3 ms·

Can 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

by graeme 4y ago

Can 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 ago
https://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 ago
  This 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
  - itsdrewmiller 4y ago
    You're moving the goalposts though - you said to cite any articles at all, which I did, and now you're complaining about their positioning in the paper. As I said in my original comment the coverage was slanted to the point that it was scandalous (look at the link!) but there was still a lot of content that wasn't "on message". The NYT fucked up but it wasn't pure propaganda.
    - graeme 4y ago
      Fair enough, I intentionally was a little hyperbolic to see what the strongest evidence against my position was. >but there was still a lot of content that wasn't "on message". I do not, however, think this is true in the case of the Iraq War. Once we get into quantity rather than mere existence, we have to consider positioning in the case of the print paper. It may as well not have existed given the positioning and delay. The editorial team buried their reporters' work when it didn't agree with their slant

by graeme 4y ago

itsdrewmiller 4y ago

https://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 ago
This 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
- itsdrewmiller 4y ago
  You're moving the goalposts though - you said to cite any articles at all, which I did, and now you're complaining about their positioning in the paper. As I said in my original comment the coverage was slanted to the point that it was scandalous (look at the link!) but there was still a lot of content that wasn't "on message". The NYT fucked up but it wasn't pure propaganda.
  - graeme 4y ago
    Fair enough, I intentionally was a little hyperbolic to see what the strongest evidence against my position was. >but there was still a lot of content that wasn't "on message". I do not, however, think this is true in the case of the Iraq War. Once we get into quantity rather than mere existence, we have to consider positioning in the case of the print paper. It may as well not have existed given the positioning and delay. The editorial team buried their reporters' work when it didn't agree with their slant