4 ms·

Judging by these guidelines I see no evidence that NYT actually wants their staff to be unbiased. Only to appear unbiased. This, I presume, is because it allows

Judging by these guidelines I see no evidence that NYT actually wants their staff to be unbiased. Only to appear unbiased. This, I presume, is because it allows them to present biased opinions as objective truths. An art which the NYT has perfected over the years.

quadrangle 9y ago
It's more likely that they just are biased in the sense that organizations and people have bias. There's little basis to assert that they are consciously, intentionally biased and trying to hide it. All their efforts to appear unbiased probably go along with a desire to be unbiased. Actually achieving some mythical unbiased view is much harder than some guidelines to avoid amplifying impressions of bias. In short: even when they present biased opinions as objective truth, they don't have whole meta-conspiracy around planning to do that. Nobody is writing these social-media guidelines thinking "this will better allow us to get away with presenting our political angle as objective truth" or anything like that.
- tanderson92 9y ago
  > There's little basis to assert that they are consciously, intentionally biased and trying to hide it. You might consider reading "Manufactured Consent", by Noam Chomsky.
  - tanderson92 9y ago
    Or don't believe me or Noam Chomsky (thanks down-voters), take it from their own words. http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003512.html http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003512.html
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    I'm aware of Chomsky's thesis and basically agree with it. My comment is totally aligned with the thesis as I understand it. Chomsky's thesis doesn't suggest that entities like the NYT are intentionally biased and crafty in hiding it. His thesis suggests that the basic nature of news media as we know it, the economic models, social structures, etc. inherently work in a fashion that reinforces mainstream thought and rejects challenges to it. I think Chomsky is right. My point is that the NYT is behaving exactly as Chomsky would expect including my suggestion that they aren't consciously aiming to be biased and hide it. They exist in a broader context where they can't even see their own bias (which is common in many cases, even outside of this topic of journalism).
- KGIII 9y ago
  I'd also add that I don't know anyone capable of always being unbiased. At best, it seems like we can acknowledge our biases and try to counter them, but I've never met anyone who can do so constantly. It's like the test that Harvard put out that shows we are all at least a little prejudiced. I was a little surprised by my results, as I'm racially mixed. I didn't want to admit it was true but I spent a while pondering and, indeed, I have my prejudices.
- jdoliner 9y ago
  Oh I'm sure they are indeed actually biased, that's how bias works. They're not thinking: "this will better allow us to get away with presenting our political angle as objective truth" they're thinking "this will allow us to present the truth without being erroneously accused of bias by people who are actually biased themselves." I see no reason to believe that the writers of the times don't believe this. I do think it takes a certain cognitive dissonance, which The Times has mastered, to believe this view makes sense. To think critically is to be biased, and The Times certainly wants their writers to think critically, so the bias is unavoidable. I just wish they could be a bit more honest about it. But I understand why they can't.
  - quadrangle 9y ago
    (although it was hard to parse your lack of quote-mark) You're right. It's possible (but far from certain) that the NYT folks believe themselves to be more objective than they are (or are capable of being). But a delusional belief in one's own objectivity and aiming to tamp down on public shows of bias is not the same as the implication in the comment I was replying to (which implied a self-awareness of bias that was being intentionally hidden publicly).
wfo 9y ago
If you glance at the people who write their op-eds, which range from hyperconservative to moderately conservative, you will see they have no intention of presenting a wide range of popularly supported views and have not for a long time, they are interested primarily in defending the status quo as gatekeepers of what opinions are considered 'intelligent, reasonable' by defining the parameters of acceptable debate. Not taking official positions allows a veneer of objectivity, and gives weight to them when they do come out (on bipartisan positions clearly in the national interest like supporting the Iraq war, for example!) but really I think what this is about is allowing the NYT corporation to find justification to fire uppity journalists for the sake of 'unbiasedness' who step out of line. This directive essentially says "while you work at NYT you are banned from using the Internet", so expect it to be enforced very selectively.
- matt4077 9y ago
  > which range from hyperconservative to moderately conservative Are we talking about the same New York Times, or are you otherwise having a "really good Times"? > defending the status quo Okay, you may be talking about small-c conservatism. As in "they're not in favour of throwing everything away and starting over as a civilisation". I don't know what "range of popularly supported views" you're referring to, but I doubt those views are as popular and supported among the Time's readership as you may think. > like supporting the Iraq war, for example Oh, look! It's their 16-year old mistake, where they trusted a journalist who mistakenly trusted her government sources who had mistakenly trusted German intelligence who had mistakenly convinced themselves to believe something they wanted to be true to impress their US counterparts. Who was, by the way, summarily fired afterwards.
  - wfo 9y ago
    >I doubt those views are as popular and supported among the Time's readership as you may think. Well yes, stating the the Times' readership is far removed from American popular opinion since the Times is by and for elites and elite-hopefuls who benefit from or hope to benefit from the status quo is exactly my point... How many in the US support universal health care? 60%? 70% How many NYT op eds have you seen in favor of it? Not to mention the fact that the Times readership has been plummeting and continues to do so, so relying on this ever shrinking group as a barometer is questionable. >Okay, you may be talking about small-c conservatism. As in "they're not in favour of throwing everything away and starting over as a civilisation". I don't know what "range of popularly supported views" you're referring to I'll quote Greenwald since he doesn't like to mince words: "If your goal were to wage war on media diversity in all of its forms, and to offer the narrowest range of views possible, it would be hard to top the roster of columnists the paper has assembled: Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Nick Kristof, Paul Krugman, Roger Cohen, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Frank Bruni, David Leonhardt, Charles Blow, Gail Collins, Bret Stephens, with Bari Weiss as a contributor and editor." With Bret Stephens as a beautiful cherry on top as their most recent and high profile hire. https://theintercept.com/2017/08/31/nyts-newest-op-ed-hire-bari-weiss-embodies-its-worst-failings-and-its-lack-of-viewpoint-diversity/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/31/nyts-newest-op-ed-hire-b... >Oh, look! It's their 16-year old mistake A 16-year old mistake that is a 16-year-old ongoing war responsible for the pointless deaths of hundreds of thousands and the rise of a horrific terror state. When the stakes are that high, you can't just brush off mistakes. >where they trusted a journalist who mistakenly... Nope, it wasn't a single endorsement, NYT was beating the drum for war throughout the entire buildup. They were entirely complicit in warming up public opinion to the idea, with article after article after...
zghst 9y ago
As other HN'ers have happily reminded me, journalism has always been that way.

