Reddit mentions of The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy

Well, if Ronald Reagan did most of the deregulation and consolidation, and you don't like that, then I can see where you would find "fault" with him. That's objective analysis.

You also brought up a bigger claim about the "liberal media." The notion of a "liberal media" flies directly against the fact that the same people who own the big media outlets also own the banks and oil companies, on a purely theoretical level.

In practice, the theory works well. Let's see what some top Republicans have said about the "liberal media":

>Yet James Baker, perhaps the most media-savvy of them, owned up to the fact that any such complaint was decidedly misplaced. "There were days and times and events we might have had some complaints [but] on balance I don't think we had anything to complain about," he explained to one writer.

> Patrick Buchanan, among the most conservative pundits and presidential candidates in the republic's history, found that he could not identify any allegedly liberal bias against him during his presidential candidacies. "I've gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage-all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the 'liberal media,' but every Republican on earth does that," ...

>And even William Kristol, without a doubt the most influential Republican/neoconservative publicist in America, has come clean on this issue. "I admit it," he told a reporter. "The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

Look at the date of that article. Notice anything? It was a few days before Republican George W. Bush began the second major bombing campaign in Iraq, this one just like the prior one built on lies -- Lies propagated by the "liberal media," and even the source of the above quote itself:

>On May 26, 2004, the New York Times issued an apology for its coverage of Iraq’s purported weapons of mass destruction. The Times had failed to provide what most readers expect from the US newspaper of record: journalistic accuracy and integrity about important matters of US foreign policy.

>But the Times’ coverage of Iraq was worse than they were willing to concede. In fact, for at least the past fifty years the editorial policy of the Times—from its coverage of the 1954 Geneva Accords on Vietnam to the issue of torture in Abu Ghraib—has failed to incorporate international law into its coverage of US foreign policy.