5 ms·
The NYT employs enough disingenuous obfuscators that I will never pay them a penny, nor will I let them collect my information. Beyond that, what they don't re
by OneWordSoln 7y ago
The NYT employs enough disingenuous obfuscators that I will never pay them a penny, nor will I let them collect my information.
Beyond that, what they don't realize is that other news sites will simply report on what is reported in the NYT, and those sites will forever be free. From time to time I will copypaste a NYT url to a single-use non-private FF instance to read (and then immediately clear history) whereby I invariably find that the article only has a few bits that expanded my knowledge. Most of the articles are those few bits of new info followed by summaries of days or months old information that I am already fully aware of. And the same goes for the WaPo.
I understand that we need to support good journalism and I will when I find some really good journalism, without auto-play vids and ridiculous amounts of ad content and making sure the readership on "both sides" is fairly represented. The WaPo has potential but Bezos' quest for all the dollars is ruining it.
What they don't get is that they can't control the information and that information has no intrinsic price, for our primary advantage as human beings is our ability to spread ideas and information from person to person. Their information is going to get aggregated and there's not a damn thing they can do about it, and I'm willing to wait 12 hours for it to get to me secondhand.
The MBAs are digging their own graves every single day and they don't have anyone to blame but themselves. That they have gone all in on the advertisers is only hastening their demise.
- Angostura 7y ago>The NYT employs enough disingenuous obfuscators Examples?
- OneWordSoln 7y agoMaggie Haberman and one other guy whose name I forget. And their editorial page has problems aplenty, which are evidence of who their owners really support. Finally, one of these days, someone is going to have to call Trump precisely what he is: an inveterate liar.
- scrollaway 7y agoI think by "examples" GP meant examples of "obfuscation" as you call it, rather than just names.
- OneWordSoln 7y agoI mean obfuscation as in downplaying the seriousness of the crimes of Trump et al. She has been a part of normalizing their deviance and that is the single most effective technique the disingenuous can use to thwart the change we need so badly. It's not Soviet-era propaganda, it's just a nudge away from the truth of how corrupt and amoral our current government is. It pushes us from the righteous anger at their machinations towards "they've done some not-good things"; therein lies a world of difference. Read Marcy Wheeler at emptywheel.net. Her "potty mouth" is wholly appropriate and her reporting is top-notch.
- selimthegrim 7y agoI don't think Haberman's shtick gets a rise out of anyone these days anymore.
- ineedasername 7y agoYou still haven't given examples of the obfuscation. It appears you're simply naming people with whom you disagree.
- OneWordSoln 7y agoI named the "obfuscators" just as I was asked to.
- jrlocke 7y ago> The NYT employs enough disingenuous obfuscators The opinion writers are purposely selected to oppose and challenge the viewpoint of the editorial board. Assuming that the editorial board is largely truly correct, there is going to be some degree of intellectual dishonesty among the opposing opinion writers. I do sympathize with you; I do not enjoy many of their opinions.
- malvosenior 7y agoThe NYT hired Sarah Jeong to their editorial board so it's safe to say there is toxicity on both the editorial and opinion side of the paper. Edit, for those of you unfamiliar with this particular editor you can read her own words on Twitter: https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1025437806775226368 https://twitter.com/nickmon1112/status/1025437806775226368