3 ms·

I keep reading the NYT out of a 20+ year habit but the level of editorializing, even in news that should be straightforward to report, has become so overt I can

I keep reading the NYT out of a 20+ year habit but the level of editorializing, even in news that should be straightforward to report, has become so overt I can barely stand it anymore. Do I like Trump? No, not really, but living in a 2 party system there is 0 percent chance that either puppet at the top of the major parties represents even a fraction of my views. Trump is not the literal devil but reading the NYT you would be forgiven for believing so. There is not one thing a Republican can do that is positive, and even Biden seems to be an enemy. I guess I’ve moved on from mainstream reporting but it seems like it’s the NYT that changed rather than me.

jrockway 7y ago
Completely off-topic for this article, but maybe you'd like the Wall Street Journal. It's the exact same news, more or less, but the editorials are crazy in the opposite direction. I read both. The reality is, that most mainstream news sources agree on the facts and even the analysis of news. Then they have editorials and columnists, and that's where they really differ. But you don't really know for sure unless you take in a variety of sources.
nudpiedo 7y ago
That’s true, and I think that it reflects the crisis of the papers: if they are failing to capture a wide range of audience of their own country, an aggressive expansion to a new public will not work better than with their local audience. When the editorial line is infantilized/moved by a highly emotional discourse (the imperfect truth vs the devil) and only wants to appeal one kind of public then it is hard to empathize to a foreign general public which most probably will not be into this sort of mindset, especially in a medium which used to be a serious referent. Foreign childish public will read their local provider of childish/highly emotional news or some of the emotional mediums out there of new generation (buzzfeed magazine or YouTube or whatever pushes the emotional button of ge day). P.S. I find disgusting to see how HN downvotes people for politely expose their opinion as it happens way too often. Downvote should stay as moderation tool not as like dislike mechanism.
rabbitonrails 7y ago
Just read the Economist.

jrockway 7y ago

Completely off-topic for this article, but maybe you'd like the Wall Street Journal. It's the exact same news, more or less, but the editorials are crazy in the opposite direction. I read both. The reality is, that most mainstream news sources agree on the facts and even the analysis of news. Then they have editorials and columnists, and that's where they really differ. But you don't really know for sure unless you take in a variety of sources.

nudpiedo 7y ago

That’s true, and I think that it reflects the crisis of the papers: if they are failing to capture a wide range of audience of their own country, an aggressive expansion to a new public will not work better than with their local audience. When the editorial line is infantilized/moved by a highly emotional discourse (the imperfect truth vs the devil) and only wants to appeal one kind of public then it is hard to empathize to a foreign general public which most probably will not be into this sort of mindset, especially in a medium which used to be a serious referent. Foreign childish public will read their local provider of childish/highly emotional news or some of the emotional mediums out there of new generation (buzzfeed magazine or YouTube or whatever pushes the emotional button of ge day). P.S. I find disgusting to see how HN downvotes people for politely expose their opinion as it happens way too often. Downvote should stay as moderation tool not as like dislike mechanism.

rabbitonrails 7y ago

Just read the Economist.