This post is supposed to be a "living post" that'll be updated as I come across more biased NYT stories. PDF versions of all stories mentioned here can be found in this SkyDrive folder.
Why biased? NYT is careful about what it presents as a fact [versus a claim]. If the US claims [even if without any proof] that Assad killed Syrian people, NYT typically writes something like "Syrian Government Shells Civilians", thus presenting the unproven claim by US as a fact. But if something is said by Assad or by Russia's Sergey Lavrov, NYT typically writes something like "Syrian Government Denies Responsibility For Massacre" [instead of "Syrian Government Not Responsible For Massacre"], thus presenting Assad's or Lavrov's claims as claims. But in the story linked above, the NYT presented as fact something that was simply a claim by "opponents of the government" [we don't even know who these opponents exactly are]. Why did NYT present the alleged shelling claimed by opponents with unclear identity as a fact in the title, when Syria's or Russia's statements are never presented as facts, either in the titles or in the body of the news?
Update [25-Jun-15]: Documents on 2012 Drone Strike Detail How Terrorists Are Targeted, NYT, Jun'15 [link]
Why biased? NYT has used the authoritative term Terrorists in the title of this news story, whereas it is well-established that the targeted folks are suspects. This is how the NYT secretly brainwashes its readers.
Update [25-Jun-15]: Documents on 2012 Drone Strike Detail How Terrorists Are Targeted, NYT, Jun'15 [link]
Why biased? NYT has used the authoritative term Terrorists in the title of this news story, whereas it is well-established that the targeted folks are suspects. This is how the NYT secretly brainwashes its readers.
.jpg)
