• long running

Free Access to Coronavirus/COVID-19 Articles @ The New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic

2686

They are providing free access to the most important news and useful guidance on the coronavirus outbreak to help readers understand the pandemic. The articles on this page are available if you have a New York Times account.

Washington Post
The Atlantic

Related Stores

The New York Times
The New York Times
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com

Comments

  • +41 votes

    to the most important news and useful guidance

    These two papers are unreliable propaganda sources that support the establishment war machine.

    Apparently there are still plenty of people who haven't worked this out despite reading fictional accounts of Iraq's nuclear weapons and space programs to sell the Iraq war crime. These people are either rubes or they have no standards.

    • +26 votes

      All newspapers are biased in some way. Choose the newspaper you most trust yourself, let others make their own choices. Your post here is not going to change anyones mind.

      • +15 votes

        Describing war profiteers and war mongers simply as being biased is absurd.

        The New York Times fired Pulitzer Prize winner Chris Hedges for reporting the truth from Iraq. They also recently blatantly lied about events in Venezuela with the US "aid" shipments. It's not bias, it's creating and pushing narratives that serve the global elite. The Washington Post also has a long history of lying about wars. They also have a clear agenda against Bernie Sanders who campaigned to increase the minimum wage for Amazon workers thereby annoying Jeff Bezos. You might describe that as bias, but they pretend to be unbiased and don't disclose their bias, so viewers and readers are misinformed.

        Worthless journalists have been decrying Russian interference in US elections while they themselves are to blame for destroying democracy. They do their audience a disservice.

        • -3 votes

          You have completely missed the point. An average person is blind to rants for or against particular newspapers, because they see so many. In the end they make their own choice. Your post is not going to change their mind because it is just another post in a propaganda war that people have become blind to.

          • +10 votes

            @altitudinous: There are plenty of people who are ignorant of the lies being fed to them and would be willing to switch to more trustworthy information sources if just given a push. Even in this thread you see people asking for better examples than NYT and WP. That's even after there was a lengthy discussion in the forum a few months ago. What good is choice if people can't make informed decisions and aren't aware of better alternatives to the status quo?

            • +1 vote

              @kahn: Those people asking for alternate sources are cynics joking about just trying to start an argument.

              There was a lengthy discussion a few months ago -> here it is again -> therefore nothing resulted from the first one -> nothing will result from doing it yet again.

              People don't make informed decisions by reading rants. Instead they read a number of sources and they make their own choice based on their beliefs.

              People believe different things and we should celebrate the fact that they are allowed to express and choose those beliefs in our society.

              • +1 vote

                @altitudinous:

                People believe different things

                That's quite a statement to make in defense of merchants of lies. You're basically saying that it's okay to read lies and misinformation because people "choose" to consume them.

                we should celebrate the fact that they are allowed to express and choose those beliefs

                I agree, but it's just as important to be able to challenge those beliefs. If someone's beliefs are based on lies, then are you happy to just let them be? Beliefs are largely based on how we process information, and if that information is false or misleading, then those beliefs have little value.

                To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the NYT and WP are spreading lies specifically about the virus, but they have well-deserved reputations as liars when it comes to issues such as war and politics.

                I have one question for you - do you think there is ever a situation when it is okay to call out someone for lying (willfully or not)?

                • +1 vote

                  @kahn: You are making an assumption that lies are black and white.

                  In some cases they are - e.g. some of Trumps mis-steps.

                  But in most cases they are just interpretations of data. They are not black and white lies. Others are just some facts are reported and some are ignored.

                  A really simple situation - One newspaper biased towards party Black might say "45% of the public voted for party Black a fabulous victory we are number one" Another newspaper biased toward party White might say "40% of the public voted for party White - a massive swing of 30% to White, Black are in trouble and don't hold power, a fabulous victory". A third newspaper might say "15% vote to party Blue - we are the victors, we hold the balance of power".

                  Nobody is lying. Everyone is biased.

                  Secondly, you are not in an informed position to determine what is a lie. You are not based in the White House. You are getting your information from biased sources yourself. You are being influenced just the same as everyone else. You are not a source of truth, you are no more special than anyone else.

                  The simple answer is, let people make their own decision.

