5 ms·

The NYT does not have this barely at all. There should be a giant picture of the mushroom cloud on their front page to reflect the severity (potential or real)

The NYT does not have this barely at all. There should be a giant picture of the mushroom cloud on their front page to reflect the severity (potential or real) of the situation. It's shameful.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> should be a giant picture of the mushroom cloud on their front page to reflect the severity (potential or real) of the situation It was front page on Bloomberg. I admit I didn’t click on it. To the degree this is of urgent national concern, it’s in a rail safety bill we have months to debate.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Not sure when you checked, but right now it's literally nowhere to be found on Bloomberg. I count three stories on shooting down UFOs, though, and one on comedians finding side hustles as babysitters.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > when you checked, but right now it's literally nowhere to be found When this happened. Nobody clicked on it so it fell off. (I’m still failing to see why this is a national tragedy requiring minute to minute updates.)
    - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
      This is going to give a whole lot of Americans cancer. I’ve heard this described, by an extremely level headed commentator I trust, as “we just nuked an American town”. This story is way bigger than some balloon.
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      I’m not sure how to reconcile “this is the only thing people are talking about” with “these stories have fallen off all the top news sites because nobody is clicking on them”.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        This story should get more traction. It isn’t because it isn’t of general interest. Not because of a conspiracy.
        t-writescode 4y ago
        This is not reflective of modern news practices. There isn’t interest because that interest hasn’t been spun up. When all attention has been pulled to manufactured stories, it’s reporters’ jobs to pull and manufacture interest into things that matter.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > that interest hasn’t been spun up This usually happens outside the news room, investigative journalism being the exception. The lack of environmental NGOs raising a fuss may be part of the problem, if you think spin is the issue. (I do not. I think most Americans simply aren’t concerned with this, and those who are, and have influence, are mostly looking at rulemaking and liability ramifications.)
ng12 4y ago
I cancelled my NYT sub over the pandemic. I felt dirty supporting them even for just the word games.
xhrpost 4y ago
Wow you're right, only mention is way at the bottom of the main page, just a title "A Train Carrying Toxic Chemicals Derailed in Ohio. Here’s What to Know." No picture, not even a mini-summary like some of the other links.
prof-dr-ir 4y ago
I think that it is the NYT's policy to not put giant pictures of potential disasters on their front page to avoid being sensationalist. I would not fault you for disagreeing with that style. Most importantly I think that it risks missing important events: at first they are either not verified (or not verified to be important, like here) and a few days later they are no longer newsworthy. But at least it seems that there is some logic to it.
- pphysch 4y ago
  avoid being sensationalist? The Chinese spy-on-the-weather balloon debacle is the textbook definition of sensational yellow journalism. NYT has had constant front-page coverage of it.
legitster 4y ago
Because this is a regional story being amplified by Chinese state media. The NYT not running shock headlines based on trendy internet topics probably has more to do with their editorial scrutiny.

The NYT does not have this barely at all. There should be a giant picture of the mushroom cloud on their front page to reflect the severity (potential or real) of the situation. It's shameful.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> should be a giant picture of the mushroom cloud on their front page to reflect the severity (potential or real) of the situation It was front page on Bloomberg. I admit I didn’t click on it. To the degree this is of urgent national concern, it’s in a rail safety bill we have months to debate.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Not sure when you checked, but right now it's literally nowhere to be found on Bloomberg. I count three stories on shooting down UFOs, though, and one on comedians finding side hustles as babysitters.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > when you checked, but right now it's literally nowhere to be found When this happened. Nobody clicked on it so it fell off. (I’m still failing to see why this is a national tragedy requiring minute to minute updates.)
  - TaylorAlexander 4y ago
    This is going to give a whole lot of Americans cancer. I’ve heard this described, by an extremely level headed commentator I trust, as “we just nuked an American town”. This story is way bigger than some balloon.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    I’m not sure how to reconcile “this is the only thing people are talking about” with “these stories have fallen off all the top news sites because nobody is clicking on them”.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      This story should get more traction. It isn’t because it isn’t of general interest. Not because of a conspiracy.
      - t-writescode 4y ago
        This is not reflective of modern news practices. There isn’t interest because that interest hasn’t been spun up. When all attention has been pulled to manufactured stories, it’s reporters’ jobs to pull and manufacture interest into things that matter.
        JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > that interest hasn’t been spun up This usually happens outside the news room, investigative journalism being the exception. The lack of environmental NGOs raising a fuss may be part of the problem, if you think spin is the issue. (I do not. I think most Americans simply aren’t concerned with this, and those who are, and have influence, are mostly looking at rulemaking and liability ramifications.)

ng12 4y ago

I cancelled my NYT sub over the pandemic. I felt dirty supporting them even for just the word games.

xhrpost 4y ago

Wow you're right, only mention is way at the bottom of the main page, just a title "A Train Carrying Toxic Chemicals Derailed in Ohio. Here’s What to Know." No picture, not even a mini-summary like some of the other links.

prof-dr-ir 4y ago

I think that it is the NYT's policy to not put giant pictures of potential disasters on their front page to avoid being sensationalist. I would not fault you for disagreeing with that style. Most importantly I think that it risks missing important events: at first they are either not verified (or not verified to be important, like here) and a few days later they are no longer newsworthy. But at least it seems that there is some logic to it.

pphysch 4y ago
avoid being sensationalist? The Chinese spy-on-the-weather balloon debacle is the textbook definition of sensational yellow journalism. NYT has had constant front-page coverage of it.

legitster 4y ago

Because this is a regional story being amplified by Chinese state media. The NYT not running shock headlines based on trendy internet topics probably has more to do with their editorial scrutiny.