5 ms·

The New York times? I don't think so. They're not pushing any crises, they're just reporting what's going on in the world. Maybe you're a bit biased.

gaius 9y ago
They are supported by ad revenue. They can't not be like this, they need the clicks. This is not about political left or political right, it's the new commercial reality. It will be like this until they go back to being like print - i.e. you pay for your daily copy and all the ads are fixed price up front.
- JohnStrange 9y ago
  They are reporting mostly negative news because "positive" news is not newsworthy, and it has always been like that since newspapers have been invented. Nothing has changed in that respect, and, frankly speaking, I'd be wary about people who want to hear more positive news just to feel a bit better about the world. As for TV channels, yes, they are all crap.
  - mercer 9y ago
    Your point seems unrelated to that of the OP. NYTimes might be reporting negative news for good reason (I agree), but it might still be a cause for increased anxiety and perhaps consumed more sparingly. Personally I strongly agree. A lot of news consumption serves little purpose, and might very well have all sorts of negative effects. My solution is to avoid most news sources most of the time, read some updates occasionally or, ideally, use sources that write longer articles (that have the added benefit of context and filtering). Here in Holland we have one paper that has this as their mission statement (De Correspondent). For other perspectives or updates on other areas I mostly rely on a few newsletters and 'bigger picture' articles from various sources. Also my feed reeder for skimming.
    - JohnStrange 9y ago
      My first point was that newspapers have not changed their reporting in any substantive ways over the past decades, so any perceived or measured increase of anxiety cannot have been directly caused by their reporting. Selectively picking news or overexposure to news sources could be part of the problem, though. Nytimes is not a major pusher of crisis. My second point was that the OP did not differentiate between newspapers and TV channels, but that their reporting is substantially different. I have no doubt that exposure to an abundance of 'news' TV channels such as Fox News or CNN, and their online services, can increase anxiety and maybe even distort people's views of the world. For example, the overall conditions for mankind is continuously improving in terms of standards of living, hygienic and medical standards, equality, absence of wars and major conflicts, etc., conditions have generally even improved in the worst regions of the world, but this is not commonly perceived that way. But the claim is that this effect is mostly due to TV, not due to newspapers and other news sources. Of course, I could be wrong about that, just wanted to clarify what I've meant. Finally, neither this nor any other statement I have made has anything to do with politics.
tutufan 9y ago
If you think the NYT is unbiased, you might do well to read a few alternative sources for a while to compare and contrast. Once you've been to other lands, it's easier to spot the oddities of one's usual locale. But more importantly, even if the NYT were entirely unbiased, that does not mean that it's good for your mental state to be reading it. Being exposed to a lot of problems that you cannot do anything about might not be a good thing.
- pas 9y ago
  Could you provide examples of NYT crisis-driven reporting? And alternatives please! People always recommend "alternatives", but don't really provide any :(
  - tutufan 9y ago
    Try breitbart and thenation as alternatives, for example. Sure, some of it's drivel, but after a while you'll realize that some of the NYT is drivel as well. And actually, if you just carefully compare NYT _headlines_ to their corresponding _articles_, you'll realize that the headlines really are pretty crappy. Certainly nowhere near the standards for headline writing we used to have in ninth grade journalism class. I really hope to see a resurgence of classical quality journalism. But I'm not optimistic.
    - pas 9y ago
      Breitbart doesn't seem like a source I'd use as they seem to lack journalistic integrity, they seems like raw data, a collection of things to look into - the usual selection to anger GOP voters, about how those damn Dem/libs are at it again. Headlines are crappy everywhere, agreed. But there is difference between bias and fake news. http://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/ http://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/ That said, I think there's always place for a (or many) counter-culture sites, but I expect a more rigorous intellectual foundation from them not a lesser one to be taken as proper alternative sources. Kuhn's paradigm view is helpful here, MSM is not perfect, but a lot better than fringe/crackpot explanations of the world, and sure, there is probably a better one, but that's not the dominant one yet, but it'll be found by better and more data, better analysis, better methodologies, not by less, and not by more anger. (Sure, reading alt-news might feel right, you might get the feeling of OMG WHY I HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD OF THIS! DAMN I'LL HAVE TO USE THIS to keep myself free from MSM bias!! But to get less biased the solution is to explore the topics at hand from more primary sources (like watch a few youtube videos about the topic, watch a lecture by an accepted scientist/scholar), not by perusing even more biased sources).
teamhappy 9y ago
> They're not pushing any crises Did you read the title?

gaius 9y ago

They are supported by ad revenue. They can't not be like this, they need the clicks. This is not about political left or political right, it's the new commercial reality. It will be like this until they go back to being like print - i.e. you pay for your daily copy and all the ads are fixed price up front.

