The Times newspaper is left wing

William Hague writes for the Times and speaks on Times Radio as does Matthew Paris and Andrew Neil. I wouldnt call any of them big lefties. It is true that neither William Hague nor Matthew Paris supported Boris but I dont think that makes them left wing. Similarly Camilla Long seems pretty right wing to me. I think it is quite balanced/middle . Andrew Neil loathes Kamala Harris for instance, even if not a overt Trump suporter.

Transgender issues are very complex and I am actually saddened to see that discourse is mostly concerned with male-to-female transitions and the ramifications of it. Again, I respect the threat to female identity and safety. I, perhaps, don't accept the premise that it is cis female-only issue. But also, where are transgender males in this debate?
I have been very lucky in that I have a close friend whom I have known since we were 14. He is a trans man and I witnessed his entire journey to transition at the time when he didn't have any/many options and I have seen a devastating effect it had on her early life. He is doing remarkably well today and with that, I can't fully support one-size-fits-all approach. But I am also not able to express this view in many contexts. I am attacked from the right and the left for opposing reasons. Which is why, I think it is so important to understand the nuances and speak to real people where you can.
My partner and I had many heated political discussions and both of us learned something from it. So if you feel that social media and mainstream media are not a good place for you, try to have open and respectful conversation with someone who feels a million miles away from your own "crowd". But approach it as an active listener, ask questions and don't rush to change their mind.
I also, respectfully, don't agree with throwing the baby with the bath water. It's quite OK to be liberal but disagree with transactivism rather than judge an entire political group and their ideas on the basis of one issue. I have a big bone to pick with feminism, for example, but I can't deny that the movement made some real differences to women over the years. I've experienced the horrors of communism but I still believe in broad socialist values such as social justice, community cooperation and, to an extent, economic equality.

They aren’t usually Tory MPs though…

So far as I recall, I've not even glanced at the Telegraph since I was a teenager and my parents bought it, so I can't really compare. But even my mum stopped at least a decade ago - and she liked Boris Johnson so god knows how far right they must be to put her off! In fairness, I don't spend much time reading the DM either but have read the occasional article when it's been posted here or other forums. I've personally found far more inaccuracies in The Guardian, though as I don't read much of either I suppose that doesn't mean much!

I consider The Guardian essentially a tabloid as it seems to rely entirely on 'clickbait' these days, and articles I've seen are often totally misleading and/or seemingly entirely unresearched. I suppose I am more likely to notice such things in The Guardian though as it did used to be a reputable paper and I feel angry and disappointed how far it's sunk. Even as a young teenager I used to buy my own copy as they had the best arts pages and I was obsessed with ballet! I read it for years, getting more and more annoyed - as the format shrank from broadsheet to tabloid, the output followed suit. It was most noticeable back in the days when they allowed comments - there would be some ridiculous, inaccurate article and the comments would almost entirely be pointing out the ridiculousness and inaccuracy; rather than provide better journalism, they just stopped allowing comments on most articles!

I finally gave up entirely after the absolutely disgusting coverage of the New Year 'incident' in Cologne. I personally think it is entirely logical to despise a paper whose stance is hate, disinformation and bigotry. I prefer a paper whose stance is the pursuit of truth, accuracy, and (actual) liberal thought. Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinions.

@Thatsenoughcoffee yes, they can indeed. But Hugo Rifkind is not "really left wing".

You seem to be using left wing when you mean "centrist, socially liberal, metropolitan professionals"

I disagree with X being 'properly right wing' depends who you follow. Not so long ago, it was extremely left and conservative and gender critical voices were banned/cancelled.

@Thatsenoughcoffee Ah. You're taking the puss. Damn. I was hoping for a serious discussion.

Sounds very fair, perhaps I'm surprised that you stick to mainstream media - does your partner also?

Very few people read manifestos. Particularly for a fringe party like Reform who weren't going to see power in this election, but a vote for them could still communicate to the main parties.

I have to confess I have retreated into an echo chamber after transactivism poisoned all my original media sources, I went from very left leaning, default liberalism to quite far right on many, but not all issues. I tried to listen to every side but it was deleterious to my mental health, to hear the savagery the supposed side of love and compassion would attack women with. To me the left are wolves in sheep's clothing. I feel far more comfortable with the wolves who clearly identify themselves as the wolves. I would be open to trying to change my perception on this but I have no idea where I would begin.

Hugo Rifkind. Son of Tory Minster and member of Thatcher's Cabinet Malcolm Rifkind and very much centrist, establisment opinion former. That Hugo Rifkind?

