The New York Times
'More than 200 contributors skewer the New York Times' coverage of trans people': https://www.alternet.org/200-contributors-skewer-nyt-trans/
Numerous, eye-opening examples of how the "Old Gray Lady," as the paper is often called, positions and frames transgender people and the issues they and their families face are packed into the letter, which compares the paper's coverage to "far-right hate groups." Perhaps one of its most consequential call-outs is how The Times' reporting is used by anti-LGBTQ state lawmakers and other officials to support anti-transgender legislation and policies.
Every person who seriously reads The New York Times and considers their political output knows they mainly pander to advertisers and press releases from the White House.
From Noam Chomsky/Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent':
New York Times editor Max Frankel, who said in an interview that “we’re an establishment institution, and whenever your natural constituency changes, then naturally you will too.”
Noam Chomsky in his book '9/11':
To quote the lead analysis in the New York Times (September 16): “the perpetrators acted out of hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage.” U.S. actions are irrelevant, and therefore need not even be mentioned.
Via William Blum's 'America's Deadliest Export: Democracy':
This war [in Iraq] is the most important liberal, revolutionary U.S. democracy-building project since the Marshall Plan … it is one of the noblest things this country has ever attempted abroad. (Thomas Friedman, much-acclaimed New York Times foreign affairs analyst, November 2003)
Chomsky again, in https://dev.lareviewofbooks.org/article/dismantle-all-of-this-stuff-a-conversation-with-noam-chomsky:
'A couple of days ago I had a talk with a group of Latin American activists. They were from all over Latin America. Well, just for fun, I read for them a column that appeared in The New York Times that day by one of their top foreign affairs specialists. It was about how the United States has been committed to the rule of law, human rights, and democracy. They just burst out laughing. They’re living in the real world, not the world of US intellectual culture.'
Chomsky in his book 'Global Discontents':
If you look at polls, plenty of people are opposed to surveillance. The ones who support surveillance are the ones who are as deluded as people like Thomas Friedman or Bill Keller at the New York Times, who think that we have to have surveillance for the sake of security—not noticing that the very administration that is calling for defense against terrorism is maximizing terrorism and the threats against us.
From Chomsky's book 'The Responsibility of Intellectuals':
Others are missing from the list of honored dissidents, for example, the six leading Latin American intellectuals, Jesuit priests, who were brutally murdered by Salvadoran forces fresh from renewed training by U.S. forces, acting on the specific orders of the U.S. client government. In fact, they are scarcely known at all. Few even know their names, or recall the events. The official orders to murder them have yet to appear in the United States anywhere near the mainstream, not because they are secret: they were published prominently in the mainstream Spanish press. This is not an exception. It is the rule. The facts are not in the least obscure. They are well-known to activists who protested the horrendous U.S. crimes in Central America, and to scholarship. In the Cambridge History of the Cold War, John Coatsworth writes that from 1960 to “the Soviet collapse in 1990, the numbers of political prisoners, torture victims, and executions of nonviolent political dissenters in Latin America vastly exceeded those in the Soviet Union and its East European satellites.” When we turn to coverage in media and intellectual journals, we find that the picture is reversed. To take one of many striking illustrations, Edward Herman and I compared the New York Times coverage of the murder of a Polish priest—whose assassins were quickly found and punished—with the murder of one hundred religious martyrs in El Salvador, including Archbishop Óscar Romero and four American churchwomen, whose assassins were long concealed, while the crimes were denied by U.S. officials and the victims subjected to official contempt. The coverage of the murdered priest in an enemy state vastly exceeded that of one hundred religious martyrs in the U.S. client state, and was radically different in style in the way predicted by a propaganda model of the media. This is only one illustration of a highly consistent pattern over many years.
From Rebecca Solnit's book 'Whose Story is This?':
One way we know whose story it is has been demonstrated by who gets excused for hatred and attacks, literal or physical. Early in 2018, the Atlantic tried out hiring a writer, Kevin Williamson, who said women who have abortions should be hanged, and then unhired him under public pressure from people who don’t like the idea that a quarter of American women should be executed for exercising jurisdiction over their own bodies. The New York Times has hired a few conservatives akin to Williamson, including climate waffler Bret Stephens. Stephens devoted a column to sympathy on Williamson’s behalf and indignation that anyone might oppose him.
[...]
This misdistribution of sympathy is epidemic. The New York Times called the man with a domestic-violence history who, in 2015, shot up the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, killing three parents of young children, “a gentle loner.” And then when the serial bomber who had been terrorizing Austin, Texas, was finally caught in March 2018, too many journalists interviewed his family and friends and let their positive descriptions of the man stand, as though they were more valid than what we already knew: he was an extremist and a terrorist who set out to kill and terrorize Black people in a particularly vicious and cowardly way. He was a “quiet, ‘nerdy’ young man who came from ‘a tight-knit, godly family,” the Times let us know in a tweet, while the Washington Post’s headline noted that he was “frustrated with his life,” which is true of millions of young people around the world who don’t get a pity party and also don’t become terrorists. The Daily Beast got it right with a subhead about a recent right-wing terrorist, the one who blew himself up in his home full of bomb-making materials: “Friends and family say Ben Morrow was a Bible-toting lab worker. Investigators say he was a bomb-building white supremacist.”