JohnStrange 9y ago
They are reporting mostly negative news because "positive" news is not newsworthy, and it has always been like that since newspapers have been invented. Nothing has changed in that respect, and, frankly speaking, I'd be wary about people who want to hear more positive news just to feel a bit better about the world. As for TV channels, yes, they are all crap.
- mercer 9y ago
  Your point seems unrelated to that of the OP. NYTimes might be reporting negative news for good reason (I agree), but it might still be a cause for increased anxiety and perhaps consumed more sparingly. Personally I strongly agree. A lot of news consumption serves little purpose, and might very well have all sorts of negative effects. My solution is to avoid most news sources most of the time, read some updates occasionally or, ideally, use sources that write longer articles (that have the added benefit of context and filtering). Here in Holland we have one paper that has this as their mission statement (De Correspondent). For other perspectives or updates on other areas I mostly rely on a few newsletters and 'bigger picture' articles from various sources. Also my feed reeder for skimming.
  - JohnStrange 9y ago
    My first point was that newspapers have not changed their reporting in any substantive ways over the past decades, so any perceived or measured increase of anxiety cannot have been directly caused by their reporting. Selectively picking news or overexposure to news sources could be part of the problem, though. Nytimes is not a major pusher of crisis. My second point was that the OP did not differentiate between newspapers and TV channels, but that their reporting is substantially different. I have no doubt that exposure to an abundance of 'news' TV channels such as Fox News or CNN, and their online services, can increase anxiety and maybe even distort people's views of the world. For example, the overall conditions for mankind is continuously improving in terms of standards of living, hygienic and medical standards, equality, absence of wars and major conflicts, etc., conditions have generally even improved in the worst regions of the world, but this is not commonly perceived that way. But the claim is that this effect is mostly due to TV, not due to newspapers and other news sources. Of course, I could be wrong about that, just wanted to clarify what I've meant. Finally, neither this nor any other statement I have made has anything to do with politics.

tutufan 9y ago

If you think the NYT is unbiased, you might do well to read a few alternative sources for a while to compare and contrast. Once you've been to other lands, it's easier to spot the oddities of one's usual locale. But more importantly, even if the NYT were entirely unbiased, that does not mean that it's good for your mental state to be reading it. Being exposed to a lot of problems that you cannot do anything about might not be a good thing.

pas 9y ago
Could you provide examples of NYT crisis-driven reporting? And alternatives please! People always recommend "alternatives", but don't really provide any :(
- tutufan 9y ago
  Try breitbart and thenation as alternatives, for example. Sure, some of it's drivel, but after a while you'll realize that some of the NYT is drivel as well. And actually, if you just carefully compare NYT _headlines_ to their corresponding _articles_, you'll realize that the headlines really are pretty crappy. Certainly nowhere near the standards for headline writing we used to have in ninth grade journalism class. I really hope to see a resurgence of classical quality journalism. But I'm not optimistic.
  - pas 9y ago
    Breitbart doesn't seem like a source I'd use as they seem to lack journalistic integrity, they seems like raw data, a collection of things to look into - the usual selection to anger GOP voters, about how those damn Dem/libs are at it again. Headlines are crappy everywhere, agreed. But there is difference between bias and fake news. http://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/ http://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/ That said, I think there's always place for a (or many) counter-culture sites, but I expect a more rigorous intellectual foundation from them not a lesser one to be taken as proper alternative sources. Kuhn's paradigm view is helpful here, MSM is not perfect, but a lot better than fringe/crackpot explanations of the world, and sure, there is probably a better one, but that's not the dominant one yet, but it'll be found by better and more data, better analysis, better methodologies, not by less, and not by more anger. (Sure, reading alt-news might feel right, you might get the feeling of OMG WHY I HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD OF THIS! DAMN I'LL HAVE TO USE THIS to keep myself free from MSM bias!! But to get less biased the solution is to explore the topics at hand from more primary sources (like watch a few youtube videos about the topic, watch a lecture by an accepted scientist/scholar), not by perusing even more biased sources).

teamhappy 9y ago

> They're not pushing any crises Did you read the title?