It’s been obvious from the beginning that there are built-in biases to the way news is reported by certain “authorities.” And it’s been obvious for at least a half-dozen years that AI was going to accelerate this political/social schism that’s been taking place all over the civilized world. 
 
It was predictable. Twenty years ago, when tech pioneers were first experimenting with AI, there was no general concern about media bias. Thus, the men and women that programmed the algorithms that informed the logic of the three major AI products that exist today had no reason to be concerned about coding in their own prejudices when they were instructing AI how to “think reasonably.”
 
I’m hardly the first person to say this, but if you read the news and views of the NYT every day (which I’ve recently started to do) and compared them to coverage in, say, The Daily Wire (or similar conservative media outlets), you would not believe that you were reading accounts of the same topics.
 
The war against Iran is a good example. For the last week, the NYT has been featuring stories about how Iran’s resolve in defending itself against Israel and the US has been getting stronger and Trump has realized that his opponents were right and we are essentially losing the war.
 
Examples from the NYT:
* “Iran Signals Resolve as Strikes Fail to Deter Regional Ambitions”
* “Early Gains Fade as US and Israel Confront Limits of Military Pressure”
* “Trump Faces Backlash as Conflict with Iran Deepens”
* “Allies Question Strategy as War Risks Spiral Beyond Control”
* “Civilian Toll and Regional Fallout Raise Doubts About Campaign”
* “Iran Adapts Quickly, Blunting Impact of Initial Bombing Campaign”
 
Examples from The Daily Wire: 
* “US-Israel Strikes Cripple Iranian Capabilities, Officials Say”
* “Iran Scrambles as Precision Attacks Disrupt Military Infrastructure”
* “Media Downplays Major Strategic Wins Against Tehran”
* “Trump Stands Firm as Critics Misread Battlefield Reality”
* “Iranian Retaliation Signals Weakness, Not Strength”
* “Critics Proven Wrong as Strategy Gains Ground”
 
If you are an exclusive reader of one or the other, you will likely feel that your favored source is telling the truth and the other is not even slanting the truth – they are outright lying!
 
The problem is that each approach has a basis in facts, but each one is spinning it differently. This is accomplished, with the help of AI, by inputting the conclusion rather than the challenge – i.e., “Take these facts from the NYT/Daily Wire and spin them for/against Donald Trump and the MAGA party.”
 
Feed that to AI, tell it to do the research for you, and it’ll spit out answers in a matter of seconds. Then, if you compare the headlines to the stories, you’ll see how the facts are manipulated. 
 
One way it’s done is by placing the same events on different time horizons. For example:
* The NYT emphasizes long-term instability and unintended consequences.
* The Daily Wire emphasizes short-term tactical gains.
 
Another tactic. The same facts carry different emotional weight:
* The NYT’s tone – caution, doubt, erosion
* The Daily Wire’s tone – confidence, momentum, validation
 
A third tactic. The same conflict suggests different outcomes:
* The NYT – The strategy may be failing.
* The Daily Wire – The strategy is working.
 
And then there is the way each group designs the narrative pattern. For example, in NYT coverage:
* Early military successes are portrayed as temporary or overstated.
* Iran is depicted as resilient, adaptive, and strategically patient.
* Emphasis is placed on escalation risks, civilian costs, and geopolitical instability.
* Internal US political divisions are highlighted, particularly regarding Trump.
 
And with conservative media like The Daily Wire, you will see that: 
*Military effectiveness and tactical success are emphasized.
* Iran is portrayed as weakened, reactive, or under pressure.
* Media skepticism is framed as bias or defeatism.
* US leadership – especially Trump – is presented as decisive and effective.
 
With AI Plugged into Our Brains, Is the Divide Here to Stay?
 
I was once confident that the divide would eventually disappear, and that the friends and family members who had been so divided for so many years would come back together because it was the sensible thing to do.
 
But now I’m thinking it will not disappear. It may be as deep as the divide that occurred in the US during the Civil War, and it could be deeper, stronger, and longer, thanks to the daily prompts coming from algorithm-based views.
 
Just (Some of) the Facts:

The Iran War with Left vs. Right Framing 

1. The war began with a large US–Israel strike (≈900 initial targets).
* Left-leaning framing: A massive preemptive escalation that risks regional war and may violate international norms.
* Right-leaning framing: A necessary, decisive strike to neutralize imminent threats and restore deterrence.

2. Iran’s Supreme Leader was killed early in the conflict.
* Left: A destabilizing assassination that risks chaos, retaliation, and long-term instability.
* Right: A strategic decapitation strike removing a central architect of anti-Western aggression.

3. Iran’s regime has not collapsed.
*Left: Proof that military intervention rarely produces regime change and may strengthen hardliners.
* Right: Evidence that deeper pressure is needed. Early expectations of collapse were unrealistic.

4. Iran has retaliated across the region.
* Left: Predictable blowback from escalation. Widening war was foreseeable.
* Right: Confirmation of Iran’s aggressive posture and justification for confronting it directly.

5. Proxy groups (Hezbollah, Houthis) have joined the conflict.
* Left: The war is expanding dangerously into a broader regional conflict.
* Right: Demonstrates Iran’s longstanding proxy network that needed to be confronted.

6. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have affected global oil supply.
* Left: The war is harming global economic stability and punishing civilians worldwide.
* Right: Iran is weaponizing global energy routes, underscoring the need to weaken its control.

