The Day The NY Times Changed, At Least for Me.

Back in the day, we'd all watch network News to "understand" the world around us. Supposedly it was objective. Then about twenty years ago Fox TV/News appeared. News became a point of view. If you don't read or refuse to educate yourself then Fox News confirmed your belief of the world. People who hate change and love fear watch Fox News. The world can be a scary place, indeed, to some. People who love change and try to educate themselves watch other News channels. However, neither is "right". They are just different views of the same world.

In general, hate and fear are stronger human emotions. If human's weren't afraid we'd all be dead. Fear keeps us alive as a species. And that is why Fox News has been so successful. So if you can't beat them join 'em, right. What seems to be selling these day is to offer a view that "confirms" one's beliefs. And it's seems like the NY Times has skipped tracks to do so.

With the recent articles about the Pope and this racist article, it appears that the NY Times is becoming MORE biased. They seem to be writing for it's readers; writing to confirm their reader's beliefs. This formula seems to be working for Fox News and the Huffington Post, right? So, why not the NY Times?

The NY Times has mega financial problems. This is one way to generate revenue. To achieve objectivity in the News readers/watchers now have to read/watch various sources - each source represents a point of view - then we'll have to decide for themselves.