6 ms·
Journalists speak truth to power, meanwhile the NYT aligns itself with power at every opportunity. For example, they knew the NSA was spying on us but never ra
by luma 2y ago
Journalists speak truth to power, meanwhile the NYT aligns itself with power at every opportunity. For example, they knew the NSA was spying on us but never ran the story to protect GW's chances at reelection. Presumably they didn't want to be seen as anti-establishment with the new powers and are reverting to their time-proven behavior. NYT will lick the boot when presented, same as ever.
- andreygrehov 2y agoThe answer is ad revenue. If you go against what your subscribers believe in, you lose money. If you lose money, you might lose your job. If you lose your job, you can't pay your mortgage.
- londons_explore 2y agoI suspect plenty of government money directly flows to newspapers as part of various campaigns to sway public opinion on certain politically important topics. Perhaps moreso outside the USA where just a handful of paid articles can sway some topic important for US foreign policy.
- throwaway48476 2y agoMiddle East governments are huge newspaper advertisers. The Chinese government has a propaganda page in the wsj.
- spyspy 2y agoBut then you introduce a subscription model and people decry how the good news is paywalled…
- spyspy 2y agoDisclaimer I worked at NYT but this is just unsubstantiated garbage. Say what you will about the company and journalism as a whole but you’d be hard pressed to find a better group of truth-seekers out there. waves hands at every other “news” outlet
- dataf3l 2y agook put your money where your mouth is, call your coworker and lets see they revert the onion service then...
- spyspy 2y agoThe key word you missed in my comment is “worked”.
- croes 2y ago> to find a better group of truth-seekers Pretty useless if those who need it the most can’t read it.
- 4509Hg 2y agoNo it isn't garbage. During the Biden regime they ran every culture war story that was expected from them. During COVID they ran a hardliner policy for two years. Then, when they were told about an imminent policy reversal around December 2021, they suddenly started manufacturing the new consent with questioning if lockdowns hurt school children etc. They had been Iraq hawks, they are Ukraine hawks now. The NYT most closely matches Chomsky's media analysis of all outlets, and unlike other outlets the NYT hides it well.
- Lammy 2y agohttps://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-stone-10-20-1977 https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-... “The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.”
- dmix 2y agoYou don't need employees anymore just anonymous sources from "government insiders" by journalists who gain social/work credit from being friends with intelligence officials. The quid pro quo is implied and unquestioned because it sells papers. NYT/WSJ/WaPo are the main vectors for that stuff (big journalist outfits get big juicy sources) and they do it proudly.
- chneu 2y agoI'm not saying I disagree, but please see how dangerous your thinking can be. That basically takes away a major tool of journalists and allows you to paint whoever you disagree with as wrong simply because they don't wish to go public. Very, very dangerous way of thinking. Allowing sourcesto stay anonymous is a major tool for journalists.
- dmix 2y agoAn anonymous source from a whistleblower: practical and understandable. Anonymous sources from gov officials that just tows an established useful line that benefits them: way, way too common. I'm a daily reader of NYT and I can't count the number of times I see them use it each year. It's become standard practice enough to not be just some edge case to protect people. It's like how the government classifies everything because it makes their job easier. Not knowing the person, agency, level of access, etc behind a quote makes it extremely difficult to take seriously. A ton of trust is being put on NYT that it's not just purposefully fed information or gossip.
- starik36 2y agoYour post is nonsense. NYT has endorsed a democrat for every election in recent history. Why would they "protect" GW's chances at reelection??? Endorsements 2024: Kamala Harris (Democrat) 2020: Joe Biden (Democrat) 2016: Hillary Clinton (Democrat) 2012: Barack Obama (Democrat) 2008: Barack Obama (Democrat) 2004: John Kerry (Democrat) 2000: Al Gore (Democrat) 1996: Bill Clinton (Democrat) 1992: Bill Clinton (Democrat)
- luma 2y agoI take them at their actions, not their empty words. Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies#Delayed_publication_of_2005_NSA_warrantless_surveillance_story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con... > In an interview in 2013, [NYT Executive Editor] Keller said that the newspaper had decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration Bush told them not to run the story while he was running for president. As always, the boot was presented and they licked it clean.
- darkhorse222 2y agoYour excerpt is a bit misleading, here's a wider cut: When it published the article, the newspaper reported that it had delayed publication because the George W. Bush White House had argued that publication "could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny." The timing of the New York Times story prompted debate, and the Los Angeles Times noted that "critics on the left wondering why the paper waited so long to publish the story and those on the right wondering why it was published at all." Times executive editor Bill Keller denied that the timing of the reporting was linked to any external event, such as the December 2005 Iraqi parliamentary election, the impending publication of Risen's book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration, or the then-ongoing debate on Patriot Act reauthorization. Risen and Lichtblau won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2006. In an interview in 2013, Keller said that the newspaper had decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration and being advised not to do so by The New York Times Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman, and that "Three years after 9/11, we, as a country, were still under the influence of that trauma, and we, as a newspaper, were not immune."
- setgree 2y ago> [The NY Times] knew the NSA was spying on us but never ran the story to protect GW's chances at reelection This is a really strong claim -- the part about the 'why'. Strong claims generally require strong evidence. I'm perfectly willing to believe they spiked the story for other, more plausible reasons, but come on, their editorial endorsing John Kerry is right there for everyone to read: > There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure...When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed...The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management. So what exactly is the theory here that they spiked an NSA story to help this guy win re-election?? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/john-kerry-for-president.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/john-kerry-for-pr...
- throwaway48476 2y agoI know PBS frontline did a documentary on this.
- jancsika 2y agoThey did, it is worth watching, and it most definitely does not make the claim that Keller scuttled the story because he wanted GW to win the election. I've never heard anyone except user Luma at the top of this HN thread make that claim. If anything the time and energy devoted on this thread to disputing an apparently hastily-written and not fact-checked claim is evidence for why serious journalism (and a good editor!) is worth its weight in gold.
- rediguanayum 2y agoConsider that technology may have moved on, and there are other better ways to communicate with journalists: https://www.nytimes.com/tips https://www.nytimes.com/tips e.g. Signal and to read NYTimes e.g. high quality VPN.
- mmooss 2y ago> to read NYTimes e.g. high quality VPN I don't see how an ordinary non-technical user could obtain access to a "high quality VPN". I'm not sure a technically skilled user could without a lot of work to setup some sort of chain of anonymous proxies.
- basedrum 2y agoLol, that tips page uses tor?
- skwirl 2y agoIf you went back to 2004 and told people the NYT was trying to help re-elect George W Bush they would nervously back away slowly from you.
- mmooss 2y ago> they knew the NSA was spying on us but never ran the story They did run the story; they withheld it for awhile. > to protect GW's chances at reelection Is there evidence of that? I've never heard it and I promise that no Republican thinks the NY Times actively helping them.
- user3939382 2y agoI definitely see it as a mouthpiece for the establishment and three letter agencies, my interest and trust in it is pretty much 0.