6 ms·

To be fair, The Times is notorious for crafty implication. For the casual reader, these implications can ring far louder than the actual facts, without the piec

To be fair, The Times is notorious for crafty implication. For the casual reader, these implications can ring far louder than the actual facts, without the piece being false, per se.

whakim 6y ago
Not sure I agree that the NYT is particularly notable in the sense that they're a news organization with a perspective, and that perspective often comes through in the articles they publish. Every news org indirectly implies things in terms of which pieces of evidence they present, what order facts are presented in, what other content they cite etc. I don't think the NYTimes is secretly trying to influence their readers in a crafty or underhanded manner.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
drewbug01 6y ago
Can you expand on that? Reading through the comment threads on this piece, I’ve noticed this idea of the NYT being intentionally misleading in various forms (“they lie,” “they mislead,” “they make implications,” etc). That isn’t my perception of the NYT at all - but I’d like to hear more of what you’re saying. Has any research been done on the overall veracity of the claims the NYT makes in their articles, or on the ways that they may or may not mislead people through implication?
- rrdharan 6y ago
  These aren’t exactly what you are asking about but some recent examples of what I consider to be disingenuous and manipulative: 1. The New York Times published a scathing critique of Google’s 4000 word privacy policy, neglecting anywhere to mention that their own privacy policy was 25% longer and sketchier. 2. The entire handling of the Caliphate podcast and subsequent backpedaling and retroactive reframing. 3. Similar to 2., the doubling down but silent adjustments to the 1619 project historical inaccuracies. 4. The maddening insistence on handling of Slate Star Codex author’s identity and hypocrisy as compared to Chapo Trap House. 5. The submarine propaganda piece about CP on the dark web, which was clearly an attempt to build societal consensus for mandatory backdoors in E2E messaging. You can go back farther into obvious hits like the second Iraq War and WMD madness of course.. I generally don’t trust the New York Times.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    #1 NYT's own privacy policy is irrelevant in context. Google's privacy policy affects most of the internet, aka, most of the world. The NYT's privacy policy affects the significantly smaller (and comparatively insignificant) number of people who read the NYT on its website. #3 The adjustments (aka corrections) were not silent. They announced them, and the big corrections even got their own NYT articles, see e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the.... #4 NYT published the identities of Slate Star Codex because it was newsworthy. The identities of the Chapo House Guys was not, because they were, and this part is crucial: open about their identities. Both of these blogs spread ideological filth, but the CHG didn't cower behind anonymity to do it like the SSC guy did. #5 This is not submarine propaganda. CP exists on the dark web, and in fact the use of the dark web to spread CP is why so many Tor nodes chose to shut down. (This is also unrelated to putting mandatory backdoors in E2E messaging, which the NYT...opposes...) #6 The federal government lied about the weapons...not the NYT...And WMDs did exist. Iraq still had a very large stockpile of chemical weapons when we invaded (during Bush II). They simply were intended for use against the local population, not the U.S. (See a non-NYT source: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/ https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-m...)
    - rrdharan 6y ago
      For 3. the louder correction came after they were called out for earlier silent edits: https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memo... (Side note I don’t really trust Quillette either but I do believe this sequence of events is what unfolded)
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        The NYT article linked to is from March, and predates your link by 6 months. All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made, though as smaller changes didn't get their own frontpage articles. As the 1619 project was itself described as an "ongoing" project it's bizarre and unusual for people to complain about it being corrected. That's the writing process: draft, and re-draft as necessary based on feedback re grammar, language, factual errors, etc. In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. If you want archival copies of the incorrect versions, you can access those through other means, such as through databases like Lexis Nexis or through hard copies of the paper.
- ericpauley 6y ago
  It's important to clarify what qualities are attributable specifically to NYT vs. the news media generally. For instance I consider The Times notorious for deceptive implication but only insofar as the news is guilty of this in general. For what it's worth I consider The Times to be top-tier. Yet, this is all the more disappointing that even the best engage in such deception.

