I Think that I See Your Problem

It appears that the New York Times idea of supporting a diversity of views is to have a few center right OP/ED writers, a similar number of hard right OP/ED writers, and right wing moonbat guest writers.

So, of course, as noted by Atrios, the so-called journalists pretend that it doesn't matter, just like deceptive headlines don't mater, just like looking at the first paragraph doesn't matter, etc.

This is how one ends up with nakedly transphobic from the Gray Lady:

If you read yesterday’s [September 11] New York Times, you likely came across a feature headlined “‘Trump Brought Darkness; Harris Brought Light’: 14 Writers on Who Won the Presidential Debate.” If you read it closely, you might have noticed that of the 14 writers in question, eight work directly for The New York Times and six are outside contributors. The eight Times employees include a relatively even mix of liberals and conservatives. The six outside contributors, on the other hand, are 100 percent conservative.

Wild, right? Well, we’re just getting started.

The New York Times published similar features after each night of the Democratic convention last night. Four nights, four pieces, a total of 13 appearances by outside contributors with clear ideological backgrounds or affiliations … all 13 of them conservatives.

And we are not done yet!

In July The New York Times did the same thing for the Republican convention: Four nights, four pieces, a total of 17 appearances by outside contributors with clear ideological backgrounds or affiliations … all 17 of them conservatives.

All together these nine opinion roundups feature 36 appearances by outside contributors with readily-apparent ideological backgrounds or affiliations — and all 36 are conservatives. (To be clear, there are fewer than 36 people involved; the Times turned to most of the right-wing writers multiple times.)

Yeah, your liberal media at work.

………

The Times’ own roster of columnists is relatively ideologically diverse. Not perfectly so, and I have plenty of objections with the paper’s decision to give such a platform to consistently dishonest writers like Bret Stephens, but the roster in general and as featured in these “X writers react to Y” roundups is fairlydiverse. But the fact that the outside voices the paper turns to for these roundups are exclusively conservative speaks volumes about the paper’s biases and agenda.

Yes, it does, and it why Atrios calls the paper, "That F%$#ing Newspaper."

The problem is that the Times is far more SELF important than it is important.