5 ms·

Realistically speaking, when would you say the NYT last controlled the political narrative? I would argue that it's not a recent loss of control, so implying th

by M_Grey 10y ago

Realistically speaking, when would you say the NYT last controlled the political narrative? I would argue that it's not a recent loss of control, so implying that this is a case of sour grapes strikes me as unlikely to come close to the truth. Besides, Facebook is an appalling, festering wound. It's not just politics, but of course a lot of money and talk floats around politics and a lot of noise as a result. Facebook is a case of a minority using the service to keep in touch with some people, and a vast majority engaged in a bizarre and self-destructive series of narcissistic behaviors. The evidence keeps mounting that using Facebook and unhappiness are strongly correlated, and I keep seeing people who aren't remotely surprised by that.

jdoliner 10y ago
It can be hard to attribute control, if 100 news organizations all push a narrative and that narrative sticks maybe all 100 of them had some control, maybe one had control and the other 99 were just mindlessly parroting what they said. The last time the NYT's narrative matched up with the generally accepted version of the truth? Probably as recently as the 2012 election, possibly even more recently. Was that control? Certainly looks like it to me but you may disagree and as I said, control is tough to prove. I don't think the parent comment is unlikely to come close to the truth though. It seems to come from pretty reasonable observations.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  That's just not even close to being true, for at least half of the country. You're not controlling anything if an order of magnitude more people listen to Rush Limbaugh than read your paper. For a huge section of society, the NYT has been seen as basically untrustworthy or a "liberal shill" since Reagan to be realistic, and Clinton to be charitable.
  - jdoliner 10y ago
    There's no way an order of magnitude more people listen to Rush Limbaugh than read NYT. There might be more listeners than subscribers. But that's hardly an apples to apples comparison, one is free, the other costs money. Many many more people read NYT articles for free without subscribing.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Well, the NYT has a weekly circulation of about half a million, and Limbaugh gets a weekly audience of 20 million. As to who clicks through a google link to their site? I don't know. I don't think that's anything like "controlling the political narrative" though, and I don't think having a site that people sometimes read is the same as twenty million people listening to you for hours.
      - 65743892 10y ago
        The New York Times has at the very least 30% more unique monthly consumers than Limbaugh, and realistically probably 300-400% more given Limbaugh's weekly listener overlap. * nytimes.com had 72.9 million users and 649.2 million page views in January 2016 [1] * "Limbaugh still draws some 13 million listeners a week (though that’s down from his 1990s peak of more than 20 million)", per an article from May 2016 [2] 1. http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-pulls-back-ahead-washington-post/302720/ http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-pulls-back-ahead-w... 2. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/is-rush-limbaugh-in-trouble-talk-radio-213914 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/is-rush-limba...
        M_Grey 10y ago
        Of course that averages out to 9 page clicks per user, and Alexa estimates that more than 25% of those clicks are Google referrals. Not exactly the same as millions of people listening to your every word. Then there's drumdance's excellent point.
        65743892 10y ago
        Indeed, 13-20 million people listening to a voice in the background while driving to lunch is not exactly the same as 73 million people actively mentally engaged while reading an article. Even notwithstanding his comparatively miniscule and unengaged audience, Limbaugh's agenda-setting power pales in comparison with The New York Times. The combined audience of The New York Times' editorially-aligned media ecosystem utterly dwarfs that of Limbaugh. Limbaugh influences Hannity, Beck, Levin, and other conservative talk radio; and, to an extent, cable news like Fox and web media like Breitbart. The New York Times influences a vastly larger media syndicate: the most listened-to radio organization, NPR; print and web media like The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Atlantic; cable and network news like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC. And while there are of course other areas of coverage, politics garners the largest share and most prominent placement. The New York Times' highly syndicated political message not only covers the general population, but also percolates through universities, where engagement with it deepens as it intertwines with the academic curriculum. The vast reach and depth of the latter media apparatus means that The New York Times plays a major role -- and quite likely constitutes the single most influential voice -- in shaping the dominant narrative in American political life.
- golergka 10y ago
  > generally accepted version of the truth Does it exist?
Shivetya 10y ago
Realistically, before talk radio and before the internet. both diversified the point of view and the later gave way to an incredible number of sources to include the view from elsewhere in the world. the problem I think is that many inside the beltway don't understand this or want to. look at all the complaints against non traditional media sources being shown preference in the WH. Yes some of it is politically oriented but their real fear is that it cements in the minds of many they the press doesn't is not just certain big papers and television sources, it is anyone who can create an audience and deliver the story. that is beneficial to all. the more voices the better and less likely the message will be controlled, manipulated, or simply one sided.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  >the more voices the better Remember that the next time you try to hear your own voice in a stadium. It's an old trick to say, "I want to hear what you all have to say... at once." Then smile as people drown each other out...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
NoGravitas 10y ago
In 2003, the NYT was crucial in generating public support for the Iraq War. They uncritically reported literal fake news provided to them by the Bush administration, and people who disbelieved them were regarded as cranks. So, depends on what you consider recent.