To be fair, The Times is notorious for crafty implication. For the casual reader, these implications can ring far louder than the actual facts, without the piece being false, per se.

whakim 6y ago

Not sure I agree that the NYT is particularly notable in the sense that they're a news organization with a perspective, and that perspective often comes through in the articles they publish. Every news org indirectly implies things in terms of which pieces of evidence they present, what order facts are presented in, what other content they cite etc. I don't think the NYTimes is secretly trying to influence their readers in a crafty or underhanded manner.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

drewbug01 6y ago

Can you expand on that? Reading through the comment threads on this piece, I’ve noticed this idea of the NYT being intentionally misleading in various forms (“they lie,” “they mislead,” “they make implications,” etc). That isn’t my perception of the NYT at all - but I’d like to hear more of what you’re saying. Has any research been done on the overall veracity of the claims the NYT makes in their articles, or on the ways that they may or may not mislead people through implication?

rrdharan 6y ago
These aren’t exactly what you are asking about but some recent examples of what I consider to be disingenuous and manipulative: 1. The New York Times published a scathing critique of Google’s 4000 word privacy policy, neglecting anywhere to mention that their own privacy policy was 25% longer and sketchier. 2. The entire handling of the Caliphate podcast and subsequent backpedaling and retroactive reframing. 3. Similar to 2., the doubling down but silent adjustments to the 1619 project historical inaccuracies. 4. The maddening insistence on handling of Slate Star Codex author’s identity and hypocrisy as compared to Chapo Trap House. 5. The submarine propaganda piece about CP on the dark web, which was clearly an attempt to build societal consensus for mandatory backdoors in E2E messaging. You can go back farther into obvious hits like the second Iraq War and WMD madness of course.. I generally don’t trust the New York Times.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  #1 NYT's own privacy policy is irrelevant in context. Google's privacy policy affects most of the internet, aka, most of the world. The NYT's privacy policy affects the significantly smaller (and comparatively insignificant) number of people who read the NYT on its website. #3 The adjustments (aka corrections) were not silent. They announced them, and the big corrections even got their own NYT articles, see e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the.... #4 NYT published the identities of Slate Star Codex because it was newsworthy. The identities of the Chapo House Guys was not, because they were, and this part is crucial: open about their identities. Both of these blogs spread ideological filth, but the CHG didn't cower behind anonymity to do it like the SSC guy did. #5 This is not submarine propaganda. CP exists on the dark web, and in fact the use of the dark web to spread CP is why so many Tor nodes chose to shut down. (This is also unrelated to putting mandatory backdoors in E2E messaging, which the NYT...opposes...) #6 The federal government lied about the weapons...not the NYT...And WMDs did exist. Iraq still had a very large stockpile of chemical weapons when we invaded (during Bush II). They simply were intended for use against the local population, not the U.S. (See a non-NYT source: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/ https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-m...)
  - rrdharan 6y ago
    For 3. the louder correction came after they were called out for earlier silent edits: https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memory-hole/ https://quillette.com/2020/09/19/down-the-1619-projects-memo... (Side note I don’t really trust Quillette either but I do believe this sequence of events is what unfolded)
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      The NYT article linked to is from March, and predates your link by 6 months. All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made, though as smaller changes didn't get their own frontpage articles. As the 1619 project was itself described as an "ongoing" project it's bizarre and unusual for people to complain about it being corrected. That's the writing process: draft, and re-draft as necessary based on feedback re grammar, language, factual errors, etc. In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. If you want archival copies of the incorrect versions, you can access those through other means, such as through databases like Lexis Nexis or through hard copies of the paper.
ericpauley 6y ago
It's important to clarify what qualities are attributable specifically to NYT vs. the news media generally. For instance I consider The Times notorious for deceptive implication but only insofar as the news is guilty of this in general. For what it's worth I consider The Times to be top-tier. Yet, this is all the more disappointing that even the best engage in such deception.