8 ms·

"I have mixed feelings about the NYT piece -- on the one hand it has a lot of valid criticisms and brings sorely needed critical eye to _________; on the other

by _bxg1 8y ago

"I have mixed feelings about the NYT piece -- on the one hand it has a lot of valid criticisms and brings sorely needed critical eye to _________; on the other hand it is sensationalistic, too long, and very unfair to _________ -- I guess they needed a villain for the piece." I cancelled my subscription to the NYT because I felt this way about many of their pieces.

TomMckenny 8y ago
May I ask, do you have many specific examples?
- jimmy1 8y ago
  For numerous others in recent times see the coverage of the Covington Catholic situation: misreporting and sensationalism at it's finest. I wonder sometimes if some of these traditional media behemoths even bother to follow basic journalistic practices like 1. cross referencing your sources 2. seeking the other side of the story / opposing viewpoints 3. asking those involved for comment because it seems glaringly obvious to me in the Covington Catholic case, none of that was done until 48 hours when some high profile twitter names started actually pointing out the glaring errors.
  - scabarott 8y ago
    Unfortunately this happens a lot but I don't entirely blame the media companies. In the age of twitter and social media, some news moves fast and they have to decide quickly whether to publish something about a trending news item or wait to do proper reportage and lose valuable page-views to more sensationalistic outlets which they have to compete with. I've come to accept this is the new reality and not get too bummed about it as long as we still occasionally get the usual well reported long-form investigative pieces we're used to and that you only get from these outlets
    - ALittleLight 8y ago
      It's difficult to trust the reporting of an organization that misrepresents or gets wrong an event that is entirely recorded on video from many angles. I agree that the New York Times publishes some great articles, but I'm deeply concerned about the bad articles they publish. If their editorial standards permit them to rush to judgment as they did in the Catholic school incident how can I trust their editorial standards in more nuanced areas where I don't get to see the full story on video for myself?
      - scabarott 8y ago
        I don't think their original piece actually made a judgment, it just reported what everyone else initially thought was the case (correct me if I'm wrong ). Still I agree it's disappointing that they a news organization takes what you see on the internet at face value, like the rest of us
        ALittleLight 8y ago
        I disagree. The original article described the children as surrounding or mobbing the elder, quoted people who described the scene as "horrific", quoted numerous people condemning the event, and connected it to racism. They didn't offer a conflicting perspective at all, creating the illusion there was universal condemnation of the apparently horrific action of the boys. I think this particular instance is minor, though unfortunate for the unfairly maligned children. What really worries me is just the judgment of the paper. They should've known they didn't have the whole story and that the whole story would be available on video. Why not wait until you knew the relevant information? I can understand people making mistakes, this scenario just seems so simple and obvious though and I can't believe they botched it. It makes me worried - how can I trust them to handle complicated issues?
  - TomMckenny 8y ago
    The push to always be breaking news and the drive for ever more customers is certainly seriously problematic. And I certainly won't say the NYT is perfect. But it seems a bit much to claim the NYT has so many errors that it is unreadable or reality free. And it is certainly better than the vast majority of alternatives. After all, in the very case you mentioned, they did print this[1] almost immediately. And the problem in this case comes far more from the "like" button and yet more twitter storms than it does news papers. Papers which attract vastly fewer eyeballs, have far fewer curse words and require attention spans greater than a chipmunk. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-covington.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-coving...