quadrangle 9y ago

It's more likely that they just are biased in the sense that organizations and people have bias. There's little basis to assert that they are consciously, intentionally biased and trying to hide it. All their efforts to appear unbiased probably go along with a desire to be unbiased. Actually achieving some mythical unbiased view is much harder than some guidelines to avoid amplifying impressions of bias. In short: even when they present biased opinions as objective truth, they don't have whole meta-conspiracy around planning to do that. Nobody is writing these social-media guidelines thinking "this will better allow us to get away with presenting our political angle as objective truth" or anything like that.

tanderson92 9y ago
> There's little basis to assert that they are consciously, intentionally biased and trying to hide it. You might consider reading "Manufactured Consent", by Noam Chomsky.
- tanderson92 9y ago
  Or don't believe me or Noam Chomsky (thanks down-voters), take it from their own words. http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003512.html http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003512.html
- quadrangle 9y ago
  I'm aware of Chomsky's thesis and basically agree with it. My comment is totally aligned with the thesis as I understand it. Chomsky's thesis doesn't suggest that entities like the NYT are intentionally biased and crafty in hiding it. His thesis suggests that the basic nature of news media as we know it, the economic models, social structures, etc. inherently work in a fashion that reinforces mainstream thought and rejects challenges to it. I think Chomsky is right. My point is that the NYT is behaving exactly as Chomsky would expect including my suggestion that they aren't consciously aiming to be biased and hide it. They exist in a broader context where they can't even see their own bias (which is common in many cases, even outside of this topic of journalism).
KGIII 9y ago
I'd also add that I don't know anyone capable of always being unbiased. At best, it seems like we can acknowledge our biases and try to counter them, but I've never met anyone who can do so constantly. It's like the test that Harvard put out that shows we are all at least a little prejudiced. I was a little surprised by my results, as I'm racially mixed. I didn't want to admit it was true but I spent a while pondering and, indeed, I have my prejudices.
jdoliner 9y ago
Oh I'm sure they are indeed actually biased, that's how bias works. They're not thinking: "this will better allow us to get away with presenting our political angle as objective truth" they're thinking "this will allow us to present the truth without being erroneously accused of bias by people who are actually biased themselves." I see no reason to believe that the writers of the times don't believe this. I do think it takes a certain cognitive dissonance, which The Times has mastered, to believe this view makes sense. To think critically is to be biased, and The Times certainly wants their writers to think critically, so the bias is unavoidable. I just wish they could be a bit more honest about it. But I understand why they can't.
- quadrangle 9y ago
  (although it was hard to parse your lack of quote-mark) You're right. It's possible (but far from certain) that the NYT folks believe themselves to be more objective than they are (or are capable of being). But a delusional belief in one's own objectivity and aiming to tamp down on public shows of bias is not the same as the implication in the comment I was replying to (which implied a self-awareness of bias that was being intentionally hidden publicly).

