4 ms·

I read the whole thing and i'm sorry, but a journalist from the NYT complaining about being misrepresented? lol get that shit out of here

jjeaff 6y ago
The NYT is a venerable news organization. One of the few left. They don't get everything right, but when they get it wrong they retract. And in most cases, they also seem to do proper due diligence for their stories as well as follow proper journalistic standards.
- zepto 6y ago
  Journalistic standards like the ones they used with Scott Alexander?
- whoooooo123 6y ago
  Ever heard of the 1619 Project? The NYT published historical falsehoods as the central claims in one of their highest profile publications of the last decade. That publication was then pilloried by professional historians and widely criticized as ideological propaganda masquerading as historical scholarship, because that's exactly what it was. They later walked back one of the most glaring errors, but only after months of outcry and their fact-checker, a professional historian, going public to say that he had told them what they were saying was untrue but they had printed it anyway. And they couched the correction in the weasel words of a 'clarification', which is an odd way to describe an update that completely changes the meaning of a sentence. They were later caught stealth-editing the piece and claiming that it had never said something else that had originally been its most prominent claim. Where exactly does journalistic integrity fit into this? The NYT was a fine newspaper once, but that time is no more.
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  This used to be the case, but it's laughably wide of the mark now.
- jjk166 6y ago
  There aren't venerable news organizations. There are merely those who verify what they publish and those who don't. It doesn't matter how long you've been doing things right, the minute you stop, you become no better than a common tabloid.
- toiletfuneral 6y ago
  I honestly want that to be true, believe me...did they ever come clean about the WMD's in Iraq? Or the lies about Maduro burning food?

jjeaff 6y ago

The NYT is a venerable news organization. One of the few left. They don't get everything right, but when they get it wrong they retract. And in most cases, they also seem to do proper due diligence for their stories as well as follow proper journalistic standards.

zepto 6y ago
Journalistic standards like the ones they used with Scott Alexander?
whoooooo123 6y ago
Ever heard of the 1619 Project? The NYT published historical falsehoods as the central claims in one of their highest profile publications of the last decade. That publication was then pilloried by professional historians and widely criticized as ideological propaganda masquerading as historical scholarship, because that's exactly what it was. They later walked back one of the most glaring errors, but only after months of outcry and their fact-checker, a professional historian, going public to say that he had told them what they were saying was untrue but they had printed it anyway. And they couched the correction in the weasel words of a 'clarification', which is an odd way to describe an update that completely changes the meaning of a sentence. They were later caught stealth-editing the piece and claiming that it had never said something else that had originally been its most prominent claim. Where exactly does journalistic integrity fit into this? The NYT was a fine newspaper once, but that time is no more.
baggy_trough 6y ago
This used to be the case, but it's laughably wide of the mark now.
jjk166 6y ago
There aren't venerable news organizations. There are merely those who verify what they publish and those who don't. It doesn't matter how long you've been doing things right, the minute you stop, you become no better than a common tabloid.
toiletfuneral 6y ago
I honestly want that to be true, believe me...did they ever come clean about the WMD's in Iraq? Or the lies about Maduro burning food?