3 ms·

Huh. This doesn't hit home for me at all. The New York Times has a long history of bold investigative journalism and, compared to a lot of other news outlets, c

Huh. This doesn't hit home for me at all. The New York Times has a long history of bold investigative journalism and, compared to a lot of other news outlets, caution and strong adherence to verifiable facts. If they're succeeding these days, that only makes me more hopeful for the future. I'd love to see more news outlets do as well as the times does at reporting honestly and courageously. But BuzzFeed? Gawker? What are the great contributions these entities make, such that we should worry about their having staff poached away, or getting bought entirely?

NikolaeVarius 7y ago
On their podcast a bit back, they had a somewhat surprising retrospective on their role as a news agency during issues such as the Clinton email incident, Trumps rise to power, and other events where they make the statement they might have to be more careful in the future about what they say and how they say it. Though I'm still somewhat skeptical this is done from an entirely neutral/altruistic perspective
- throwaway36472 7y ago
  Skeptical that what is done from an entirely neutral/altruistic perspective?
  - NikolaeVarius 7y ago
    Internal policy changes regarding how they report the news. I somehow doubt they would care enough to report how they are changing internally if anyone but Trump had won the election.
    - mc32 7y ago
      If they had sincere regrets they'd have had their bulb light up after the build-up to Iraq.
- theklr 7y ago
  I mean you saw they made their democratic endorsement a joke because they now wanted to play the TV game. Plus for a global paper; the editorial staff is the typical costal elite. It’s going to be a delicate balance to keep it up.
thu2111 7y ago
Well, there are other perspectives on that: https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-against-britain/ https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-a... NY Times is like most newspapers. There are certain topics they don't care about and write with average accuracy, and others they feel are important to the current of world events, which they manipulate ruthlessly. Sometimes people like to claim the NYT only has issues with factual accuracy in op-eds, but it's not true. The first article shown as an example in the UnHerd piece, for example, is investigative reporting about Britain, hardly a war zone that's difficult for journalists to reach. Yet it's riddled with basic geographical and factual errors. The author here is trying to claim that Buzzfeed and Gawker have been 'taken over' by the NYT, which is gobbling up everything in its path. From afar it looks more like a reverse takeover.

NikolaeVarius 7y ago

On their podcast a bit back, they had a somewhat surprising retrospective on their role as a news agency during issues such as the Clinton email incident, Trumps rise to power, and other events where they make the statement they might have to be more careful in the future about what they say and how they say it. Though I'm still somewhat skeptical this is done from an entirely neutral/altruistic perspective

throwaway36472 7y ago
Skeptical that what is done from an entirely neutral/altruistic perspective?
- NikolaeVarius 7y ago
  Internal policy changes regarding how they report the news. I somehow doubt they would care enough to report how they are changing internally if anyone but Trump had won the election.
  - mc32 7y ago
    If they had sincere regrets they'd have had their bulb light up after the build-up to Iraq.
theklr 7y ago
I mean you saw they made their democratic endorsement a joke because they now wanted to play the TV game. Plus for a global paper; the editorial staff is the typical costal elite. It’s going to be a delicate balance to keep it up.

thu2111 7y ago

Well, there are other perspectives on that: https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-against-britain/ https://unherd.com/2020/01/what-has-the-new-york-times-got-a... NY Times is like most newspapers. There are certain topics they don't care about and write with average accuracy, and others they feel are important to the current of world events, which they manipulate ruthlessly. Sometimes people like to claim the NYT only has issues with factual accuracy in op-eds, but it's not true. The first article shown as an example in the UnHerd piece, for example, is investigative reporting about Britain, hardly a war zone that's difficult for journalists to reach. Yet it's riddled with basic geographical and factual errors. The author here is trying to claim that Buzzfeed and Gawker have been 'taken over' by the NYT, which is gobbling up everything in its path. From afar it looks more like a reverse takeover.