4 ms·

The New York Times is not some Murdoch trashy paper that deals with gossip and controversy. The integrity of their work is important because that is what is ke

The New York Times is not some Murdoch trashy paper that deals with gossip and controversy. The integrity of their work is important because that is what is keeping the paper alive whilst the others are falling by the way side. Maybe you should actually try reading it sometime.

rhizome 14y ago
Pace your sense of the NY Times motivations, I offer Judy Miller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#New_York_Times_career:_2002.E2.80.932005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#New_York_Times_ca...
- taligent 14y ago
  I am well aware of Judy Miller and the many other occasions where their work has been dreadful. But we are talking about a paper that has been around 150+ years. My point was that they aren't the type of paper who writes flamebait articles just to get more online hits.
  - grecy 14y ago
    In the first paragraph you acknowledge there have been "many occasions" of "dreadful" reporting. In the second paragraph you state they are not a bad paper. You are very confused.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    The Judy Miller incidents directly refute your assertion that they don't deal in controversies (and arguably gossip). Arguing that they don't do those things at all, except when they do, isn't very convincing, and your conclusion is a non-sequitur at any rate. "Many other occasions!"
DrDreams 14y ago
heh heh. If you poke around my comments, you'll find my story where I describe how an NYC reporter egged me on and put words in my mouth to sex up a project I'd done. They don't have to be a completely trashy paper; they only need to jazz up the truth a little bit to edge out others. That way they stay on the "truthy" edge and can tell their integrity story, while helping themselves to "drama dollars."
fpgeek 14y ago
Correction: For the NYT's business, their reputation for integrity is what's important, not the actual integrity of their work. For example, it could be better (or just safer) for that reputation to make up a story that agrees with the conventional wisdom than to tell an unexpected truth that does not.

rhizome 14y ago

Pace your sense of the NY Times motivations, I offer Judy Miller: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#New_York_Times_career:_2002.E2.80.932005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#New_York_Times_ca...

taligent 14y ago
I am well aware of Judy Miller and the many other occasions where their work has been dreadful. But we are talking about a paper that has been around 150+ years. My point was that they aren't the type of paper who writes flamebait articles just to get more online hits.
- grecy 14y ago
  In the first paragraph you acknowledge there have been "many occasions" of "dreadful" reporting. In the second paragraph you state they are not a bad paper. You are very confused.
- rhizome 14y ago
  The Judy Miller incidents directly refute your assertion that they don't deal in controversies (and arguably gossip). Arguing that they don't do those things at all, except when they do, isn't very convincing, and your conclusion is a non-sequitur at any rate. "Many other occasions!"

DrDreams 14y ago

heh heh. If you poke around my comments, you'll find my story where I describe how an NYC reporter egged me on and put words in my mouth to sex up a project I'd done. They don't have to be a completely trashy paper; they only need to jazz up the truth a little bit to edge out others. That way they stay on the "truthy" edge and can tell their integrity story, while helping themselves to "drama dollars."

fpgeek 14y ago

Correction: For the NYT's business, their reputation for integrity is what's important, not the actual integrity of their work. For example, it could be better (or just safer) for that reputation to make up a story that agrees with the conventional wisdom than to tell an unexpected truth that does not.