4 ms·

This doesn't have anything to do with social media "addiction". It just shows plainly how bad the NYT has gotten when even the simplest most trivially checkable

by zoomly 9y ago

This doesn't have anything to do with social media "addiction". It just shows plainly how bad the NYT has gotten when even the simplest most trivially checkable assertions of its reporters turn out to be slimy and weaselly. How can you trust anything they write when things that you can verify turn out to be "true" only with the most absurd definitions of "true"? The NYT 20+ years ago wouldn't have let this happen and would have taken action. The NYT of today isn't the same.

fny 9y ago
I read both the Times and the WSJ for years now, and can say the opinion and lifestyle pieces on both have chronically suffered from a lack of “journalistic integrity”... because they’re intended to be biased from the get go. IMO, this has been a pretty consistent feature of lifestyle/opinion pieces across the history of newspapers. It just used to be buried away in its proper section. Unfortunately, these types of fluff/garbage pieces can “trend” and blend in with proper journalism making you feel like they’re to be held to some standard of journalism or science. Unfortunately, people have a lot of difficulty distinguishing between the two, which is probably why people consider things like conservative talk radio and the Huffington Post and this lifestyle piece rigorous journalism.
- tomp 9y ago
  There’s a difference between being biased (= expressing your personal non-objective opinion) and lying.
  - fny 9y ago
    I was just addressing OPs statement about paper quality as it has existed across "rigorous" papers (conservative and liberal) for decades. Op-ed has always been a steaming pile thats thankfully not reflective of the actual news published. As to your point, I agree completely--this guy just needs to be fired, and the NYT should post a correction. He was a trusted writer who made false claims about his own behavior. Should the NYT have surveilled Manjoo's "experiment" for a fluff piece? Should it monitor their writers to make sure they actually went and tried that new cupcake place on 5th avenue? Maybe. But I feel like the issue here is that this staff member blatantly lied to both the paper and the public, which feels akin to a doctor violating his hippocratic oath. As for the rest of op-ed, I honestly feel like cherry-picking facts and figures to form a one-sided opinion is tantamount to a lie--perhaps an even more sinister one. And just like we don't have op-eds on Wikipedia, we should be damn sure to isolate them from what we call "news."
musgrove 9y ago
Same playbook as the Enquirer. Entertainment > Credibility. Credibility isn't what sells to the NYT target market.

by zoomly 9y ago

fny 9y ago

I read both the Times and the WSJ for years now, and can say the opinion and lifestyle pieces on both have chronically suffered from a lack of “journalistic integrity”... because they’re intended to be biased from the get go. IMO, this has been a pretty consistent feature of lifestyle/opinion pieces across the history of newspapers. It just used to be buried away in its proper section. Unfortunately, these types of fluff/garbage pieces can “trend” and blend in with proper journalism making you feel like they’re to be held to some standard of journalism or science. Unfortunately, people have a lot of difficulty distinguishing between the two, which is probably why people consider things like conservative talk radio and the Huffington Post and this lifestyle piece rigorous journalism.

tomp 9y ago
There’s a difference between being biased (= expressing your personal non-objective opinion) and lying.
- fny 9y ago
  I was just addressing OPs statement about paper quality as it has existed across "rigorous" papers (conservative and liberal) for decades. Op-ed has always been a steaming pile thats thankfully not reflective of the actual news published. As to your point, I agree completely--this guy just needs to be fired, and the NYT should post a correction. He was a trusted writer who made false claims about his own behavior. Should the NYT have surveilled Manjoo's "experiment" for a fluff piece? Should it monitor their writers to make sure they actually went and tried that new cupcake place on 5th avenue? Maybe. But I feel like the issue here is that this staff member blatantly lied to both the paper and the public, which feels akin to a doctor violating his hippocratic oath. As for the rest of op-ed, I honestly feel like cherry-picking facts and figures to form a one-sided opinion is tantamount to a lie--perhaps an even more sinister one. And just like we don't have op-eds on Wikipedia, we should be damn sure to isolate them from what we call "news."

musgrove 9y ago

Same playbook as the Enquirer. Entertainment > Credibility. Credibility isn't what sells to the NYT target market.