  - mediaobserver45 8y ago
    So here's a great example of where Talking Points Memo gets to the truth and why we all should read it. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/making-sense-of-the-phillips-sandman-viral-video https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/making-sense-of-the-phi... Over the last couple days I’ve been watching the unfolding reaction and re-reactions to the video of the confrontation between Native American activist and elder Nathan Phillips and a crowd of high school students from Covington, Kentucky on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. The whole story is a good example of how we can react quickly to a zoomed in (both literally and metaphorically) video and miss a lot of what led up to it, as well as some key context. With that said, though, when you add all the context I’m not sure it’s all that different from what it looked like on the first go, despite some now saying the new evidence and new videos change everything. Saturday night and into Sunday I watched numerous different videos of the encounter itself and what led up to it. So let me give you my impression of what happened as well as links to videos and accounts which can help you come to your own conclusions. First, the initial videos could easily give the impression that Phillips (the man with the drum) was in the midst of marching in a protest when he was surrounded by a crowd of white teenagers in MAGA hats. That’s not what happened. (Be very careful of the takes from rightwing, billionaire-funded/owned publications like the Daily Caller, Reason, WSJ, IJR, Fox News, Drudge, or anyone on rightwing radio: they have a political reason to play down racism from a white kid wearing a MAGA hat.)
    - zaroth 8y ago
      This story perfectly illustrates the deep-seated bias which is fatally imbuing this “analysis”. The initial account was nothing less than a setup. The derisive referral to boys in “MAGA hats”, the utter speculation about what a boy was feeling to fit a narrative in direct conflict with the boys own statement, the over-generalizing “they were all doing tomahawk chops”, and on and on. This is a tortured attempt at ass-covering. Most glaringly, failing to directly call out the utter lies told by Phillips (a professional protestor and agitator) to the press, which entirely discredits him, the adult in this situation, who was in fact an instigator. The NYT followup piece [1] on this incident was actually significantly more fair. But it still doesn’t excuse getting it wrong the first time. What’s beautiful is anyone can watch the full uncut zoomed out videos and see for themselves. This second-hand “analysis” is toxic to the truth, which is just a click on YouTube away. Compare and contrast the TalkingPointsMemo piece with this one [2] — which I don’t know anything about that site, but the author seems to be a lot more clear headed about what seems to have happened. What I read there was someone describing what they learned from watching the full 1 hour 40 minute video showing what really happened. [3] In short it’s been an absolute banner week for “Fake News” and you would certainly hope this would provoke some soul searching from the so-called journalists responsible for this. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-covington.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-coving... [2] - https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan... [3] - https://youtu.be/3-pFMZaw5f0 https://youtu.be/3-pFMZaw5f0
crazygringo 8y ago
I mean, this is a lot of journalism in a nutshell, and the NYT tends to be far, far better than most. If you cancelled your NYT subscription, may I ask what other daily newspaper you find to be as informative but more objective? Or have you given up daily news altogether?
- _bxg1 8y ago
  I read NPR now (only text; I can't speak to the audio segments). It's the most blessedly dispassionate news source I've yet found.
  - mediaobserver45 8y ago
