3 ms·

Dear New York Times: The Pay Wall Was Only Half the Problem

3 points by danw 19y ago

gibsonf1 19y ago
I think the real reason for the Times' dwindling readership and authority in the last years is the influence of the current publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., who took over in 1992. I lived in NYC back in 1989, and at that time, the Times was the ultimate newspaper: it gave an objective view of not only NYC but of the whole world in wonderful enlightening detail. I used to get the Sunday edition hot off the press late Saturday night and then eagerly read it on Sunday. It was truly at that time the standard for what a newspaper could and should be. Those days, unfortunately, began dying in 1992 and a little more every year since to the point now where common news is of the latest bias shown in the Times - the slant is obvious and annoying. I hate slants in news even if the slant is in a direction I favor. I want to form my opinion based on the facts, not the other way around. I'm afraid the only hope the Times has is if the next Sulzberger (or non-family member if the Times really tanks and gets bought up) can re-implement the great objectivity of yesteryear - but this is probably unlikely. The pattern seems to be the more they loose readers, the more they slant. Repeat.
- Goladus 19y ago
  The more you learn about a given subject, the more that subject will appear 'slanted' in a news article. Selective omission is a relatively simple form of bias, yet almost impossible to avoid. Even academic works are full of slant.
  - gibsonf1 19y ago
    For a newspaper reporting facts, I would argue that quality is inversely proportional to slant. This lack of slant is what made the NY times of old great. There were no fabricated story scandals then, no need for a "public" editor to monitor the slant then. The NY times had enormous impact as their stories were syndicated in most other newspapers - this impact is vanishing. The increasing slant is why I gave up on the Times a couple years ago, and I'm sure it explains the loss of a lot of other readers as well.
    - karzeem 19y ago
      Depends what you mean by slant. Fox News slant is bad, Slate slant is good. The measure isn't whether the slant is in a particular political direction--it's intellectual honesty and quality of reasoning. For that reason, pulling off a slant usually means that you come down hard on everyone, so the only acceptable bias at a good news operation is an anti-BS bias.
      - Goladus 19y ago
        One of my biggest problems with a lot of Media is that they mistake 'coming down hard on everyone' or 'show both sides of the story' with thorough research and logic. When the focus is on avoiding bias, rather than on improving substance, that's what you get. Usually, slanted articles are bad less because they're slanted and more because they're poorly researched and contain few insights.

3 points by danw 19y ago

I think the real reason for the Times' dwindling readership and authority in the last years is the influence of the current publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., who took over in 1992. I lived in NYC back in 1989, and at that time, the Times was the ultimate newspaper: it gave an objective view of not only NYC but of the whole world in wonderful enlightening detail. I used to get the Sunday edition hot off the press late Saturday night and then eagerly read it on Sunday. It was truly at that time the standard for what a newspaper could and should be. Those days, unfortunately, began dying in 1992 and a little more every year since to the point now where common news is of the latest bias shown in the Times - the slant is obvious and annoying. I hate slants in news even if the slant is in a direction I favor. I want to form my opinion based on the facts, not the other way around. I'm afraid the only hope the Times has is if the next Sulzberger (or non-family member if the Times really tanks and gets bought up) can re-implement the great objectivity of yesteryear - but this is probably unlikely. The pattern seems to be the more they loose readers, the more they slant. Repeat.

Goladus 19y ago
The more you learn about a given subject, the more that subject will appear 'slanted' in a news article. Selective omission is a relatively simple form of bias, yet almost impossible to avoid. Even academic works are full of slant.
- gibsonf1 19y ago
  For a newspaper reporting facts, I would argue that quality is inversely proportional to slant. This lack of slant is what made the NY times of old great. There were no fabricated story scandals then, no need for a "public" editor to monitor the slant then. The NY times had enormous impact as their stories were syndicated in most other newspapers - this impact is vanishing. The increasing slant is why I gave up on the Times a couple years ago, and I'm sure it explains the loss of a lot of other readers as well.
  - karzeem 19y ago
    Depends what you mean by slant. Fox News slant is bad, Slate slant is good. The measure isn't whether the slant is in a particular political direction--it's intellectual honesty and quality of reasoning. For that reason, pulling off a slant usually means that you come down hard on everyone, so the only acceptable bias at a good news operation is an anti-BS bias.
    - Goladus 19y ago
      One of my biggest problems with a lot of Media is that they mistake 'coming down hard on everyone' or 'show both sides of the story' with thorough research and logic. When the focus is on avoiding bias, rather than on improving substance, that's what you get. Usually, slanted articles are bad less because they're slanted and more because they're poorly researched and contain few insights.