6 ms·

>What exactly is being pushed on the American people?' what about that time the NYT pushed the iraq war or that time they pushed hillary clinton or that time

>What exactly is being pushed on the American people?' what about that time the NYT pushed the iraq war or that time they pushed hillary clinton or that time they pushed (insert whatever their paid PR "article" of the second is pushing for)

woodruffw 10y ago
If I remember correctly, the NYT published a written apology for their role in popularizing the invasion of Iraq. Newspapers make mistakes, recognize them, and apologize publicly. That's journalistic ethics. They were also forwards about their editorial support for HRC, having declared her their candidate well before she became the presumptive DNC nominee. You might not like the fact that pro-HRC opinion pieces made their way to the top, but there's no ethical dilemma there either.
- mythrwy 10y ago
  There's not an ethical dilemma in pushing a candidate but an issue of trust. Lots of people don't trust Hillary. So when a publication goes out it's way to pump her up and writes biased hit pieces on the opposition are people who mistrust Hillary going to trust the publication? The point is, you can't argue why people should trust you rather than the opposition. You have to provide reasons for them to do so. It would be like building an app that wasn't getting positive reception and then trying to argue or shame people into liking it rather than giving people what they want. It plain doesn't work. People want to know what is going on. Tell them to the best of your ability. Don't couch it in spin, don't support sides, don't appear biased. That is how you establish a reputation of trust. It's not a matter of what is legal or ethical in this case at all.
  - birken 10y ago
    Links to the biased hit pieces please?
    - honkhonkpants 10y ago
      There aren't any. The Times bent over backwards to stab Clinton in the back at every opportunity, to avoid accusations of bias.
  - woodruffw 10y ago
    I'm sorry, but what hit pieces? The NYT's coverage of Trump hasn't been favorable, but it would be difficult to characterize their exclusives on him as hits. Even their most negative coverage (the $916 million story comes to mind) was, at its core, factual. You could argue that it's indicative of bias for the NYT to break such a story at all, but it's in the public interest to know the financial solvency of their leaders. At the risk of conflating news and opinion, there was no shortage of opinion pieces calling on HRC to release her speeches - also in the public interest. It's difficult to ask the NYT to "establish a reputation of trust" when it already has one, deserved or not. Such a request, to the editors and ethicists of any media outlet, is just a nice way to ask for more favorable (or perhaps less damning) coverage of your candidate of choice.
    - colllectorof 10y ago
      False dichotomy. Just because an article has some facts buried in it does not mean it's not a hit piece. A hit piece is simply something crafted to create a strong negative impression of a person. With that in mind, let's go to the NYT front page: Donald Trump’s Swamp Gets Murkier A disturbing number of lobbyists and special interest players are joining the transition team. The interaction does not appear to violate federal laws or ethics rules, three lawyers said, but it did create the appearance that Mr. Trump and his partners are using his status as a way to profit. Cabinet Selection Turns Into Spectacle That’s Made for TV Do we now live in some kind of alternate reality where stuff like this is considered normal, unbiased journalism?
      - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
        Well, "he started it" by not releasing tax returns, not relinquishing his control of his businesses nor disclosing his international business deals. Its fair game, then, to interpret subsequent actions as part of a pattern.
      - woodruffw 10y ago
        I just visited the NYT front page. "Donald Trump’s Swamp Gets Murkier" is an opinion piece. "Cabinet Selection Turns Into Spectacle That’s Made for TV" is a silly title and a cheap shot, but cabinet pageantry is nothing new. The article itself has a message in the form of facts focused on (e.g., the fact that all of Trump's picks seem to be old white men), but doesn't seem to express an opinion in the way that the editorial board's piece does. Does it have a bias? Yes. Is it abnormal, or even unusually biased? No.
  - mythrwy 10y ago
    The irony of attempting to "argue" with my point is incredibly hilarious. I would suggest suspending ideological preference for a moment and re-reading my post. It's about trust and human nature. Not nitpicking details to try to "prove" you are right. You will never win what you are trying to win like this. Ever. But since you asked here is a sample: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-w... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-w... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html?ribbon-ad-idx=2&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donal... (the implication being of course that Trump is tied to racism). Now lets oppose the outrage above with the treatment of Hillary's behavior. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/what-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-private-email-server.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/wh... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto... Look guys... it's not an ideological thing here. But you can't behave like this and have people who support a different ideology take you seriously. That's a simple fact. When this happens people will get their information from elsewhere. Last I have to say about this. Think about it or not. But I don't intend to argue.
    - woodruffw 10y ago
      Debate isn't ironic, and it's not productive to laugh at people who want to reason with you. I'm not sure what you mean by "trust and human nature". These seem to be self-evident (read: mostly rhetorical), and not directly in conflict with what I've said. I'm also not sure what details I've nitpicked. I pointed out a case that I thought you might consider a hit piece, and explained why dulling it down to just that has a chilling effect on journalism as a whole and operates against the public interest. The articles you linked portray Trump in a negative light. Is the conclusion supposed to be that HRC must be portrayed in an equally negative light? It's odd to have to say this, seeing how I'm not a particular fan of hers, but the media cannot treat circumstances as equals when they are definitively not equal. There is no modern analog to what either candidate has in their closets, but to equivocate between them via this fact alone is, bluntly, bewildering. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and I hope you revisit this conversation (or perhaps the thoughts behind it) at a later point without immediately defaulting to a defense against "ideology".
- cryoshon 10y ago
  >the NYT published a written apology for their role in popularizing the invasion of Iraq i also remember how it was widely thought to be a bad idea at the time by millions of people, yet, somehow they managed to pick the wrong position.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    > somehow they managed to pick the wrong position. ... along with millions of other people.

