New York Times

I certainly read it daily, and there's plenty of fine work here, but the fact is that in recent years, it has been an active conduit for government disinformation and propaganda, most notably their hyping of WMD fears leading up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

They lost a good deal of credibility in my eyes after that.

The New York Times is certainly one of the most well-circulated papers. The paper has a bit of a pretentious feel to it, which I think is one reason they use little font. It's okay but nothing special.

A very solid, very competent paper. Say what you like about its political bias, this is an excellent newspaper. Personally, the concept that media outlets shouldn't have a bias is specious horseshit.

biased

The New York Times: a novella's worth of bad journalism, maybe even tabloid bad, every day.

Once the premier voice of the Eastern Establishment, The NY Times has been overshadowed by The Washington Post for many years.

I am old enough to remember when this was a great newspaper. Over the years, watching them turning hard news into opinion pieces and pressing their political agenda into every facet of what used to be the news, has saddened me beyond belief.

Lately, the New York Times is doing things that could easily merit a rename to the "New Leak Times." Just days ago, they leaked crucial details of a spy program to the general public, a program that had been successfuly used to track the funds of villianous terrorists. And, also recently, they leaked details from a *classified* briefing about future troop movements in Iraq. And, of course, there is the paper's obvious liberal bias, which seems quite constant.

While the paper has had some ebarrassing moments of late (Jayson Blair) and made a bad decision backing up that administration shill Judith Miller, it still has about 150 years of highly credible news reporting. I think people to easily confuse the liberal editorial policy of the paper with its news reporting. Understand that the stories that are reported as fact are much different than the stories written by Krugman, Dowd, Friedman and Herbert. I agree with Eric Alterman when he concedes [paraphrase] "a majority of columnists may indeed have liberal social policy beliefs, but it is more than compensated for by a strong slant to the right on economic matters."

The Voice of the Left. Why not just admit it and be done with the charade?

They often have interesting stories, particularly about culture and the arts, and they avoid being a mouthpiece of the Bush administration, but they're just too pretentious. Plenty of other papers do the above things, without adopting a snobby and elitist tone. And the Jayson Blair thing is a real black eye for them. We need better local papers, because it's definitely a bad trend that the NYT is taking over everything.

Fantastic coverage of events local, national and international. I love how it continually exposes the hypocrisy of the Bush administration on any host of issues. Someone has to.

Most papers are relevant to their city and have some good editorials, but you can read the New York Times anywhere from San Francisco to Boston and come away with more information than you would find in even the local paper. No paper reaches that high standard except the New York Times.

As a conservative, I despise this paper. As a person who likes accurate reporting and quality journalism...oh wait I still end up despising this news paper.

I love this paper very much. Living in Nebraska we have a lousy daily paper, but the New York Times is just an excellent national newspaper. I love the entire newspaper, it seems like everybody who writes for the paper is just brilliant. I sure feel like I get more my dollars worth with this paper!!!

The NY times is one of the most informative and comprehensive papers around, and you can be sure that by reading it, you will be kept updated on whats going on in the world. However, it is incredibly biased in favor of left wingers, and thus sometimes the view on the stories are written in the eyes of a democrat.

Why anyone would trust any newspaper in this country? They're all own by Israel so basically whatever you read is an extremely left-biased amount of information. Henry Ford Sr. was right.

Very informative; you'll learn something by reading the Times. But it's expensive, somewhat stodgy, and very pretentious. I only read it when I can't the Washington Post; too bad it isn't nation wide.

I do read the NY Times, but just to get an idea of what the liberal media spin is. I never take their news at face value.

If I could rate this paper lower than 1-Terrible I would!!!

I think this paper is excellent. Fair views, great coverage. Very comprehensive, the best newspaper I've ever read.

Normally I would give NYT 2 stars because of its tilt toward pro-Palestinian views and uninteresting, carefully scripted new. However the latest scandal with prosecuting a hacker that revealed what idiots NYT were just does it! Too bad there is no 0-star rating.

Reporting is supposed to be politically objective. This rag is so liberally-biased that I don't even see how they can call what they do "reporting."

The National Enquirer is more believable.

The NY Times is getting out of control.

If you think the fact that this newspaper is a "traditional American newspaper" is going to stop me from addressing its falsification of the news (not just on one occassion), then you're seriously mistaken. I'll never trust another word this newspaper prints.

lies...