wfo 9y ago

If you glance at the people who write their op-eds, which range from hyperconservative to moderately conservative, you will see they have no intention of presenting a wide range of popularly supported views and have not for a long time, they are interested primarily in defending the status quo as gatekeepers of what opinions are considered 'intelligent, reasonable' by defining the parameters of acceptable debate. Not taking official positions allows a veneer of objectivity, and gives weight to them when they do come out (on bipartisan positions clearly in the national interest like supporting the Iraq war, for example!) but really I think what this is about is allowing the NYT corporation to find justification to fire uppity journalists for the sake of 'unbiasedness' who step out of line. This directive essentially says "while you work at NYT you are banned from using the Internet", so expect it to be enforced very selectively.

matt4077 9y ago
> which range from hyperconservative to moderately conservative Are we talking about the same New York Times, or are you otherwise having a "really good Times"? > defending the status quo Okay, you may be talking about small-c conservatism. As in "they're not in favour of throwing everything away and starting over as a civilisation". I don't know what "range of popularly supported views" you're referring to, but I doubt those views are as popular and supported among the Time's readership as you may think. > like supporting the Iraq war, for example Oh, look! It's their 16-year old mistake, where they trusted a journalist who mistakenly trusted her government sources who had mistakenly trusted German intelligence who had mistakenly convinced themselves to believe something they wanted to be true to impress their US counterparts. Who was, by the way, summarily fired afterwards.
- wfo 9y ago
  >I doubt those views are as popular and supported among the Time's readership as you may think. Well yes, stating the the Times' readership is far removed from American popular opinion since the Times is by and for elites and elite-hopefuls who benefit from or hope to benefit from the status quo is exactly my point... How many in the US support universal health care? 60%? 70% How many NYT op eds have you seen in favor of it? Not to mention the fact that the Times readership has been plummeting and continues to do so, so relying on this ever shrinking group as a barometer is questionable. >Okay, you may be talking about small-c conservatism. As in "they're not in favour of throwing everything away and starting over as a civilisation". I don't know what "range of popularly supported views" you're referring to I'll quote Greenwald since he doesn't like to mince words: "If your goal were to wage war on media diversity in all of its forms, and to offer the narrowest range of views possible, it would be hard to top the roster of columnists the paper has assembled: Tom Friedman, David Brooks, Nick Kristof, Paul Krugman, Roger Cohen, Ross Douthat, Maureen Dowd, Frank Bruni, David Leonhardt, Charles Blow, Gail Collins, Bret Stephens, with Bari Weiss as a contributor and editor." With Bret Stephens as a beautiful cherry on top as their most recent and high profile hire. https://theintercept.com/2017/08/31/nyts-newest-op-ed-hire-bari-weiss-embodies-its-worst-failings-and-its-lack-of-viewpoint-diversity/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/31/nyts-newest-op-ed-hire-b... >Oh, look! It's their 16-year old mistake A 16-year old mistake that is a 16-year-old ongoing war responsible for the pointless deaths of hundreds of thousands and the rise of a horrific terror state. When the stakes are that high, you can't just brush off mistakes. >where they trusted a journalist who mistakenly... Nope, it wasn't a single endorsement, NYT was beating the drum for war throughout the entire buildup. They were entirely complicit in warming up public opinion to the idea, with article after article after...

zghst 9y ago

As other HN'ers have happily reminded me, journalism has always been that way.