4 ms·

Thanks for providing the link. I didn't read every word on the page, but my thoughts: 1) I see nothing substantive, only nit-picking over wording. In particula

Thanks for providing the link. I didn't read every word on the page, but my thoughts: 1) I see nothing substantive, only nit-picking over wording. In particular, the NR critic often just comes up with a different way of writing the same thing, something anyone can do with any piece of writing. Much is wording that could go either way, and some depends on what the reporter actually saw. For example, maybe the reporter can't identify who threw the rocks and so can't say anything about them. Maybe the reporter saw a scuffle and not a riot; the NR critic doesn't offer evidence that the statement is in error. In general, it's an old propaganda technique: Just keep up a flood of criticism and people will think that some of it - just a little! - must be true. It's not. Professionals in the field of political maniuplation really do pull this stunt on a regular basis. Look how they demonize every Democratic leader, for example (Bill Clinton, Hillary, Obama). (Left-wingers do the same, but they have far less influence than platforms like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, and Rush - all the most popular in their industries.) 2) The National Review has an avowed agenda of pro-conservative, anti-everything else commentary. This isn't the best source; they are going to find a way criticize the NY Times no matter what, true or not. Perhaps something from a study of journalism would be better (not that I realistically expect you to have that at your fingertips). 3) Reading the Israeli papers Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, I find that if the NY Times has any bias on any issue, it's not covering the bad things done by Israelis. The Israeli papers paint a much harsher picture of their own country. But I'm not sure I can make sense of it; of course the New York Times is not going to cover Israel in the same details as Israeli papers, so perhaps that explains the difference.

ikeboy 11y ago
I'd like to quote from http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how...: There are banal explanations for problems with coverage—reporters are in a hurry, editors are overloaded and distracted. These are realities, and can explain small errors and mishaps like ill-conceived headlines, which is why such details don’t typically strike me as important or worth much analysis. Some say inflations and omissions are the inevitable results of an honest attempt to cover events in a challenging and occasionally dangerous reporting environment, which is what I initially believed myself. A few years on the job changed my mind. Such excuses can’t explain why the same inflations and omissions recur again and again, why they are common to so many news outlets, and why the simple “Israel story” of the international media is so foreign to people aware of the historical and regional context of events in this place. The explanation lies elsewhere. It's also pretty well documented that far more journalists are Democrats than Republicans, if that makes a difference.
- hackuser 11y ago
  Hey, thanks for the link. That looks very intersting and I'll read it (but it's probably too long for right this moment). What does it have to do with the New York Times though? I searched the article for references to them, and there is only one that isn't relevant to what we are talking about. > It's also pretty well documented that far more journalists are Democrats than Republicans And I assume that applies to NY Times reporters too. I agree it's a concern, but I don't think it necessarily affects people doing their jobs as professional journalists and we still need some evidence of it. Also, as I mentioned, the leading platforms in cable news, business news, and talk radio are heavily Republican; there's hardly a lack of balance. Thanks again for the link.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    What does it have to do with the New York Times though? I searched the article for references to them, and there is only one that isn't relevant to what we are talking about. My point is that even these "minor" nitpicks add up, and if they consistently point a particular way, that means something. The original NYTimes article referenced clearly played down one side, you don't get such awkward phrasing by accident. I agree it's a concern, but I don't think it necessarily affects people doing their jobs as professional journalists and we still need some evidence of it. See http://journalism.indiana.edu/general-news/news/press-release-survey-finds-u-s-journalists-less-satisfied-have-less-autonomy/ http://journalism.indiana.edu/general-news/news/press-releas... * Also, as I mentioned, the leading platforms in cable news, business news, and talk radio are heavily Republican; there's hardly a lack of balance.* The example you gave of business news is the WSJ, which http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/M... finds to be more liberal than the NYTimes in news articles.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > My point is that even these "minor" nitpicks add up ... The original NYTimes article referenced clearly played down one side I disagree on both counts, but I think I'm about to repeat myself ... > the WSJ, which http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/M.. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/M.... finds to be more liberal than the NYTimes in news articles. Interesting, but that study is from before the News Corp (i.e., Rupert Murdoch, Fox News proprieter) bought it.

ikeboy 11y ago

I'd like to quote from http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how...: There are banal explanations for problems with coverage—reporters are in a hurry, editors are overloaded and distracted. These are realities, and can explain small errors and mishaps like ill-conceived headlines, which is why such details don’t typically strike me as important or worth much analysis. Some say inflations and omissions are the inevitable results of an honest attempt to cover events in a challenging and occasionally dangerous reporting environment, which is what I initially believed myself. A few years on the job changed my mind. Such excuses can’t explain why the same inflations and omissions recur again and again, why they are common to so many news outlets, and why the simple “Israel story” of the international media is so foreign to people aware of the historical and regional context of events in this place. The explanation lies elsewhere. It's also pretty well documented that far more journalists are Democrats than Republicans, if that makes a difference.

hackuser 11y ago
Hey, thanks for the link. That looks very intersting and I'll read it (but it's probably too long for right this moment). What does it have to do with the New York Times though? I searched the article for references to them, and there is only one that isn't relevant to what we are talking about. > It's also pretty well documented that far more journalists are Democrats than Republicans And I assume that applies to NY Times reporters too. I agree it's a concern, but I don't think it necessarily affects people doing their jobs as professional journalists and we still need some evidence of it. Also, as I mentioned, the leading platforms in cable news, business news, and talk radio are heavily Republican; there's hardly a lack of balance. Thanks again for the link.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  What does it have to do with the New York Times though? I searched the article for references to them, and there is only one that isn't relevant to what we are talking about. My point is that even these "minor" nitpicks add up, and if they consistently point a particular way, that means something. The original NYTimes article referenced clearly played down one side, you don't get such awkward phrasing by accident. I agree it's a concern, but I don't think it necessarily affects people doing their jobs as professional journalists and we still need some evidence of it. See http://journalism.indiana.edu/general-news/news/press-release-survey-finds-u-s-journalists-less-satisfied-have-less-autonomy/ http://journalism.indiana.edu/general-news/news/press-releas... * Also, as I mentioned, the leading platforms in cable news, business news, and talk radio are heavily Republican; there's hardly a lack of balance.* The example you gave of business news is the WSJ, which http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/MediaBias.pdf http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/M... finds to be more liberal than the NYTimes in news articles.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > My point is that even these "minor" nitpicks add up ... The original NYTimes article referenced clearly played down one side I disagree on both counts, but I think I'm about to repeat myself ... > the WSJ, which http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/M.. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/M.... finds to be more liberal than the NYTimes in news articles. Interesting, but that study is from before the News Corp (i.e., Rupert Murdoch, Fox News proprieter) bought it.