Who is more Progressive - the NewYork Times or Moveon.Org?

[ellenrr]

Let's reiterate that the Times is far from a progressive outlet. It serves as a highly important megaphone for key sectors of corporate/political elites. Voicing the newspaper's official stance, its editorials are often deferential to spin and half-truths from favored political figures. And much of the paper's news coverage feeds off the kind of newspeak that spews out of the Executive Branch and Congress.

But on crucial matters of foreign policy, militarism and surveillance, the contrast between Times editorials and MoveOn is stunning. The "progressive" netroots organization has rarely managed to clear a low bar of independence from reprehensible Obama policies.

Instead, millions of people on MoveOn's list are continually deluged with emails pretending that Republicans are the only major problem in Washington -- while nearly always ignoring Obama administration policies that are antithetical to basic progressive values.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/is-moveon-less-progressiv_b_4491325.html

[xchrom]

1. du rec.

[KG]

2. ha! don't they get it. any obama admin policy is by default 'progressive' simply by virtue of be an

obama admin policy. silly leftbaggers!

[Enthusiast]

3. K&R.................nt

[progressoid]

4. Thankfully, I'm no longer on Moveon's mailing list.

[Uben]

5. I don't do MoveOn

The folks there (Eli) lost me in 2008 when they took my money then decided to change policy and endorse Obama. I was a Clinton supporter at the time. I supported Obama once nominated, but you don't take money under one pretense, then change. So, MoveOn will never see another dime from me...ever! I hate people who deceive you once you have contributed, and MoveOn did just that.

[RoccoR5955]

6. Neither!

They are both pretty much the same, in regard to "progressive."

[starroute]

7. MoveOn may deserve bashing -- but the Times isn't a shining alternative

I remember when Wikileaks released the Chelsea Manning documents to several major papers. The initial Times coverage used them to support US policy -- for example, by quoting diplomatic memos that expressed concern over Iran. You had to go to the Guardian (and I think Der Spiegel) to find out that the memos were overall extremely embarrassing for the light they cast on the US.

The Times invariably supports elite interests -- and it interesting that those have turned against massive surveillance. But the underlying rationale is likely to be that if American corporations get a reputation for reading everybody's mail it's bad for business, not any love of freedom or privacy.

[Wounded Bear]

10. I don't think it's the fact of the surveillance being done...

that's a problem for them. It's more about the bad PR of people knowing about it.

[Progressive dog]

8. Moveon is a political organization,

it is expected to have a bias. It doesn't hide what it is in the guise of pretending to report news.
Move On is also a non profit, the NY Times gets much of it's revenue from corporate advertising as does the Huffington Post.

[MisterP]

9. veal pen, baby