The Times newspaper is left wing

What does it mean to say that your Twitter feed is "low status"?

I suspect it is more the case that you, and others, have moved to the right, OP, rather than that The Times has moved to the left. The fact that it isn't a far right publication doesn't mean that it is left wing.

You seem to be equating "right wing" with "populist". The Times is catering to a relatively educated audience, which sets it apart from a lot of the content on Twitter etc, but it still leans to the centre right. Of course, a lot of people in the UK right now are leaning towards the far right these days, so it's all relative.

If you live in a far-right bubble of the Mail, Express, Telegraph and GB News, it might seem left-wing, but it is far from it. People live in such echo chambers, they are unable to recognise bias. The Times is a Murdoch paper and as such is inherrently right-wing.

^ This

It's not left wing! All last week it had bloody James Dyson and Jeremy Clarkson whingeing about their farm land tax dodge being closed.

I think that the Tory party has moved to the right and so the Times looks more centrist, but Melanie Phillips for example is not a left wing columnist

Times reader here.

It's centrist.

Times writers who are on the 'right' tend to be more liberal conservatives who, from today's perspective, may appear to be rather liberal/centrist, even left-leaning.

I didn’t judge the poster’s views by which paper she read. I judged her on her belief that The Guardian is as far to the left as the Mail is to the right.

@EricTheGardener "I would say the Times is pretty centrist overall but has columnists and opinion pieces from both sides of the spectrum. Which is kind of what you'd want in a paper, no? So you're getting a balanced view?"

Perhaps people don't want a balanced view. The Mail, Express, Sun, Telegraph and Guardian all exist to make money, and they do so by pandering to a specific target market. The Mail was founded as a propaganda vehicle and hasn't really shifted from there - there's always money to be made by telling people what they want to hear, even if most of it is made-up bollocks.

I agree I don’t find the guardian really ‘left’ in a real political sense, it’s ‘lefty’ in a social way but it’s more classically liberal in a political way. I generally think trying to judge people by the paper they read is a but silly too (although I have to remind myself of this too) because I tend to read the guardian because it does the best reporting on things that interest me, but it’s not like I read everything in there as gospel and agree with everything it says - which goes for any reader of any paper. There is also a spectrum of columnists in most papers, which there should be. Even with trans issues, the observer (so the guardian I practice) publishes Sonia Sodha who is GC and Gaby Hinsliff who I always think is scrupulously fair in everything she writes. So there is even a spectrum on those issues.

I agree with OP and I have subscribed to the times for a long time. There has been quite a shift to the left. Often the comments are far better and informative than the articles.

The Guardian disappeared up its own lefty backside years ago and surely it’s regarded as a joke.

Tried the telegraph and it is dying; too many puff pieces which really are just adverts for celebrities and their products. Comments section is full of nastiness.

I’m at a loss for good writing and comprehensive discussions.

I used to listen to times radio but find Asmaa Mir insufferable: her laughing at anything she finds difficult to discuss, how she finds Giles Coren so funny and her fawning of him is embarrassing. I got fed up listening to her proclaiming ‘I don’t understand’ when they have any cultural discussions. Her and Stig Abel’s contempt for Kemi Badendoch is personal, uncomfortable and shows their lack of impartiality. I like Ayesha Hazarika at the weekend.

I followed Matt Chorley to radio 5 as his replacement Hugo Rifkind is just a dumbed down version and not as good.

What is your definition of "high-status" and "low-status" people and do you think that equates to left-wing and right-wing respectively?

The Times newspaper is not left wing! I have the app and often the articles and in particular the comments below wind me up!
I'm a Labour supporter.

Christ is there any media outlet you will forgive @Thatsenoughcoffee?

The Times isn’t left wing. It is pretty much straight down the middle, pragmatic small c conservative and pro business although I think it’s marginally more liberal than it was but it has some commentators on the right.

A left winger would not identify it as a left wing publication. The average Guardian reader wouldn’t have it in the house.

I subscribe to Times online and like it. it does lean slightly right but has good contributors such as Caitlin Moran who might be seen as left leaning. Whilst at times it does show bias, by and large it is interested in good journalism.

If you see the Guardian as being as far left as the Mail is right, I'd say you skew quite aggressively right. The Guardian has always been a Liberal paper really (in the sense of the old British Liberal Party, not in a whatever the hell Americans mean when they use the word). It's not particularly left wing at all.

I also appreciate that they know their demographic - all the lifestyle stuff is pitched at the middle aged. The Guardian pretends to be read by 22 year olds which is laughable.

The Times is not left wing. What has happened is that the Overton Window has shifted so far to the right that what used to be the centre is now seen as far to the left.

The Times is my home and it's writers my family 😁

Not all of them, obviously. There's an American guy called Gerald something who is pro Trump. But there's a breadth of opinion which I like. The Guardian looks like a campus newspaper in comparison.

I would say the Times is pretty centrist overall but has columnists and opinion pieces from both sides of the spectrum. Which is kind of what you'd want in a paper, no? So you're getting a balanced view?

I was a bit confused when you said, 'By contrast, my feed on X is properly right wing' - as you can't really compare a newspaper where you as a reader have no control over what's published, to a social media platform where you choose who to follow, so your feed will only contain posts from those people, as well as other posts decided by the algorithm based on your previous activity. They're totally different beasts aren't they?