It’s not strictly a fact check. Due to A) Haiti’s governance collapse and B) no reliable estimate of conditions of life across all North Korea

A controversial aspect of A. G. Sulzberger’s vision for the NYT was reported on in a podcast deep dive into anti-trans bias at the paper by TransLash Media in 2024. TransLash reported A. G. sought to shift the paper’s reputation for being politically aligned with liberals in order to add more conservatives to the subscriber base. The link between the desire at the top to court conservative audiences and anti-trans bias in the coverage remains unproven, and the New York Times has declined to comment on the reporting about A. G.’s audience strategy, to TransLash then, or to Assigned now.

It’s not a huge mystery. Sulzberger is an old, white, Jewish man. He has read the room and realized that the progressive movement that formed and became prominent over the Obama years is a threat to billionaires, media moguls and the racist ideology of Zionism. The three things he best represents. That’s why he filled the op-ed page with midwits like Bret Stephens.

It has gotten so worse that the “anti-fascist” choice helped commit a holocaust that the fascists want to finish.

The entire US conservative establishment is waging a holy crusade against anyone who opposes their Israeli alter ego’s Biblical bloodlettings. You’d think they had no problems to handle at home.

It’s a win-win for them. They can let genocidally anti-Muslim rhetoric on while keeping their selectively pro-Israel content policy, getting support from the burgeoning far right in the US and Europe while suppressing the anti-establishment element of it that happens to be the most anti-semitic and anti-Israel, and avoiding the scrutiny of the AIPAC-bought Congress and White House that they’re letting hatred of Israel proliferate by letting Palestinians use the platform.

The article mention management position quotas

It’s actually amazing how the 2020 Biden win was the perfect setup for Trump to get the term he really wanted. Had Trump won in 2020, he and the GOP would be in utter shambles right now and 2024 would have been a landslide for whoever the Dem candidate was, and there’s a good chance the world would look better than it does now too

LOL nice one

Am I wrong in assuming your name is Israeli?

I could have told you that a week after it happened. One of the most bizarrely overblown events I’ve ever seen. The attempt to turn bloodsucking legislators who were heckled and trolled by some hooting red state morons in to America’s Beer Hall Putsch was DOA. Only hyperpartisan #resist Dem voters obsessed over it. A nation that celebrates a healthcare CEO getting assassinated Hitman-style aren’t going to gasp and faint because Nancy Pelosi’s desk was vandalized and some security guard had a heart attack.

I don’t get why it is relevant. Energy is cheap and abundant today almkst everywhere that isn’t sanctioned or a warzone.

Sorry but the German people and not Schroder were the ones who chose anti-nuclear. And the reliance on Russian gas may have backfired, but at the time it enabled perhaps the most efficient economy Europe had ever known.

deleted by creator

No, I’m saying that it is hands down the best at comprehending and translating Arabic, down to dialects.

ChatGPT voice has been good. Hallucinates out the ass, but is okay. Can seamlessly swap between Arabic and English is the main thing.

I didn’t say it was justified because of politicians, just that it wasn’t a crazy position

Actually it was crazy to everyone who didn’t exist in the bubble of US and UK elites that The Economists coexists in. Way to prove my point again.

but it’s pretty darned weak

It’s “darned weak” for me to point out that The Economist is biased in the exact way you keep revealing yourself to be lol? Who could’ve questioned the Iraq War, I mean it only inspired the biggest single day global protest in human history!

Admit you were caught with your pants down, that you insisted on outsourcing indepedent or critical engagement with press to a subjective barometer website and that your particular range of political and historical knowledge is quite limited and should be expanded.

We can move on to my opinions on the Economist’s Gaza coverage once you explain why you believe their coverage of whether the U.S government should invade Iraq was justified by the U.S government’s decision to invade Iraq. You seem quite desperate to move on from this argument because it’s inexcusable and proves my point.

Americans are terrified of Trump, which is understandable, but they then demand that a free pass be given to his opponents, up to and including their acts of genocide.

Been that way since Obama. Turns out they aren’t “our side”, they’re the party of conservativism, neoconservativism and just happy to rely on minority votes and therefore focus on minority rights.

You can go ahead and justify your bizarre politician argument before you jump to another topic.