The Times newspaper is left wing

[Thatsenoughcoffee]

The Times has been moving to the left for years. They’re trying to compete with The Guardian as much as The Telegraph. They try to reflect the politics of the middle and governing classes which veer left.

It’s a high quality publication, but as a conservative I read it knowing there will be many left-wing writers whose opinions I disagree with. Hugo Rifkind is one example.

The news stories also veer left - for instance the recent attack on the finances of the Royal Family which was carried out in conjunction with Channel 4. There is also a lot of focus on Gaza and not much support for Israel.

My feed on X by contrast is properly right wing. And also low status.

AIBU to think The Times is left wing?

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?

The leftiest lefties imaginable are often from extremely posh backgrounds!

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.

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

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 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"

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.

They aren’t usually Tory MPs though…

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.

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.

Unless they’re Rory Stewart! An ex-MP anyway.

And coincidentally he’s just been interviewed by Hugo Rifkind.

Also not left wing, never mind ‘very left wing’. They just look it from your very right wing perspective.
Stewart is still very much a One Nation Tory.

Also the Times is very gender critical, which tends to be associated more with right than left albeit perhaps it should not be politicised like that.

Andrew Neil is my favourite radio reporter.

William Hague is a massive leftie, pro mass immigration and wrote an article just before the election which was strongly against Trump. He’s moved to the left in recent years.

Yes it’s good on those issues and it’s picked up many of the writers who were forced out of The Guardian.

Surely someone who dreamed of a Kamala victory can be described as left-wing?

The times has always carried a range of columnists. I would say the columns pitch mostly right these days - there's only Hugo rifkind and tom peck that are centre left?

As for the editorials, they're very right. The one after the budget didn't bear much relationship to reality.

That's a good point, although I haven't perceived the shift in the way some apparently have

@Ginmonkeyagain

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

For a lot of people these days these things are seen as interchangeable. If you’re not hard right, Brexit supporting, Trump supporting, anti immigration a lot of people will perceive you as a “wokey” or a member of the metropolitan elite. It’s a sign of how far to the right the political centre of gravity has shifted.

I consider myself pretty much straight down the middle politically, very slightly left shading but a million miles from the Corbyn wing of Labour. But my colleagues all consider me to be “hard left” because I have voted Labour and I don’t consider the small boats problem and trans wars to be the most pressing issues of the day.

See also the rhetoric around the word “progressive”: it used to mean a person with socially liberal views. It’s now morphed into an insult for anyone who hasn’t been captured by the Farage flank.

Actually I'm wondering if maybe what OP is doing is comparing with the Telegraph - which has lurched so far to the right it's become irrelevant (as the guardian once used to be)

"Surely someone who dreamed of a Kamala victory can be described as left-wing?"

Why?

That's a genuine question. Her politics are fairly one nation Tory, if you're comparing with the UK

Like all the members of Trump’s last cabinet who endorsed her you mean? No. That doesn’t make you left wing. It makes you able to see that Trump isn’t suitable for public office whatever his political persuasion.

Again, Hague isn’t a ‘massive leftie’. He’s a classic One Nation Tory. It’s your massive rightie perspective that makes you think so.

I read a spectrum of papers (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, and occasionally the FT). All have elements of good quality and poorly-researched journalism, all will originate key stories that show the power of journalism to shine a light in dark places, and all have certain biases.

It’s worth understanding all these biases and seeing how journalism both records (captures the Zeitgeist) and engineers the news (whips up public feeling, for good - exposing abuse and malpractice - and ill, eg Brexit).

If you read a spectrum of papers you’ll get a better understanding of a story, not only from the POV of completeness (one slant vs another) but also piece together more of what might be allusive (what they can’t tell you because of legislation or the need to protect sources - it really allows you to read between the lines, quite literally).

You’re much better informed doing this and I’d recommend also regularly reading the foreign press for a wider picture on both world and domestic events, especially as they’re more inclined to write in-depth long-form articles, a particular strength of the FT. I regard the NY Times highly, and if you speak French or German, as I do both languages, read the papers in those or any other language of your choice/heritage. I’ve learned a great deal about current events from not having an Anglocentric bias.

Rifkind is centre right.