3 ms·

This article is asking whether the NY Times should be a newspaper.

by bitops 15y ago

redthrowaway 15y ago
While pithy, your statement isn't entirely true. They're asking what kind of newspaper they should be. Regardless of how objective they are in their corrections, there will be those who see such a move as legitimizing editorialist in news articles. At the end of the day, we are trusting the author and editor to be the final arbiters of truth. There are those who would feel, perhaps rightly, that this oversteps their role as journalists.
- glhaynes 15y ago
  It's just a question of where you draw the line, isn't it? The Times doesn't print holocaust deniers' statements without a note that such a claim is bullshit, does it? Or, if it does (in which case it would presumably just make sure to have a "mainstream" 3rd party point of view accompany it), how "big" can a lie be in the Times before they'd state the clear objective [yeah, yeah...] truth in their own voice? A claim that George W. Bush is still the President? That the sky isn't blue? Which is not to say that "Obama apologizes for the US" is on the same plane as far as how easy it is for the overwhelming majority to find agreeability on its, err, "truthiness". Therein lies the rub, I suppose.
- bitops 15y ago
  > perhaps rightly I agree with everything you said except for that. The press, in its true spirit, exists to serve others. If people are better informed, they will make better decisions. At its best, the press could act in a teaching and advising role to the public. I know that's very idealistic. Sometimes I have a hard time seeing who the news really helps these days. We know we can definitely get an echo of our own opinion, but very rarely do people present us with a piece of information and an opportunity to think for ourselves. It's always being pre-packaged these days. So news papers with a wide reach have an obligation to help make people more informed.

This article is asking whether the NY Times should be a newspaper.

by bitops 15y ago

This article is asking whether the NY Times should be a newspaper.

While pithy, your statement isn't entirely true. They're asking what kind of newspaper they should be. Regardless of how objective they are in their corrections, there will be those who see such a move as legitimizing editorialist in news articles. At the end of the day, we are trusting the author and editor to be the final arbiters of truth. There are those who would feel, perhaps rightly, that this oversteps their role as journalists.

glhaynes 15y ago
It's just a question of where you draw the line, isn't it? The Times doesn't print holocaust deniers' statements without a note that such a claim is bullshit, does it? Or, if it does (in which case it would presumably just make sure to have a "mainstream" 3rd party point of view accompany it), how "big" can a lie be in the Times before they'd state the clear objective [yeah, yeah...] truth in their own voice? A claim that George W. Bush is still the President? That the sky isn't blue? Which is not to say that "Obama apologizes for the US" is on the same plane as far as how easy it is for the overwhelming majority to find agreeability on its, err, "truthiness". Therein lies the rub, I suppose.
bitops 15y ago
> perhaps rightly I agree with everything you said except for that. The press, in its true spirit, exists to serve others. If people are better informed, they will make better decisions. At its best, the press could act in a teaching and advising role to the public. I know that's very idealistic. Sometimes I have a hard time seeing who the news really helps these days. We know we can definitely get an echo of our own opinion, but very rarely do people present us with a piece of information and an opportunity to think for ourselves. It's always being pre-packaged these days. So news papers with a wide reach have an obligation to help make people more informed.