their magic juju at the PWA market and forgotten to save any for native Android apps.
We know this is true because only the stupidest person could believe that users don’t like PWAs, and that PWAs simply failed on their own merits.
> This is a sign of a bad law.
Or maybe it is a sign that European businesses have normalized some really bad and abusive practices, and that the EC needs to crack down harder on consumer protections until those businesses get the message. Maybe 20% of revenue for a start? What was it that everyone likes to say about Apple? “Just follow the law”
What would demonstrate collusion? Very similar prices could be a sign of close competition, and razor-thin margins. Varying prices could also be a sign of close competition, with grocers choosing loss-leaders to lure customers into the store.
Look at the data for Austria presented in the link in the article. Supermarkets raised and lowered prices on the same day to the exact same amount and lots of other pretty damning evidence.
Supermarkets often publish upcoming sale prices in advance, and matching your competitor’s prices is not collusion. On the contrary, it’s a sign of healthy competition!
If supermarkets are getting together and forming handshake agreements like “we will not change prices between November and February”, like Canadian supermarkets apparently did, then that could constitute collusion.
Lowering prices together makes sense. But why would you raise your prices of a commodity product to match your competitor's? If they are going to raise, you hold and rake in the extra sales.
Do people really go comparison shop between stores? Like, I recognize that I'm coming from a more privileged economic position to not do so, but I still go to the cheap grocery store because it's the closest to me.
I'd imagine that even for low-income people, it's the cost/benefit of comparison shopping has been squeezed out by how much prices change on a day-to-day basis. Like sure, if you're buying a lot of something all at once it might make sense to do on that occasion, but once you do that a few times you either learn:
1. Which store usually has the lowest price (and if they have coupons for store X, they might just only go there, because... they can't use the coupon at the competitor's)
2. The difference in price doesn't offset the time-cost of going to multiple stores (and the consolidation of stores means that going to two different stores will take even more travel time).
So, if most people aren't really doing comparison shopping anyway, then you make more money by matching your prices to your competition.
Some people do, based on what I hear from my parents. It could be that seniors have more free time and are more astounded by higher food prices that the spend their time shopping at multiple supermarkets to get everything they want at low(er) cost.
Of course the time it takes to do this makes it all but impossible to actually save money, so it has to be a small portion of their customers.
I have heard that only something like 10% of customers actually give a shit about prices at all, and it is them who keep the prices in check for everyone else. i.e. with razor margins, the retailers can’t afford to lose that 10% customer base
Why are stores changing prices so frequently if it has no impact on sales?
Yes, the vast majority of people don't comparison shop. But people do decide to not buy something if it seems it is too expensive and vice versa, and the effects are seen on the statistical level.
Your past data shows you sell 100 apples every day, despite the cost. Then it shows that you may sell other 100 if the price is considered "low" by the clients or 30 if the price is "high".
Then you know how many are in stocks, from how many days, and how many are arriving.
And you fix the price accordingly
It's pretty easy for things to not be actual collusion to end up looking like it, and having the very same negative effects" You don't need handshakes in backrooms.
This will be even more popular in situations like supermarkets, where a significant part of the stock has an expiration date that isn't so far from today. Turning your inventory too fast is just as bad as turning it too slowly, so there can be immediate reactions to make sure things are being consumed at just the right speed. And the more uniform the models of consumption the supermarkets are running, the more similar their decisions will be anyway.
So I wonder if we even need to focus on needing damning evidence, or on whether there is collusion, and instead aim for what we want: Dynamics that put negative pressures on prices. If we aren't seeing that, I don't care much about how much is collusion, and how much is models that have tacit agreements because, as market players optimize for what is best for them, there are solutions where high prices across the board makes all sellers win.
Those instances do look suspicious, though it’s likely that both vendors were sourcing from the same supplier and/or one was matching their competitor’s pricing. I’d be interested to see what proportion of the own-brand goods this had happened for, whether the same store was always first to raise prices, and what their supply chains looked like.
It might have been, but he was likely violating the usage agreement, and even if he hadn’t been directly profiting from the scheme, he was running the equivalent of a unsuccessful DDoS attack.
Isn’t the use of a VPN analogous to using a back door (alley entrance) to visit the condemned restaurant? What difference would there be in your analogy?
Insurance company profits are capped as a percentage of expenses, so saving money means they make less money. There are bad incentives all over the place in healthcare regulations.
If you're referring to the minimum medical loss ratio provisions in the ACA, most insurance companies are above the minimum, which means any marginal fraud reduction is pure profit for them.
Regardless of sourcing, this is the kind of article that gets people talking, and can be self-fulfilling.
I don't see the value to Boeing, or its traumatized shareholders, in continuing the losses.
Starliner isn't fully reusable, so unlikely to ever be really profitable. It is a very poor start to any wider space ambitions.
If I was Boeing's CEO, I would have confidentially got the conversation rolling too. But this is off the record, deep background. No attribution on those statements, please!
Dragon has a more integrated design. It has a "trunk module" which is a kind of service module lite.
So presumably, Dragon is not completely reusable (the trunk is discarded), but more reusable than Starliner in that greater functionality is preserved in the reusable capsule.
Agreed. In that, Dragon is a better design overall. At least they can see what went wrong with the propulsion pods after the craft lands. To do that for Starliner would require an EVA and do things to the craft it was definitely not designed to do.
If a faulty pod could be detached, the sane EVA would be to close the docking hatch, depressurise the capsule, open its side hatch, detach the pod and put it inside the capsule in a way it wouldn't bang on everything (it'd still contaminate everything with its remaining propellants), close the hatch and let it come back to Earth with the remaining functioning propulsion pods.
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NYT/new-york-times...
reply