Journalist Sharyl Attkisson argues the New York Times serves donors, pharmaceutical companies, and wealthy left-wing figures rather than pursuing pure ideology. She says money, not politics alone, drives the paper's narratives and shapes what stories get told.
What I said before you came on is the New York Times is prepared to have half the country think it's a lying piece of propaganda because there are so many on the left that will support it that it doesn't matter to them to have credibility that transcends the left. Is that a fair analysis?
I think that's true, but I wouldn't say it's that the The way they are is because they're seeking that market. I would say they have that market because of the political and corporate interests that are pulling strings in the news and at the New York Times. And so they've been left with that dynamic, and that's fine with them. They don't have to have a bigger segment. It's not that there's, in my view, seeking that audience. I mean, that's sort of a secondary thing. They've been directed to go for that audience because they're serving whether it's pharmaceutical interests or powerful political people on the left who have money ties. You know, I think all this goes back to money. It's not just ideology. So where you see narratives being pushed, it's not necessarily just for our own good. They think it's because there are donors somewhere in the background, you know, third parties that are pulling strings.
Let me tell everybody, because I want to I want them to read your book. It's called Slanted: How the News Media Taught Us to Love Censorship and Hate Journalism. Up at DennisPrager.com and of course Amazon and elsewhere. And what is the name of your podcast?
The Cheryl Atkinson Podcast.
That's easy. Good luck to you. We need you.
Thanks so much.
Life, Legacy, and a Dangerous Mission in the Soviet Union | Sunday Fireside Chat
