4 ms·

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 (“t

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.
      - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
        > All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made The changes to the framing of the project were not announced. The only way that anyone noticed them is that the lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones (NHJ), started claiming that conservatives were misrepresenting the project. She specifically said that the project did not claim 1619 as America's true founding date. People then went back and found all of NHJ's tweets explicitly stating that this was the purpose of the project (NHJ deleted her entire Twitter history shortly thereafter). When people went to look at the 1619 Project website, however, they noticed that the intro paragraphs that explicitly stated that 1619 is America's true founding had been edited to no longer state that. > In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. The claim about 1619 being America's true founding was the central claim of the project, the thing that it had heavily publicized and used to gain attention. The NY Times spent months defending the project and attacking critics, only to edit out the central claim of the project without so much as a notice. The lead author then started going around denying that the project had ever made the claim, and calling the whole idea a conservative conspiracy theory. Whatever problems the NY Times has had, this is not how people expect the newspaper of record to behave. If this were The Daily Beast, then it wouldn't be that surprising, but its the NY Times, the Gray Lady
- drewbug01 6y ago
  I thank you for your reply - I phrased my question the way I did because I was curious if anyone had more than just anecdotes, but I do still find the anecdotes interesting on their own. I suppose - absent more consistent evidence (they do a lot of reporting after all) - it’s not entirely convincing to me. A lot of other outlets made the same mistakes (especially stuff about the Iraq War, since you mentioned it - but I think that’s actually a different class of problem if I’m being honest). I mainly try to judge on the overall pattern of behavior because focusing solely on the high-profile mistakes quickly leaves you with no real sources of news left. But, of course, that’s just how I see it and I respect that these examples convince you! The long story short is: thank you, I genuinely do find the examples interesting.
  - rrdharan 6y ago
    I agree, it’s pretty easy to end up in a place where you don’t trust any source of news. Not sure that’s really a bad thing. I still read the New York Times (though I’m no longer a paying subscriber). I don’t think they are as untrustworthy as like, Newsmax or Info Wars or what have you. I just typically prefer the Washington Post or WSJ (sans crazy WSJ op-eds) since it’s hard to unsee the NYT slant in everything lately and I find their shrillness and shamelessness exhausting.
    - drewbug01 6y ago
      Yeah - I think “not trusting” is healthy as long as it stays in the realm of skepticism ... and doesn’t cross over into “I now get all my news from random Youtubers.” Which... sadly happens sometimes. :( I don’t have much of a preference between the NYT and WaPo as far as “trustworthiness” goes, but the point about their different voices is interesting to me. They absolutely do have very different voices. I actually don’t care for either one of them! But ... thinking about it - I feel like perhaps some have trouble with a news organizations “voice” and general perspective on the world - and can’t distinguish that voice or perspective from the reporting. My gut says that this is a critical reading skill that is perhaps not as common with some people, and it leads them to think a source isn’t trustworthy. > sans crazy WSJ op-eds What?! The op-eds are where you go when you want to read crazy things for entertainment! Where else can you get that kind of fun?! (I jest, of course).
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.

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.
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      > All of the changes in the Quillette article were similarly announced by the NYT at the time they were made The changes to the framing of the project were not announced. The only way that anyone noticed them is that the lead author, Nikole Hannah-Jones (NHJ), started claiming that conservatives were misrepresenting the project. She specifically said that the project did not claim 1619 as America's true founding date. People then went back and found all of NHJ's tweets explicitly stating that this was the purpose of the project (NHJ deleted her entire Twitter history shortly thereafter). When people went to look at the 1619 Project website, however, they noticed that the intro paragraphs that explicitly stated that 1619 is America's true founding had been edited to no longer state that. > In fact your complaint seems to be that the NYT corrects its articles on its website, which is a good thing. The claim about 1619 being America's true founding was the central claim of the project, the thing that it had heavily publicized and used to gain attention. The NY Times spent months defending the project and attacking critics, only to edit out the central claim of the project without so much as a notice. The lead author then started going around denying that the project had ever made the claim, and calling the whole idea a conservative conspiracy theory. Whatever problems the NY Times has had, this is not how people expect the newspaper of record to behave. If this were The Daily Beast, then it wouldn't be that surprising, but its the NY Times, the Gray Lady
drewbug01 6y ago
I thank you for your reply - I phrased my question the way I did because I was curious if anyone had more than just anecdotes, but I do still find the anecdotes interesting on their own. I suppose - absent more consistent evidence (they do a lot of reporting after all) - it’s not entirely convincing to me. A lot of other outlets made the same mistakes (especially stuff about the Iraq War, since you mentioned it - but I think that’s actually a different class of problem if I’m being honest). I mainly try to judge on the overall pattern of behavior because focusing solely on the high-profile mistakes quickly leaves you with no real sources of news left. But, of course, that’s just how I see it and I respect that these examples convince you! The long story short is: thank you, I genuinely do find the examples interesting.
- rrdharan 6y ago
  I agree, it’s pretty easy to end up in a place where you don’t trust any source of news. Not sure that’s really a bad thing. I still read the New York Times (though I’m no longer a paying subscriber). I don’t think they are as untrustworthy as like, Newsmax or Info Wars or what have you. I just typically prefer the Washington Post or WSJ (sans crazy WSJ op-eds) since it’s hard to unsee the NYT slant in everything lately and I find their shrillness and shamelessness exhausting.
  - drewbug01 6y ago
    Yeah - I think “not trusting” is healthy as long as it stays in the realm of skepticism ... and doesn’t cross over into “I now get all my news from random Youtubers.” Which... sadly happens sometimes. :( I don’t have much of a preference between the NYT and WaPo as far as “trustworthiness” goes, but the point about their different voices is interesting to me. They absolutely do have very different voices. I actually don’t care for either one of them! But ... thinking about it - I feel like perhaps some have trouble with a news organizations “voice” and general perspective on the world - and can’t distinguish that voice or perspective from the reporting. My gut says that this is a critical reading skill that is perhaps not as common with some people, and it leads them to think a source isn’t trustworthy. > sans crazy WSJ op-eds What?! The op-eds are where you go when you want to read crazy things for entertainment! Where else can you get that kind of fun?! (I jest, of course).

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.