    Ah no! If you want good, thoughtful news I suggest the Atlantic or the New Yorker (society, culture, politics), Talking Points Memo (politics only), or Propublica (no breaking news, just investigative). All of those four are controlled by journalists and have a more slow-news, news analysis focus. Add a local newspaper, just not one that is owned by a hedge fund or rightwing billionaire. If you want to listen to audio, there are a lot of great podcasts, many from the above publications. (People in the rigthwing media bubble will complain that the above four pubs are liberal, but frankly: reality has a liberal bias in 2019, and all the above are truth-first, and thus VERY different from rightwing pubs like WSJ, Fox, Daily Caller, etc.) As for NPR: it is really a terrible example of our current 'both sides', conservative-influenced media. NPR sounds fair, but the NPR news production is strongly controlled by its individual member stations. Because of that station control, NPR is highly susceptible to whining from the right, and so they end up presenting "both sides" of many issues, even when only one is true. It's sad. (Example: NPR refused to use the word "lie" to refer to DJT's statements even as late as Dec 2016, when the NYT had come out with a usage of "lie" to great hoopla in Oct/Nov 2016). The NYT is better than NPR, except for NYT politics coverage: don't read its politics coverage and if you can, skip its headlines. For some reason NYT editors and politics reporters are strong believers in the both sides, fact-second religion.
    - _bxg1 8y ago
      I've found NPR to usually present "no sides", which exactly what I want. Simply facts. Minimal analysis or hypotheticals. Just, "X happened." The "both sides" mentality presumes a conflict, and implies that the content either lives in the sphere of opinion or includes "alternate facts". I've no interest in it from my news source. I do end up finding myself on The Atlantic fairly often through links. It has some good opinion pieces, but I don't really think of it as "news" so much. Or at least, not the stuff that I've read.
sgustard 8y ago
The press as "enemy of the people" is one of the primary memes in the US right now. Are you comfortable with the side you're taking on that?
- wolco 8y ago
  It is not always binary. Liberal's read the nyt and if readership feels like they are being tricked into a false truth by canceling they can express any distaste without automatically becoming a conservative.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  I never said the press was an "enemy of the people". They do have some incentive to sensationalize, though, and I'm letting them know as a customer about my distaste with it. I think mainstream news outlets generally have the integrity not to report falsehoods, but that doesn't mean they don't put emotional fuel on the fire of partisan hostility. We as consumers have to let them know we don't want that.
- ameister14 8y ago
  Cool, so I can't choose not to read the NY Post now?
bdamm 8y ago
It was NYTime’s outstanding coverage of Ergodan’s entourage beating of protesters outside the White House that cemented my decision to subscribe to The NY Times. As a journalism company they’re often good and occasionally brilliant, which is a rare quantity these days.
- _bxg1 8y ago
  Hence the mixed feelings. They have a track record of breaking really huge and well-researched stories. It's a shame they muddle it up with sensationalism.
  - mediaobserver45 8y ago
    Yes I think 'mixed feelings' is right. But it's not just sensationalism that is their failing -- "savvy journalism", the "view from nowhere" and "bothsidesism" are greater problems with the info the NYT conveys. (also, NYT editor Dean Baquet fired the NYT public editor after she questioned their "Not a Russian puppet"[1] story just before the 2016 election) [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-el... "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia" Nov 11, 2016 (Note that quite a few reporters have publicly said they think this story was sourced to Trump partisans in the NY FBI office, but there has been no firm reporting about the true reasons for it. Yet.)
    - mhb 8y ago
      You're claiming that the NYT is letting Trump off too easy? It is to laugh.
dominotw 8y ago
sorry but I flagged this because I felt like this comment would derail this thread into an unrelated flamewar.
Xcelerate 8y ago
Same reason I cancelled mine as well. Also, their reporting on one topic I know a lot about was very inaccurate, so it made me question a lot of their journalism in general.
dang 8y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18961676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18961676.