This newspaper is the exact opposite from being fair and balanced. Did you see some of the headlines for the March 25th issue? It stated that we are in "a fierce fight". If we really are in such a fierce fight, why have we only lost like 15 troops to enemy fighting!? To say its a fierce fight when we have killed at LEAST 25,000 of them (fact) over 4,000 of them prisoner, not even a week into the fight and where already on the outskirts of Baghdad. They enemy has killed about 15 of our guys and taken about 10 POW's. And its a fierce fight, right?

One man describes the credibility of the New York Times in a nutshell: Jayson Blair. The Times took pride in the fact that they held affirmative action so dearly when they should have fired him for plagiarism. Here you have one guy stealing article segments and stories from other papers and fabricating other reoprts during the whole time he was with the New York Times and the Times covering it up because they don't want to look racist. What you see here is modern liberalism in its purest form.

Way too liberal. Not fair and balanced.

its like an 80 year old college professor that has no idea whatthe real world is like, it has an agenda and thats it, for 25 cents you can buy the post and get the news, if thats all you want

Has become yet another lapdog of corporate and monied interests, but isn't mired in the absolute propaganda ethos of most mainstream newspapers these days. Still the best researched, reported, written and edited sheet out there, but when you consider how crappy most other newspapers are, that's not saying much. I have to laugh when I hear people refer to this newspaper as being "liberal." Not by a long shot. However, since most mainstream dailys are nothing more than handouts supporting the rightwing drooler POV that cost anywhere from .25 to $1.00, I guess most idiots would lack a relative perspective: their minds are poisoned by the crap they usually read. Say what you will, but the NYT has superior Arts and Leisure, Sports, Metro and Business sections and national reporting is a strong point. However, the Sulzbergers appear to have become more interested in making $$$ than the journalistic mission these days, and it shows in the paper. Still the heavyweight champion of American journalism, tho...

Nothing more than another liberal platform. In the same "lack of", class as the la times. A liberal joke.

Excellent paper with well-written news. Clear photographs. Definite read for anyone wanting to get informed on current events.

Don't worry, Bush & Co. will shut it down soon. National security, you know.

Sorry to break it to you, but neither the world NOR country revolves around NYC...nor should they.

People confuse liberalism with actually giving the news, the NYT doesn't do anything, but give fair and balanced view of whats going on, thats what bothers people. The NYT tries to remain neutral, but for the right-wing fascists thats not enough, being in the middle is far to liberal for these neo-nazi's. Well, I give thumbs up to the NYT, if the President lies then I expect the newspapers to point it out and them doing so is not liberal its just whats happening. If a company is dumping chemicals in the water supply, its not liberal to call them on it, its news. When Bush says he wants to drill in ANWAR and the NYT points out that it will take ten years to get to the only six months worth of oil that ANWAR has, that's not lieing, or left-wing either, its what the facts are. Many people don't like the facts, but the facts are still the facts. Those of us with the cranial capacity to understand the world around us like these facts, those that lack that capacity want only the spun version.

The retraction and clarification page continues to grow and will soon occupy the entire daily edition.

This paper is too liberal. I know that most papers are biased in some way, but this is by-far the most biased paper I have ever read. Maureen Dowd and that Stein guy make me want to puke. All I ever see is either "the religious right this" and "radical conservatives that." Makes me sick.

If I wanted to read a pro-Israeli viewpoint, I would buy the Jerusalem Post.

Liberal Rag. Only the LA Times, is worse.

More difficult to read then other papers i find. They write in a condescending fashion I feel. There sports coverage is also below average.

It's very liberal and pisses me off to high heavens all too often, but I still read it everyday and do the crossword...

Biased liberal fishwrap.

Does anyone still believe that this is that paper with an objective viewpoint?

Over rated by pundits and "experts"

harry stein wrote that the ny times is still the best paper for art and culture and stuff. but their leftist slant is almost as bad as Time magazine. he was talking about how they even go so far as to politicize science, putting sexism into their analyses of different species behavior and stuff. i live in washington, d.c. and see a pile of these sitting next to our Post at starbucks. i gotta tell ya, they put the most ridiculously airheaded things on the front page. i remembered stein also mentioning when their management changed from a guy dedicated to professionalism in journalism, to his son or something, dedictated to promoting his agenda.

I honestly think this is the best and most reliable paper in the United States today and has been for many years. It has amazing coverage of so many topics: sports, news, science, current and past events, arts and leisure, books, politics, the list goes on and on.

Has long ago lost its position because of efforts to advance political ideologies. Much of the reporting is thorough, but readers treated as mindless persons who can reach conclusions on their own.

The best newpaper out there. It covers what's going on in New York very, very well. They have the greatest arts and entertainment section, as it covers what's going on, on broadway and has some great ads in it too. They don't just cover politics, they in fact make it fun to read the newspaper.