                  • +4 votes

                    @altitudinous: Here are some examples of outright lies:

                    1. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction
                    2. The Syrian government used chemical attacks against its citizens
                    3. The Venezuelan military set fire to US "aid" in Venezuela
                    4. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that dramatically escalated the Vietnam War

                    Huge numbers of lives are lost and ruined due to acceptance of such lies. War crimes are committed. The mainstream media have a proven history of pushing such lies to manufacture public consent for wars and sanctions. There's the well-known saying "the first casualty of war is the truth". I will stress the point - these are not biases, they are lies.

                    •  

                      @kahn: Mate. The Venezuelan military did set fire to the US aid and also blocked the road not to allow the aid in because it was "a Trojan horse".

                      Just two days ago the Venezuelan government detained and arrested a convoy of "Medicins sans frontier" that was going into the country to help with the pandemic.

                      What is next? The USA blockade is causing the medicines shortage? The sanctions are against individuals and corporations proven to be dealing with corruption and drug money laundering schemes.

                      You can find imported beer and imported exotic cars and 4wds but no medicine because of the USA. Right?

                      So apparently you are getting your news from telesur and RT who aren't biased 🙄🙄🙄🙄

                      Edit: I'm Venezuelan by the way.

                      • +1 vote

                        @munecito: Thanks for the recent news, I'll check it out. However, you are wrong about who set fire to the US "aid" several months ago. You can do a search for "New York Times caught lying about Venezuelan aid" and you will also see that NYT admitted they posted a false story. There's proof that one of the pro-coup protesters threw at least two molotov cocktails at the shipment. So apparently you are getting your news from pro-Guaido outlets :-P

                        Did you follow the events that took place at the Venezuelan embassy in Washington DC?

                        •  

                          @kahn: Yes I did.

                          Do you think the amount of lunatic socialist supporters Americans that we squatting there were right?

                          "Pro coup"?

                          Enough said. I know where you sit on World politics.

                          Have the rags you read reported the 4 billion dollars that Chavez's daughter has when she hasn't worked a day in her life? Not sure she have any known career. But when Congress was going to audit her Maduro named get ambassador before the UN and she got immunity. Just for then come out declaring that she made her money doing catalogue sales.

                          Unless she was selling drugs or guns by catalogue I fail to see how Tupperware and Herbalife can make you that sorry of money in a country with a severe famine.

                          The good Venezuelan government has caused that 15% of the population of the country leave, some of them even walking across neighbouring countries.

                          Guaido? That is another clown and he is the best thing that happened to Maduro's government as his "talks" with Maduro's envoys in Norway and the Caribbean has probably prolonged the pain of the population.

                          Have your rags also reported about how the government killed Oscar Perez and the people that were with him while he was broadcasting live and has surrendered hours earlier?

                          Don't talk about bias when you are consuming the news that align with your views of the world.

                          And please leave Venezuela out of this as nobody has lied more than the own Venezuelan government.

                          • +1 vote

                            @munecito: I was pointing out that the US "aid" incident was a publicity stunt orchestrated by US government officials with the obedient US media playing along. Can we at least agree on that now?

                            I'm not claiming that it is simply a case of one side being good and the other bad. We both know it's not as simple as that. There is violence from both sides, but we can disagree on the disparity if you like. There have been pro-coup protesters setting people on fire (among other violent acts) and the assassination attempt against Maduro while he was giving a speech a couple of years ago. The Maduro government is generally disliked in Venezuela for economic mismanagement, corruption, dubious use of force/imprisonment, nationalising the oil industry, having social programs and not bowing to the demands of domestic and foreign elites). However, the "clown" opposition party is disliked even more. There was something like half a billion dollars from USAID sent to the Venezuelan opposition party to be used for their coup efforts and a lot (most?) of that has been wasted by opposition figures on stuff like weapons, entertainment, and simply enriching themselves. Then there's the billions in Venezuelan gold and cash basically stolen by the UK and US. It's not a pretty picture from either side.

                            Here's a report on the fugitive Oscar Perez that states there was a firefight between him and security forces. It didn't sound like he surrendered, he was negotiating with security forces and trying to get them to switch sides. You'll likely get different accounts from either side, but I admit it's an interesting event.

                            lunatic socialist supporters

                            You've debased yourself by smearing people. It has little to do with socialism, even though that's the lens through which you view the events. The issue is democracy. Individuals like Guaido and Mike Pompeo tried to destroy this concept in Venezuela when they refused to participate in the Venezuelan elections (they would've lost) and then have Guaido self-proclaim as leader. So, when pro-democracy activists sought Venezuela's permission to occupy and protect the embassy in Washington DC, they were doing it for democracy and international law. I've seen interviews with them and reporters like Max Blumenthal who gave firsthand accounts of how violent, racist, and sexist the pro-coup protesters were and how the US secret service allowed them to be violent and also blocked food and water from entering the embassy. They also allowed damage to the embassy and basically conducted a siege on an embassy. Does that sound like fairness, democracy and international law was observed?