by _bxg1 8y ago

TomMckenny 8y ago

May I ask, do you have many specific examples?

jimmy1 8y ago
For numerous others in recent times see the coverage of the Covington Catholic situation: misreporting and sensationalism at it's finest. I wonder sometimes if some of these traditional media behemoths even bother to follow basic journalistic practices like 1. cross referencing your sources 2. seeking the other side of the story / opposing viewpoints 3. asking those involved for comment because it seems glaringly obvious to me in the Covington Catholic case, none of that was done until 48 hours when some high profile twitter names started actually pointing out the glaring errors.
- scabarott 8y ago
  Unfortunately this happens a lot but I don't entirely blame the media companies. In the age of twitter and social media, some news moves fast and they have to decide quickly whether to publish something about a trending news item or wait to do proper reportage and lose valuable page-views to more sensationalistic outlets which they have to compete with. I've come to accept this is the new reality and not get too bummed about it as long as we still occasionally get the usual well reported long-form investigative pieces we're used to and that you only get from these outlets
  - ALittleLight 8y ago
    It's difficult to trust the reporting of an organization that misrepresents or gets wrong an event that is entirely recorded on video from many angles. I agree that the New York Times publishes some great articles, but I'm deeply concerned about the bad articles they publish. If their editorial standards permit them to rush to judgment as they did in the Catholic school incident how can I trust their editorial standards in more nuanced areas where I don't get to see the full story on video for myself?
    - scabarott 8y ago
      I don't think their original piece actually made a judgment, it just reported what everyone else initially thought was the case (correct me if I'm wrong ). Still I agree it's disappointing that they a news organization takes what you see on the internet at face value, like the rest of us
      - ALittleLight 8y ago
        I disagree. The original article described the children as surrounding or mobbing the elder, quoted people who described the scene as "horrific", quoted numerous people condemning the event, and connected it to racism. They didn't offer a conflicting perspective at all, creating the illusion there was universal condemnation of the apparently horrific action of the boys. I think this particular instance is minor, though unfortunate for the unfairly maligned children. What really worries me is just the judgment of the paper. They should've known they didn't have the whole story and that the whole story would be available on video. Why not wait until you knew the relevant information? I can understand people making mistakes, this scenario just seems so simple and obvious though and I can't believe they botched it. It makes me worried - how can I trust them to handle complicated issues?
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  The push to always be breaking news and the drive for ever more customers is certainly seriously problematic. And I certainly won't say the NYT is perfect. But it seems a bit much to claim the NYT has so many errors that it is unreadable or reality free. And it is certainly better than the vast majority of alternatives. After all, in the very case you mentioned, they did print this[1] almost immediately. And the problem in this case comes far more from the "like" button and yet more twitter storms than it does news papers. Papers which attract vastly fewer eyeballs, have far fewer curse words and require attention spans greater than a chipmunk. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-covington.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-coving...
- mediaobserver45 8y ago
  So here's a great example of where Talking Points Memo gets to the truth and why we all should read it. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/making-sense-of-the-phillips-sandman-viral-video https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/making-sense-of-the-phi... Over the last couple days I’ve been watching the unfolding reaction and re-reactions to the video of the confrontation between Native American activist and elder Nathan Phillips and a crowd of high school students from Covington, Kentucky on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. The whole story is a good example of how we can react quickly to a zoomed in (both literally and metaphorically) video and miss a lot of what led up to it, as well as some key context. With that said, though, when you add all the context I’m not sure it’s all that different from what it looked like on the first go, despite some now saying the new evidence and new videos change everything. Saturday night and into Sunday I watched numerous different videos of the encounter itself and what led up to it. So let me give you my impression of what happened as well as links to videos and accounts which can help you come to your own conclusions. First, the initial videos could easily give the impression that Phillips (the man with the drum) was in the midst of marching in a protest when he was surrounded by a crowd of white teenagers in MAGA hats. That’s not what happened. (Be very careful of the takes from rightwing, billionaire-funded/owned publications like the Daily Caller, Reason, WSJ, IJR, Fox News, Drudge, or anyone on rightwing radio: they have a political reason to play down racism from a white kid wearing a MAGA hat.)
  - zaroth 8y ago
    This story perfectly illustrates the deep-seated bias which is fatally imbuing this “analysis”. The initial account was nothing less than a setup. The derisive referral to boys in “MAGA hats”, the utter speculation about what a boy was feeling to fit a narrative in direct conflict with the boys own statement, the over-generalizing “they were all doing tomahawk chops”, and on and on. This is a tortured attempt at ass-covering. Most glaringly, failing to directly call out the utter lies told by Phillips (a professional protestor and agitator) to the press, which entirely discredits him, the adult in this situation, who was in fact an instigator. The NYT followup piece [1] on this incident was actually significantly more fair. But it still doesn’t excuse getting it wrong the first time. What’s beautiful is anyone can watch the full uncut zoomed out videos and see for themselves. This second-hand “analysis” is toxic to the truth, which is just a click on YouTube away. Compare and contrast the TalkingPointsMemo piece with this one [2] — which I don’t know anything about that site, but the author seems to be a lot more clear headed about what seems to have happened. What I read there was someone describing what they learned from watching the full 1 hour 40 minute video showing what really happened. [3] In short it’s been an absolute banner week for “Fake News” and you would certainly hope this would provoke some soul searching from the so-called journalists responsible for this. [1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-covington.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-coving... [2] - https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan-phillips-video https://reason.com/blog/2019/01/20/covington-catholic-nathan... [3] - https://youtu.be/3-pFMZaw5f0 https://youtu.be/3-pFMZaw5f0

crazygringo 8y ago

I mean, this is a lot of journalism in a nutshell, and the NYT tends to be far, far better than most. If you cancelled your NYT subscription, may I ask what other daily newspaper you find to be as informative but more objective? Or have you given up daily news altogether?

