3 ms·
If the NYTs is no longer America's newspaper of record (in fact it was the first newspaper that term was ever applied to, anywhere), I struggle to think of what
by partialrecall 7y ago
If the NYTs is no longer America's newspaper of record (in fact it was the first newspaper that term was ever applied to, anywhere), I struggle to think of what is. The other newspaper commonly cited as a newspaper of record in America, the Washington Post, seems little better (or worse) than the NYTs.
In any event, I don't think the term was ever used to indicate a lack of editorial bias. Certainly the NYTs has never qualified if that's the meaning of the term.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- partialrecall 7y ago[Response to a deleted (but fairly reasonable) comment asserting the NYTs is no longer the newspaper of record.] Was there ever one then? And if not, then what did the term ever mean? Before you answer, please consider the case of Walter Duranty and the NYTs covering up Soviet-lead genocide in Ukraine during the 1930s (the Holodomor, a term many Americans have never heard before.) It wasn't until 1990 that the NYTs came clean (https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-notebook-trenchcoats-then-and-now.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/24/opinion/the-editorial-not...), more than half a century too late. Were they the newspaper of record in the interim period?
- forrestthewoods 7y agoI don't know enough about the history of journalism to give a satisfying answer. I consider "being the newspaper of record" to be an ideal. It is almost certain that anyone striving for the ideal will fail at times. Do I think the NYTimes ideals were lies when they written? No. I believe the organization tried as a whole. Even if individually or collectively they fell short at times. But I don't think that is their ideal at this moment in time. Their new ideal is one of activism. Which I personally find disappointing.