                            There's so much going on there that the best you can wish for is the US and UK to completely abandon its policies relating to Venezuela and for independent countries/organisations to negotiate internationally monitored elections. Guess how much likelihood there is of that happening?

                      • -1 vote

                        @munecito: Venezuelan you claim

                        your assertions are factually incorrect.

                        I reckon you know it 2

                        even some of the yank papers retracted some of this garbage MONTHS later.

    • +18 votes

      Please feel free to post some alternative, non-biased news sources you would prefer us to read?

      I look forward to seeing a list which likely others will equally consider biased

      • +1 vote

        the twitter feed of Greens MPs and pavement-glue loving activists & protesters

      • -9 votes

        There was a lengthy discussion about this topic a few months ago in the forum and in an article from Michael West.

        The below advice is what I wrote in that forum topic, but a third point can be added is to trust a news source that didn't repeat the Russiagate hoax.

        My advice is to use two simple checks to see if a news source is trustworthy:
        1. They are critical of the US regime-change operations like those in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Iran, Bolivia, etc. (e.g. people like Aaron Matte, Glen Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Robert Fisk)
        2. They defend Wikileaks, Julian Assange and whistle-blowers (e.g. people like John Pilger, George Galloway, Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky)

        • -5 votes

          So it's trustworthy (and non biased?) as long as it's left wing / progressive / hippy…

          Or I guess news from the Communist party of China would meet your simple checks.

          • +5 votes

            @fourofjacks: Wikileaks have never published false information. All the people I've quoted have exemplary records - they have reported truthfully regarding Russiagate, Iraq, Syria, Venezuela, etc. If a reporter is publishing the truth and calling out lies, then they are simply doing their job. If that upsets your political beliefs, then that's a problem of your creation, not theirs.

            • -3 votes

              @kahn: I would not consider Wikileaks a news source.

              You believe everything on Wikileaks, emails from the DNC, or government cables about other governments, is true, trustworthy and without bias?

              How does Wikileaks decide what is truth or not? Will they publish a fake leak? How do they decide what is or isn't in the public interest to publish? Do they get used by others for outside agendas? (Do they realise they are puppets?) Have they reported truthfully on their own internal political issues?

              They are biased, if you believe they aren't biased or can't see that they are - you are no different from others that think their preferred news source isn't biased.

              •  

                @fourofjacks: It's a bit pointless having this discussion with you if you can't accept facts and abuse the word "bias". It's also pointless providing you with information to support my points as you'd just claim that information is biased as well. The position you've taken makes it impossible to have a discussion in a rational and objective manner.

                •  

                  @kahn: Fact is Wikileaks has its own agenda to push as well.

                  All news outlets have bias, agree it's pointless to debate this, it's pretty much fact.

    • +3 votes

      fictional accounts of Iraq's nuclear weapons

      Not that I subscribe to NY Times, but they acknowledged their own failings in the Iraq reporting…

      http://archive.is/ZMGY8

      • +5 votes

        Mainstream media largely reports the bullshit that governments feed them.

    •  

      Diji1, with comments like this you’ll never get a govt job mate…

    •  

      Neg him all you like. .These publications are the biggest purveyers of yellow journalism on earth.

    • +7 votes

      The crazies are out in force today.

    •  

      Trump’s sock puppet?

    • +5 votes

      These two papers are unreliable propaganda sources that support the establishment war machine.

      Relevance = 0

      The fact is these three outlets will have far better reporting on this pandemic than whatever conspiracy blog bullshit you read. Guaranteed.

  • +2 votes

    Also the Atlantic magazine.
    I haven't read them, but Alan Kohler subscribes and recommends

    https://www.theatlantic.com/category/what-you-need-know-coro...

    • +3 votes

      He didn't get to be a multi millionaire journo by telling the whole truth…

      • +2 votes

        I have seen Mr Alan Kohler change his views 180° from one day to the next depending on who is is working for. He is an entertainer, nothing more.

  • +13 votes

    I can read American government propaganda for free all over the world already.
    Since both journals routinely submit all their stories to the American government for approval before publication why bother?