_bxg1 8y ago
I read NPR now (only text; I can't speak to the audio segments). It's the most blessedly dispassionate news source I've yet found.
- mediaobserver45 8y ago
  Ah no! If you want good, thoughtful news I suggest the Atlantic or the New Yorker (society, culture, politics), Talking Points Memo (politics only), or Propublica (no breaking news, just investigative). All of those four are controlled by journalists and have a more slow-news, news analysis focus. Add a local newspaper, just not one that is owned by a hedge fund or rightwing billionaire. If you want to listen to audio, there are a lot of great podcasts, many from the above publications. (People in the rigthwing media bubble will complain that the above four pubs are liberal, but frankly: reality has a liberal bias in 2019, and all the above are truth-first, and thus VERY different from rightwing pubs like WSJ, Fox, Daily Caller, etc.) As for NPR: it is really a terrible example of our current 'both sides', conservative-influenced media. NPR sounds fair, but the NPR news production is strongly controlled by its individual member stations. Because of that station control, NPR is highly susceptible to whining from the right, and so they end up presenting "both sides" of many issues, even when only one is true. It's sad. (Example: NPR refused to use the word "lie" to refer to DJT's statements even as late as Dec 2016, when the NYT had come out with a usage of "lie" to great hoopla in Oct/Nov 2016). The NYT is better than NPR, except for NYT politics coverage: don't read its politics coverage and if you can, skip its headlines. For some reason NYT editors and politics reporters are strong believers in the both sides, fact-second religion.
  - _bxg1 8y ago
    I've found NPR to usually present "no sides", which exactly what I want. Simply facts. Minimal analysis or hypotheticals. Just, "X happened." The "both sides" mentality presumes a conflict, and implies that the content either lives in the sphere of opinion or includes "alternate facts". I've no interest in it from my news source. I do end up finding myself on The Atlantic fairly often through links. It has some good opinion pieces, but I don't really think of it as "news" so much. Or at least, not the stuff that I've read.

sgustard 8y ago

The press as "enemy of the people" is one of the primary memes in the US right now. Are you comfortable with the side you're taking on that?

wolco 8y ago
It is not always binary. Liberal's read the nyt and if readership feels like they are being tricked into a false truth by canceling they can express any distaste without automatically becoming a conservative.
_bxg1 8y ago
I never said the press was an "enemy of the people". They do have some incentive to sensationalize, though, and I'm letting them know as a customer about my distaste with it. I think mainstream news outlets generally have the integrity not to report falsehoods, but that doesn't mean they don't put emotional fuel on the fire of partisan hostility. We as consumers have to let them know we don't want that.
ameister14 8y ago
Cool, so I can't choose not to read the NY Post now?

bdamm 8y ago

It was NYTime’s outstanding coverage of Ergodan’s entourage beating of protesters outside the White House that cemented my decision to subscribe to The NY Times. As a journalism company they’re often good and occasionally brilliant, which is a rare quantity these days.

_bxg1 8y ago
Hence the mixed feelings. They have a track record of breaking really huge and well-researched stories. It's a shame they muddle it up with sensationalism.
- mediaobserver45 8y ago
  Yes I think 'mixed feelings' is right. But it's not just sensationalism that is their failing -- "savvy journalism", the "view from nowhere" and "bothsidesism" are greater problems with the info the NYT conveys. (also, NYT editor Dean Baquet fired the NYT public editor after she questioned their "Not a Russian puppet"[1] story just before the 2016 election) [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-el... "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia" Nov 11, 2016 (Note that quite a few reporters have publicly said they think this story was sourced to Trump partisans in the NY FBI office, but there has been no firm reporting about the true reasons for it. Yet.)
  - mhb 8y ago
    You're claiming that the NYT is letting Trump off too easy? It is to laugh.

dominotw 8y ago

sorry but I flagged this because I felt like this comment would derail this thread into an unrelated flamewar.

Xcelerate 8y ago

Same reason I cancelled mine as well. Also, their reporting on one topic I know a lot about was very inaccurate, so it made me question a lot of their journalism in general.

dang 8y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18961676 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18961676.