5 ms·
The NYT often has an editorial bent which makes them write flatly false articles. It's been rather odd, and a clear point of divergence from other US newspapers
by graeme 4y ago
The NYT often has an editorial bent which makes them write flatly false articles. It's been rather odd, and a clear point of divergence from other US newspapers.
For example, the NYT was very pro the Iraq USD argument
More recently, they kept going on about Clinton's emails, while ignoring much larger security breaches from Trump's side
More recently than that, they kept saying coronavirus reinfections would be impossible
They also have been producing an endless string of anti-tech articles, but pro-crypto articles
In each case they had some clear editorial directive: "Bush good", "Clinton emails bad", "Coronavirus immunity persists (whether natural or vax)" "tech bad" "SBF good, crypto exciting"
You might agree or disagree with these positions and so that effects your reading of what I'm writing. But the point is they had an inflexible position on these issues. By contrast, a paper like the FT or the WSJ or the Washington Post generally tends not to have a monolithic party line on the points above, and would reports points on the issues above with nuance, mentioning evidence in favour or against the positions as it came out.
NYT does have some great articles but they're utterly unreliable if you don't have enough background knowledge of an issue to parse their party line.
- m348e912 4y agoI'm not going ask you to back up your assertions but that really hasn't been my impression of NYT's editorial positions.
- pphysch 4y agoEdward Bernays, pioneer of PR, wrote about how half of NYT's frontpage articles were literal propaganda. In 1928. I think we would be naive to assume anything has improved in the past century.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago> I think we would be naive to assume anything has improved in the past century. What a naive assumption.
- pphysch 4y agoOkay, I'll bite. What has materially improved with regards to corruption and transparency in journalism in the past century?
- graeme 4y agoCan you find any contemporary articles from the periods discussed which show facts contradictory to those positions in the NYT? For example, an article in 2003 pre-invasion skeptical of the WMD claim An article in 2016 putting the email server in context or comparing it to Trump's own level of scandal An article this year critical of Sam Bankman Fried A single article positive on tech in past few years since their editorial position change? An article from 2020 suggesting immunity might not be permanent for most? Matt Yglesias deleted his tweet, but he basically said the NYT had a well known inside journalism policy of "never say anything positive about big tech co's": https://twitter.com/kelseytuoc/status/1588231892792328192 https://twitter.com/kelseytuoc/status/1588231892792328192 Edit: here's some background on the Iraq war stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#The_Iraq_War And here's some context on the NYT and Clinton's emails. It's a letter to the editor which cites a comprehensive Columbia Journalism review critique of the NYT on that point: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/opinion/letters/clinton-emails-giuliani-trump-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/24/opinion/letters/clinton-e...
- itsdrewmiller 4y agohttps://archive.ph/8Kzmy https://archive.ph/8Kzmy - this references many articles skeptical of WMD that ran in the relevant timeframe. The paper clearly had a bias that rose to the level of scandal, but even here it wasn't a lockstep situation. I doubt any of your other examples are/were either.
- graeme 4y agoThis was the print era. The honest stories were buried or delayed. This is what you’re referencing/ “ Some of The Times's coverage in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq was credulous; much of it was inappropriately italicized by lavish front-page display and heavy-breathing headlines; and several fine articles by David Johnston, James Risen and others that provided perspective or challenged information in the faulty stories were played as quietly as a lullaby. Especially notable among these was Risen's ''C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports,'' which was completed several days before the invasion and unaccountably held for a week. It didn't appear until three days after the war's start, and even then was interred on Page B10.‘ Nowadays you can link any story but back then position mattered enormously. Timing too. A key report after the war matters much less