    Neither can tell the truth anymore by government order.

    •  

      All newspapers are biased in some way. Choose the newspaper you most trust yourself, let others make their own choices. Your post here is not going to change anyones mind.

      • +6 votes

        Any paper that routinely allows government censorship of everything in it isn't just biased - its dishonest.

      • +3 votes

        It's less propaganda and more sensationalisation, a problem with western journalism in general. Paywalls exemplify this, come up with a crazy headline to make people click in and then hit them with the paywall.

        • +1 vote

          no voluntary acceptance of government censorship signals totalitarianism

          • +1 vote

            @petry: All forms of mainstream media around the world has government influence to some degree, that's a fact that cannot be denied. Doesn't mean people aren't free to seek out other sources of information.

            • -3 votes

              @ls123: not all papers around the world submit all their stories to their governments for approval.

              both of these do.

              • +6 votes

                @petry: Its a largely irrelevant matter. Anyone with a brain does not trust the media (whether it be these, ABC, Fox, whatever, they are all highly ideological and slanted). All we can do is read/listens to multiple sources, consider, then use as we see fit. Those who do not diversify their sources are not really interested in quality information more so re-enforcement of what they want to hear. But those are the days we live in.

              • +2 votes

                @petry: Please bother to read the front page of the NYT webpage. Do you seriously believe that the US Govt (White House Administration) would approve all of those anti-Trump opinion pieces?
                Please stop lying.

      • -3 votes

        Al Jazeera isn't biased.

    • +3 votes

      Since both journals routinely submit all their stories to the American government for approval

      The NYT seeks Govt approval for its articles? Oh, pleeeeease!
      Perhaps this video: https://twitter.com/trish_regan/status/1237170781509033984 is more your style?

      •  

        they stated as much.

        WAY BACK IN 2012' it was revealed that the NYT routinely gives veto power to Obama campaign officials over the quotes from those officials the paper is allowed to publish – a practice barred by other outlets (but not the NYT) both prior to that revelation and subsequent to it.

        Worse, the paper frequently conceals vital information of public interest at the direction of the government, as it did when it learned of George Bush's illegal eavesdropping program in mid 2004 but concealed it for more than a year at the direction of the White House, until Bush was safely re-elected; '

        Now its everything, not much different here because the oz media repeats the same fictions everyday.

        •  

          I hadn't heard that re quotes and it's unacceptable.
          However note that it was quotes, not approval of stories as initially suggested, and both obama and Romney, not just Obama

  • +4 votes

    Australian Community Media has removed the paywall from coronavirus articles.

  • +3 votes

    I’ll only trust a udemy course on Corona virus.

  • +3 votes

    Never just trusts one source or you will be brainwashed! Double-criteria creates lots of hates among countries and races.

  • +4 votes

    uBlock Origin and block JavaScript for NYT and AFR access. Thank me later.

  • +1 vote

    As above, these two media outlets are very untrustworthy.

  • +2 votes

    Steer clear of these two fake news organizations. Plenty of other more trustworthy sources to gather your Covid-19 news from.

  •  

    Has anyone had to stop working or is now working from home?

    • +9 votes

      our company has two policies

      for the plebs - if they show signs of illness, tell them to harden up

      for management - work from home

      •  

        that's every place

      •  

        Chatted with my friend in America today and because it's a national emergency he's home doing nothing and getting paid. My work has provisions for it but I just want the criteria to be met. We deserve this.

  •  

    "Don’t stockpile masks
    But do stock up on groceries, medicine and resources"

    wot

    • +4 votes

      Another way of saying, “not enough masks for everyone, plebs don’t need.”

  •  

    I believe Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) is free as well.

  • +1 vote

    Would suggest going for Journal articles instead through https://scholar.google.com/ or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

  • +1 vote

    that's kind of them to not paywall info that would be useful in keeping the world safe.

    I would like to know how to filter out paywalled articles from google search results.

  • +4 votes

    Doesn't really seem relevant for Australians, half the articles are about Trump and US policies.

  • -1 vote

    Prefer the Tele myself.

  • +7 votes

    www.health.gov.au

    Cut out the middle man/drama/clickbait.

    As an added bonus, they are qualified public health physicians, not Facebook/internet 'experts'.

  •  

    thanks, I'll shall spread this good info. =p

  •  

    When is The Age going to do that?

  • Top