5 ms·

Perhaps there was a time when the New York Times could be trusted, but that era ended at least several years ago. Off the top of my head: - The New York Times

by kauffj 8y ago

Perhaps there was a time when the New York Times could be trusted, but that era ended at least several years ago. Off the top of my head: - The New York Times fired Quinn Norton basically for being willing to talk to weev (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/the-new-york-times-fired-my-doppelganger/554402/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/the-n...) - The New York Times fired Razib Khan for reporting on facts that are basically consensus opinion among geneticists and intelligence researchers. - The New York Times kept Sarah Jeong despite her offenses being substantially beyond the above. (I think it would have been fine to keep Jeong if they also kept Norton and Khan). - The New York Times published a completely uncritical review of Democracy in Chains, despite it's dishonest scholarship. Even NPR added an editor's note to their report on this book.

globeSpin 8y ago
Let’s not forget the 98% “chance of winning” estimate of the 2016 election. For months ahead of the election, the election was never called by The New York Times as being below a 90% certainty. They were basically declaring a winner up front, and contributed to the spectacle of total upset. Now as an outlet, it just spews shit on a daily basis. And I mean shit. It’s been unreadable since then. The last time I observed good coverage on anything from The New York Times was during the first two years of the 2003 Iraq war. Since then, garbage. Hot garbage.
- magicalist 8y ago
  > Let’s not forget the 98% “chance of winning” estimate of the 2016 election. > For months ahead of the election, the election was never called by The New York Times as being below a 90% certainty. It's trivial to verify that neither of these things are true[1][2], so...just adding to the garbage, I guess? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html#trend https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president
  - smithsenn 8y ago
    Still, so laughably bad are the predictions, that you kind of prove the point being made. They were, more or less, calling the election, and in retrospect, trying to drive results. Perhaps it’s debateable to say no one really wanted Trump to win, given what we’ve now seen, but this points very seriously to the fact that The New York Times is not at all an objective news source, which makes them as worthless as their rivals.
    - creddit 8y ago
      I'm not sure you understand probabilities when you drive at discrediting the NYT. Their last prediction given in the linked series gave Trump a 15% chance at winning. That's about equal to the probability of rolling a 10 or more with a two six-sided dice (16.7%). Would you find it laughable that someone looked at you before the come-out roll in a game of Craps and said there was only a 16.7% chance of rolling a ten or more and then it happened? I wouldn't. Further, I think if you wanted to drive the results of an election you're far more likely to give your chosen candidate a _lower_ chance of winning in order to drive as much support as possible. If as a voter you thought it a foregone conclusion that your preferred candidate was going to win, it's not likely you see much reason to vote. All of that said, the NYT is clearly constantly pushing particular agendas (just look at the "Business" section for a start) and has dropped so significantly in own esteem that I will very likely unsubscribe soon. However, when criticizing an organization we should do so objectively and point to their true flaws and not use misunderstandings of probabilities.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Consultant32452 8y ago
I thought this admission/apology from NYT after the 2016 election was interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reade... we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.
- hopler 8y ago
  It's been 2 years and they haven't changed yet.
- masonic 8y ago
  This is hilarious considering that the NYT's web section on the 2016 election results showed HRC as having over 50% of the popular vote from Tuesday night on. Only later was it qualified to say (paraphrased) as "uh, we meant percentage of the popular vote that went to HRC or Trump". But they had never, ever computed their masthead popular vote counts that way before, and they didn't qualify those limited counts until 11 days after the election.

by kauffj 8y ago

globeSpin 8y ago

Let’s not forget the 98% “chance of winning” estimate of the 2016 election. For months ahead of the election, the election was never called by The New York Times as being below a 90% certainty. They were basically declaring a winner up front, and contributed to the spectacle of total upset. Now as an outlet, it just spews shit on a daily basis. And I mean shit. It’s been unreadable since then. The last time I observed good coverage on anything from The New York Times was during the first two years of the 2003 Iraq war. Since then, garbage. Hot garbage.

magicalist 8y ago
> Let’s not forget the 98% “chance of winning” estimate of the 2016 election. > For months ahead of the election, the election was never called by The New York Times as being below a 90% certainty. It's trivial to verify that neither of these things are true[1][2], so...just adding to the garbage, I guess? [1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html#trend https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/forecast/president
- smithsenn 8y ago
  Still, so laughably bad are the predictions, that you kind of prove the point being made. They were, more or less, calling the election, and in retrospect, trying to drive results. Perhaps it’s debateable to say no one really wanted Trump to win, given what we’ve now seen, but this points very seriously to the fact that The New York Times is not at all an objective news source, which makes them as worthless as their rivals.
  - creddit 8y ago
    I'm not sure you understand probabilities when you drive at discrediting the NYT. Their last prediction given in the linked series gave Trump a 15% chance at winning. That's about equal to the probability of rolling a 10 or more with a two six-sided dice (16.7%). Would you find it laughable that someone looked at you before the come-out roll in a game of Craps and said there was only a 16.7% chance of rolling a ten or more and then it happened? I wouldn't. Further, I think if you wanted to drive the results of an election you're far more likely to give your chosen candidate a _lower_ chance of winning in order to drive as much support as possible. If as a voter you thought it a foregone conclusion that your preferred candidate was going to win, it's not likely you see much reason to vote. All of that said, the NYT is clearly constantly pushing particular agendas (just look at the "Business" section for a start) and has dropped so significantly in own esteem that I will very likely unsubscribe soon. However, when criticizing an organization we should do so objectively and point to their true flaws and not use misunderstandings of probabilities.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Consultant32452 8y ago

I thought this admission/apology from NYT after the 2016 election was interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-readers-from-the-publisher-and-executive-editor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/elections/to-our-reade... we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.

hopler 8y ago
It's been 2 years and they haven't changed yet.
masonic 8y ago
This is hilarious considering that the NYT's web section on the 2016 election results showed HRC as having over 50% of the popular vote from Tuesday night on. Only later was it qualified to say (paraphrased) as "uh, we meant percentage of the popular vote that went to HRC or Trump". But they had never, ever computed their masthead popular vote counts that way before, and they didn't qualify those limited counts until 11 days after the election.