Have you actually met any left wing people?

My partner and I have radically opposing views so, in our house, you can find anything from the Daily Mail to The Guardian. I do like The Times although I still remember the 5-or-so-year-old article in it which it said that we should probably be comfortable with encouraging smoking as the smokers dying younger saves the general public a lot of money. Which I find an interesting though experiment.
As far as TV, I am more of a Channel 4 person but I recently started having a glance at GB News morning show and it seems quite balanced, as in they usually have both left-leaning and right-leaning panel guests. I haven't progressed to watching the rest of the their programmes, I'm not that way inclined but, again, I am prepared to consider the viewpoint.
There is nothing worse than living in an eco-chamber and outright dismissing anyone's political views without attempting to understand the full picture and the thought process of someone who poses an argument.
Take, for instance the US election. Yes, on the surface, it's abhorrent and some people struggle to believe that anyone would vote for a man of Trump's character. But, while, some voted for him as a personality, I think the truth is that most people voted because they saw a personal economic benefit of doing so. Which is something I can understand.
Would I personally join Reform? No. But I am happy to have a conversation with someone who supports them and try and understand their reasoning. I did read through their manifesto before the election. I though it was poor, not because of the political views of the party but because it lacked the detail and was basically just a list of soundbites. I wasn't convinced they knew what to do if they ended up in power.

@rumblegrumble ive seen this before on MN regarding the guardian and I think it is just mistaken to pitch the guardian as the left wing reflection of the mail. It’s a completely different standard of journalism. The guardian isn’t a tabloid and it’s more like the opposite to the telegraph than the mail. The paper I least enjoy reading is the Telegraph for news BUT it’s very telling that the guardian and the telegraph essentially cover the same culture features including books and opera etc. They are pitched at quite a similar group in terms of income and interests in that respect which the DM
is not. I also think ‘balance’ is a bit of a red herrings the telegraph is not balanced, it has an agenda, which is fine. You can’t despise a paper for having a stance, that’s the point.

For me the best comment on newspapers comes from JK Rowling - when Rita Skeeter tells Hermione ‘the Prophet exists to sell itself’ in Order of the Phoenix 😂 it actually helps me to remind myself of this. Papers don’t exist to be a public good.

Right wing left wing aren't particularly useful categories anymore imo. At the very least it's worth distinguishing between the cultural/social and the economic. Some are very right wing (conservative) socially but economically left, favour socialist policies etc. Some are the opposite, very socially liberal - and economically liberal too, free markets etc but are called ring wing, which imo, is highly inaccurate!

Oh yeah this was juts a general comment on judging people by the paper they read- not aimed at you!

This seems highly unusual to me... genuinely curious. What do you read that you feel at home with and what do you read to challenge this?

I find it centrist

The Times is generally the paper of the establishment. Conservative with a small c, carefully centrist.

If you think that is left wing, you have lost yourself to crazy populist Trumpism.

The DT has veered wildly to the right making the Times and FT look relatively left wing. They are attempting to be the paper of record still and I wouldn't describe them as left wing.Compare the same story in the three different papers and you will see points of difference.

Yep.

Don't find it leaning left at all. Still find it pretty centre-right personally, though get annoyed with occasional DM type stories (mostly about bloody Harry & Meghan). Have found the strong anti-Labour reporting slightly off-putting, even though I am deeply unimpressed with them myself thus far. But I wonder whether that's just because they weren't equally attacking the Tories... after today's slightly savage article on Kemi Badenoch I suspect that may just be because there wasn't much going on rather than a distinct lurch to the right. Reader comments can be pretty strongly right-wing sometimes, but at least they allow them.

I definitely prioritise balance and accuracy in my media, I strongly dislike overt bias and misleading journalism. Thus, I absolutely despise The Guardian! (and the DM, I consider them equal in hateful, dishonest, tabloid awfulness). I don't really bother with the Comment sections though so my opinion's based almost entirely on the UK, World and Business pages. I think The Times is definitely the most centrist and accurate of the 'standard' papers, I also read the FT and Economist. I used to read Private Eye but I feel that's gone a long way left recently and is no longer balanced, accurate or even funny unfortunately.

@Thatsenoughcoffee
I don't think either of the examples you give-examining the finances of the royal family or reporting on the suffering of the people of Gaza are particularly left wing. Could you come up with some more?
And Hugo Rifkin writes for the Times, The Spectator and is pro Israel in his views. So he is hardly the voice of the left. I would class him as Libertarian Right.

I read the Times, imo its more "in the middle" than anything else.

It’s far too right wing and establishment for me.

Good!