this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
200 points (98.1% liked)

politics

29166 readers
3189 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

EDITED to note: I did not realize when I posted this that it was actually written in October, 2025 about an older NYT op-ed, because the complaint is exactly the same. Fresh off the current NYT article linked here, I happened to see this in the sidebar of the Common Dreams article about Saturday's (March 28, 2026) protests and assumed it was about the current NYT op-ed. My error. Thanks to @AmidFuror@fedia.io for pointing it out.


For those who haven't read it, this is the NYT article in question. I should note that the author gets thoroughly schooled in the comments:

A Challenge for ‘No Kings’ Protests, the Third Time Around -- by Jeremy W. Peters for the NYT

Archive.world link
(I am aware this site has problems, but it has the content. If you have a better archive link, please post it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 38 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Because when you rise to that level of power to be in the NYT editorial board...

The only non-millionaires you interact with are employees, and then it's just a handful that talk to the rest.

You can't compensate for this level of wealth inequality. The powerful will always side with themselves, because that's their social circle and how the human brain is wired.

It's the entire problem with neoliberalism.

[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh fuck yes. I have all but given up on the NY Times for politics. Arts and culture and the metro pages are fine, but the rest is just SO tilted to the corporatist wealthy..

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yep. I got distracted when I was posting, but I have edited the original post to include links to the original NYT article, not least because almost every single comment calls out the NYT coverage as a whole, as well as this article in particular, for being, as one commenter put it, "dyspeptic."

I have wondered at the failure until now of the NYTs to write anything about the over 3000 planned protests for No Kings 3. What I feel now is dismay. What a dyspeptic article!

Like this one from New Jersey:

The author seems to think that millions of people marching to protest an authoritarian regime and supporting the Constitution is not a strong enough message. Five MAGA supporters in a diner somehow speak for America, but 10 million protesting in support of America is troublesome for democrats? Make that make sense.

And this one from California:

I believe the only thing missing from the No Kings rallies is the urgency of the press. The main stream media provided days, even weeks of coverage of the Charlie Kirk murder and the same for the kidnapping of Savanna Guthrie’s mother. But like all the rallies before it, I expect nothing more than a blurb on tonight’s weekend news with a few shots of massive crowds in a handful of big cities. Then, silence. There will be no follow up questions with members of Congress in the coming weeks, no answers demanded from the President about whether or not they support or fear the messages the American people are rallying around. The Vietnam anti-war protests were nightly news. Today’s protests will be lucky if they get 2 minutes in the local news.

And this one from Massachusetts:

Instead of questioning the value of these protests, how about reporting on the incredible number of protests planned, not just in the U.S., but internationally? How about reporting on the wide range of people attending, and the wonderful fact of peaceful behavior despite huge crowds and strong emotions? How about reporting on the fact that despite every effort by Trump et al to dismantle the rights baked into our country's founding and added onto since then, people are out there standing up, speaking up, resisting and fighting for the removal of this madman and his toadies? How about reporting on the resilience of people and our belief in the power of collective protest???

And this one from somewhere in the US?

Very disappointed in the skeptical tone of this article.

When people criticize the Times for being out of touch, this is part of the reason why.

Millions and millions of Americans come out for some of the largest protests in our history.

Talk to Ruth Ben Ghiat about this. Resistance movements take time to build.

Don't try to disparage the event before it has even happened.

[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Oohh, thank you for the link. I just skimmed through the comments.. AJ from Saskatchewan absolutely nailed it!

Utterly delightful to read.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

So many of the comments are absolute gold. They're the best thing about the article!

I could have quoted a dozen more, but they're behind the paywall even when direct linked and are not gathered with the article content in archive versions. I just wish I could have screenshotted at least the top ten, but they do it in this weird side frame that doesn't move with the rest of the page so it was a lost cause.