woodruffw 10y ago

If I remember correctly, the NYT published a written apology for their role in popularizing the invasion of Iraq. Newspapers make mistakes, recognize them, and apologize publicly. That's journalistic ethics. They were also forwards about their editorial support for HRC, having declared her their candidate well before she became the presumptive DNC nominee. You might not like the fact that pro-HRC opinion pieces made their way to the top, but there's no ethical dilemma there either.

mythrwy 10y ago
There's not an ethical dilemma in pushing a candidate but an issue of trust. Lots of people don't trust Hillary. So when a publication goes out it's way to pump her up and writes biased hit pieces on the opposition are people who mistrust Hillary going to trust the publication? The point is, you can't argue why people should trust you rather than the opposition. You have to provide reasons for them to do so. It would be like building an app that wasn't getting positive reception and then trying to argue or shame people into liking it rather than giving people what they want. It plain doesn't work. People want to know what is going on. Tell them to the best of your ability. Don't couch it in spin, don't support sides, don't appear biased. That is how you establish a reputation of trust. It's not a matter of what is legal or ethical in this case at all.
- birken 10y ago
  Links to the biased hit pieces please?
  - honkhonkpants 10y ago
    There aren't any. The Times bent over backwards to stab Clinton in the back at every opportunity, to avoid accusations of bias.
- woodruffw 10y ago
  I'm sorry, but what hit pieces? The NYT's coverage of Trump hasn't been favorable, but it would be difficult to characterize their exclusives on him as hits. Even their most negative coverage (the $916 million story comes to mind) was, at its core, factual. You could argue that it's indicative of bias for the NYT to break such a story at all, but it's in the public interest to know the financial solvency of their leaders. At the risk of conflating news and opinion, there was no shortage of opinion pieces calling on HRC to release her speeches - also in the public interest. It's difficult to ask the NYT to "establish a reputation of trust" when it already has one, deserved or not. Such a request, to the editors and ethicists of any media outlet, is just a nice way to ask for more favorable (or perhaps less damning) coverage of your candidate of choice.
  - colllectorof 10y ago
    False dichotomy. Just because an article has some facts buried in it does not mean it's not a hit piece. A hit piece is simply something crafted to create a strong negative impression of a person. With that in mind, let's go to the NYT front page: Donald Trump’s Swamp Gets Murkier A disturbing number of lobbyists and special interest players are joining the transition team. The interaction does not appear to violate federal laws or ethics rules, three lawyers said, but it did create the appearance that Mr. Trump and his partners are using his status as a way to profit. Cabinet Selection Turns Into Spectacle That’s Made for TV Do we now live in some kind of alternate reality where stuff like this is considered normal, unbiased journalism?
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      Well, "he started it" by not releasing tax returns, not relinquishing his control of his businesses nor disclosing his international business deals. Its fair game, then, to interpret subsequent actions as part of a pattern.
    - woodruffw 10y ago
      I just visited the NYT front page. "Donald Trump’s Swamp Gets Murkier" is an opinion piece. "Cabinet Selection Turns Into Spectacle That’s Made for TV" is a silly title and a cheap shot, but cabinet pageantry is nothing new. The article itself has a message in the form of facts focused on (e.g., the fact that all of Trump's picks seem to be old white men), but doesn't seem to express an opinion in the way that the editorial board's piece does. Does it have a bias? Yes. Is it abnormal, or even unusually biased? No.
- mythrwy 10y ago
  The irony of attempting to "argue" with my point is incredibly hilarious. I would suggest suspending ideological preference for a moment and re-reading my post. It's about trust and human nature. Not nitpicking details to try to "prove" you are right. You will never win what you are trying to win like this. Ever. But since you asked here is a sample: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-w... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-w... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donald-trump.html?ribbon-ad-idx=2&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/alt-right-salutes-donal... (the implication being of course that Trump is tied to racism). Now lets oppose the outrage above with the treatment of Hillary's behavior. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/what-we-know-about-hillary-clintons-private-email-server.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/27/us/politics/wh... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/hillary-clinto... Look guys... it's not an ideological thing here. But you can't behave like this and have people who support a different ideology take you seriously. That's a simple fact. When this happens people will get their information from elsewhere. Last I have to say about this. Think about it or not. But I don't intend to argue.
  - woodruffw 10y ago
    Debate isn't ironic, and it's not productive to laugh at people who want to reason with you. I'm not sure what you mean by "trust and human nature". These seem to be self-evident (read: mostly rhetorical), and not directly in conflict with what I've said. I'm also not sure what details I've nitpicked. I pointed out a case that I thought you might consider a hit piece, and explained why dulling it down to just that has a chilling effect on journalism as a whole and operates against the public interest. The articles you linked portray Trump in a negative light. Is the conclusion supposed to be that HRC must be portrayed in an equally negative light? It's odd to have to say this, seeing how I'm not a particular fan of hers, but the media cannot treat circumstances as equals when they are definitively not equal. There is no modern analog to what either candidate has in their closets, but to equivocate between them via this fact alone is, bluntly, bewildering. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, and I hope you revisit this conversation (or perhaps the thoughts behind it) at a later point without immediately defaulting to a defense against "ideology".
cryoshon 10y ago
>the NYT published a written apology for their role in popularizing the invasion of Iraq i also remember how it was widely thought to be a bad idea at the time by millions of people, yet, somehow they managed to pick the wrong position.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  > somehow they managed to pick the wrong position. ... along with millions of other people.