199
Why Is the NYT Editorial Board More Worried About Progressivism Than Fascism? | Common Dreams
(www.commondreams.org)
Because they want fascism.
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
199 points (98.1% liked)
politics
29145 readers
3555 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
in his very best Comic Book Guy/Jeff Albertson voice, whatevermynameisrightnow stated: it's the new. york. times.
Worst. Editorial. Ever.
Because: Shareholder value and market capitalization.
Thats a rethorical question, right?
I mean, obviously because fascism is much closer to what they know and their status quo than the alternative.
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.
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..
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.
Oohh, thank you for the link. I just skimmed through the comments.. AJ from Saskatchewan absolutely nailed it!
Utterly delightful to read.
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.
Because the NYT editorial board are aligned with the Fascists
Capitalism requires suckers. Progressive ideals want to help everyone. Miles of difference.
Have you met liberals?
...no one so gauche...
Oh, that's an easy one, it's because the fascists own and operate the NYT.
This article is from October 2025.
Holy shit, you're right. I saw it in a sidebar of an article about yesterday's No Kings and assumed it was also current, because I'd just come off that NYT article I linked above.
Funny thing is the new NYT article has exactly the same fault as the older one, so I guess it's current anyway?
But I didn't spot it. Massive error on my part. Thank you for the correction.
no worries, they could reuse it and they wouldn't notice either
👍 🤣
I agree with the headline but I get a really bad gut feeling from Common Dreams. Maybe it's because of the people on here who post from them.
I would be very interested in knowing more, and just so you know I'm not looking for an argument. Genuinely curious.
Plus, I can't be personally offended because this is the first time I've ever posted anything from there. The article caught my attention because it was a further exploration of all the comments skewering the NYT author for writing such a limp piece of "look away, nothing to see here" propaganda, so I thought I'd post.
If you don't want to say it publicly, hit my DMs. But I am genuinely interested.