by M_Grey 10y ago

jdoliner 10y ago

It can be hard to attribute control, if 100 news organizations all push a narrative and that narrative sticks maybe all 100 of them had some control, maybe one had control and the other 99 were just mindlessly parroting what they said. The last time the NYT's narrative matched up with the generally accepted version of the truth? Probably as recently as the 2012 election, possibly even more recently. Was that control? Certainly looks like it to me but you may disagree and as I said, control is tough to prove. I don't think the parent comment is unlikely to come close to the truth though. It seems to come from pretty reasonable observations.

M_Grey 10y ago
That's just not even close to being true, for at least half of the country. You're not controlling anything if an order of magnitude more people listen to Rush Limbaugh than read your paper. For a huge section of society, the NYT has been seen as basically untrustworthy or a "liberal shill" since Reagan to be realistic, and Clinton to be charitable.
- jdoliner 10y ago
  There's no way an order of magnitude more people listen to Rush Limbaugh than read NYT. There might be more listeners than subscribers. But that's hardly an apples to apples comparison, one is free, the other costs money. Many many more people read NYT articles for free without subscribing.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Well, the NYT has a weekly circulation of about half a million, and Limbaugh gets a weekly audience of 20 million. As to who clicks through a google link to their site? I don't know. I don't think that's anything like "controlling the political narrative" though, and I don't think having a site that people sometimes read is the same as twenty million people listening to you for hours.
    - 65743892 10y ago
      The New York Times has at the very least 30% more unique monthly consumers than Limbaugh, and realistically probably 300-400% more given Limbaugh's weekly listener overlap. * nytimes.com had 72.9 million users and 649.2 million page views in January 2016 [1] * "Limbaugh still draws some 13 million listeners a week (though that’s down from his 1990s peak of more than 20 million)", per an article from May 2016 [2] 1. http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-pulls-back-ahead-washington-post/302720/ http://adage.com/article/media/york-times-pulls-back-ahead-w... 2. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/is-rush-limbaugh-in-trouble-talk-radio-213914 http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/is-rush-limba...
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        Of course that averages out to 9 page clicks per user, and Alexa estimates that more than 25% of those clicks are Google referrals. Not exactly the same as millions of people listening to your every word. Then there's drumdance's excellent point.
        65743892 10y ago
        Indeed, 13-20 million people listening to a voice in the background while driving to lunch is not exactly the same as 73 million people actively mentally engaged while reading an article. Even notwithstanding his comparatively miniscule and unengaged audience, Limbaugh's agenda-setting power pales in comparison with The New York Times. The combined audience of The New York Times' editorially-aligned media ecosystem utterly dwarfs that of Limbaugh. Limbaugh influences Hannity, Beck, Levin, and other conservative talk radio; and, to an extent, cable news like Fox and web media like Breitbart. The New York Times influences a vastly larger media syndicate: the most listened-to radio organization, NPR; print and web media like The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and The Atlantic; cable and network news like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NBC. And while there are of course other areas of coverage, politics garners the largest share and most prominent placement. The New York Times' highly syndicated political message not only covers the general population, but also percolates through universities, where engagement with it deepens as it intertwines with the academic curriculum. The vast reach and depth of the latter media apparatus means that The New York Times plays a major role -- and quite likely constitutes the single most influential voice -- in shaping the dominant narrative in American political life.
golergka 10y ago
> generally accepted version of the truth Does it exist?

Shivetya 10y ago

Realistically, before talk radio and before the internet. both diversified the point of view and the later gave way to an incredible number of sources to include the view from elsewhere in the world. the problem I think is that many inside the beltway don't understand this or want to. look at all the complaints against non traditional media sources being shown preference in the WH. Yes some of it is politically oriented but their real fear is that it cements in the minds of many they the press doesn't is not just certain big papers and television sources, it is anyone who can create an audience and deliver the story. that is beneficial to all. the more voices the better and less likely the message will be controlled, manipulated, or simply one sided.

M_Grey 10y ago
>the more voices the better Remember that the next time you try to hear your own voice in a stadium. It's an old trick to say, "I want to hear what you all have to say... at once." Then smile as people drown each other out...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

NoGravitas 10y ago

In 2003, the NYT was crucial in generating public support for the Iraq War. They uncritically reported literal fake news provided to them by the Bush administration, and people who disbelieved them were regarded as cranks. So, depends on what you consider recent.