7. Oil prices have risen sharply (≈50% increase).
* Left: Economic fallout shows the cost of military adventurism.
* Right: Short-term cost for long-term security. Instability reflects Iran’s actions, not US policy alone.

8. US forces have suffered casualties (13+ dead, hundreds wounded).
* Left: American lives are being lost in another avoidable Middle Eastern conflict.
* Right: Sacrifices are the cost of confronting hostile regimes and protecting national interests.

9. Civilian casualties in Iran exceed 1,000.
* Left: Humanitarian crisis. Civilian harm undermines moral legitimacy of the campaign.
* Right: Civilian deaths are tragic but often the result of Iran embedding military assets in populated areas.

10. Iranian missile attacks have killed civilians in Israel.
* Left: Escalation is endangering civilians on all sides. Cycle of violence continues.
* Right: Proof of Iran’s willingness to target civilians and justification for continued military response.

11. Both sides claim military success.
* Left: Conflicting narratives show the fog of war and potential overstatement by officials.
* Right: Tangible degradation of Iran’s capabilities indicates real progress despite ongoing threats.

12. Iran has shifted to asymmetric warfare (proxies, cyberattacks).
* Left: Military escalation has pushed Iran into harder-to-control forms of conflict.
* Right: This has always been Iran’s strategy. Current actions are exposing and degrading it.

13. Information warfare and propaganda are widespread.
* Left: Disinformation complicates public understanding and can justify continued escalation.
* Right: Iran is actively manipulating global opinion. Western media may unintentionally amplify it.

14. Diplomatic efforts are ongoing but fragmented.
* Left: Diplomacy should have been prioritized earlier to avoid war.
* Right: Diplomacy is only effective when backed by military strength and leverage.

15. The US faces no clear “good” strategic option.
* Left: This reflects a policy failure and the dangers of entering complex conflicts.
* Right: Hard choices are inevitable in geopolitics. Inaction would have been worse.

What’s Going On? 

One could argue that nothing much is going on here, that there has been a difference in how the news is reported by left-leaning and right-leaning media since Ben Franklin’s era. But I don’t see it that way. I think the NYT has it mostly wrong, and I’m betting that the facts that come out over the next several months will prove me right.

We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, I thought you might want to read the book that I review below, in which the author suggests that the NYT’s current slant is nothing new. Some of the facts he presents may shock and even surprise you, as they did me.

Published: May 2021
Pages: 283

The Gray Lady Winked by Ashley Rindsberg was a Mules book of the month. Like so many of the Mules’ selections, this is one I would not have otherwise read, but was glad I did.

Summary: All news channels make mistakes, including The New York Times. But in The Gray Lady Winked, Rindsberg argues that it is not merely occasionally wrong. It is constantly wrong, and has been on the “wrong side” of major political events for almost 100 years. Furthermore, he argues, the paper has gotten it wrong because it is systematically influenced by assumptions, ideology, and access to power.

What I Liked About It: It confirmed my disappointment in the paper since I became a responsible adult and discovered the value of critical thinking.

What Surprised and Disappointed Me: I had convinced myself that my original admiration for and trust in the NYT was well-founded, and that the Leftist, pro-Communist, and antisemitic perspective it has had for the last 10 or 15 years was a recent phenomenon. But Rindsberg makes a very compelling argument that it has had that perspective since it was founded.

Here are 10 prominent examples:

1. Soviet Union Famine (1930s – Ukraine / Holodomor)
NYT correspondent Walter Duranty downplayed or denied mass starvation – famously writing that “there is no actual starvation” – even though millions were dying, helping obscure one of the 20th century’s worst atrocities.

2. Hitler and Nazi Germany (1930s)
Early NYT coverage minimized Nazi persecution of Jews, often burying reports of anti-Jewish violence or softening their tone, understating the urgency and scale of the threat.

3. Holocaust Coverage Placement (1940s)
The NYT frequently placed Holocaust reports away from the front page and folded them into general war coverage, failing to convey the scale and singular nature of the genocide as it unfolded.

4. Stalin Show Trials (1936–1938)
NYT reporting treated forced confessions as credible and showed little skepticism toward Soviet claims, lending legitimacy to what were later exposed as propaganda-driven trials.

5. Castro’s Cuba (1950s)
The NYT portrayed Fidel Castro as a reformer rather than a future authoritarian, contributing to a misleadingly favorable image before he consolidated power.

6. Vietnam War – Tet Offensive (1968)
NYT coverage emphasized US vulnerability and psychological defeat, shaping the perception that the war was being lost despite heavy losses by North Vietnam.

7. Soviet Downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (1983)
The NYT initially gave greater weight to Soviet explanations and treated US claims with skepticism, though later evidence showed the shootdown was deliberate.

8. Iraq War – Weapons of Mass Destruction (2002–2003)
NYT reporting – especially by Judith Miller – supported claims about Iraqi WMDs, helping build the public case for war on intelligence later discredited and internally criticized.

9. 9/11 and Pre-Attack Signals
The paper underemphasized warning signs and the rise of extremist networks prior to 9/11, reflecting institutional blind spots that affected coverage priorities.

10. Trump–Russia Collusion Narrative (2016–2019)
The NYT devoted extensive coverage to alleged coordination between Donald Trump and Russia, often conveying strong confidence, even though the Mueller investigation did not establish a criminal conspiracy.