top | item 27845941

(no title)

8458e112e7b2 | 4 years ago

It is quite clear that with these types of articles, NYTimes is pushing an agenda.

discuss

order

sailingparrot|4 years ago

I'm not native english speaker, is "It is quite clear" a synonym for "I'm baselessly speculating"?

wil421|4 years ago

Lol not always but an observer could take it that way. It’s clear to them but it is still just someone’s opinion.

carschno|4 years ago

"it is quite clear" sounds very much like an euphemism for "I just believe that" here.

heyoni|4 years ago

Yea seriously. How is population shifts not in the public interest? Especially in the most expensive state in the country? If there is some agenda, I’d love to hear the reasoning behind it but COVID’s impact on cities seems like a reasonable thing to write about.

NationalPark|4 years ago

It isn't quite clear to me. What agenda and who does it benefit? Where's the connection to the New York Times itself?

skystarman|4 years ago

I don't think there's an "agenda" here.

There were dozens and dozens of articles in every publication over the last decade or longer about the decline of SF, COL is too expensive, homeless, dodging shit on the street, etc.

Then the pandemic and exponentially more articles about the flight from SF, NYC, etc. people are now fleeing for good.

Of course the actual statistics show a tiny fraction of people left SF. I think an article which focuses on this reality is well warranted.

If anything the people criticizing this article have an agenda in their belief that SF is awful and everyone should leave and anything to the contrary is of course biased.

Not that I should have to say this but there is of course plenty to criticize about SF and the Bay Area. The reality is the overwhelming majority of people are not leaving anytime soon. Only a tiny fraction are leaving.

wil421|4 years ago

Not sure but everyone they asked said they would like to go back to the office. I don't think a single person said no I don't want to go back to the office full or part time. Seems biased.

Aboh33|4 years ago

I would guess a return-back-to-the-office agenda, but then again, I've been told here on HN that the NYT is not of 'one mind' and/or is diverse and impartial so what do I know /s

mapgrep|4 years ago

At least then there would be a consistent narrative, but if you look under the article you can see that in January they had a headline about how everyone was leaving.