5 ms·
It's simple. the NYT is and has been for some time, a mouthpiece for the sitting administration in Washington. They were under Bush, they are under Obama. The a
by guimarin 13y ago
It's simple. the NYT is and has been for some time, a mouthpiece for the sitting administration in Washington. They were under Bush, they are under Obama. The administrations trade 'towing the line' for access. Don't toe the line, no access. I hate to say it but there are few if any large news organizations which do the kind of Journalism we're taught about in school.
- donohoe 13y agoI also take issue with this Editorial and agree with the EFF, but this... a mouthpiece for the sitting administration in Washington. They were under Bush, they are under Obama That kind of characterization borders on absurdity. I'm sorry of the NYT doesn't bow to your personal politics but to say its a "mouthpiece" - especially for Bush is more than a stretch of reality.
- milesskorpen 13y agoTheir support of the Iraq War was pretty unfortunate, and possibly leads to this characterization.
- ars 13y agoHow can a newspaper support anything? Isn't it a number of different journalists, all with different opinions?
- pyrocat 13y agoHahahahaha
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago> Isn't a newspaper a number of different journalists, all with different opinions? Not really, no. It's the editor who sets the agenda; often at the bidding of the owners.
- guimarin 13y agoMaybe. I used to think a lot of conclusions I had were absurd. I think the NYT has come a long way from the paper storied of old. Also, and I mean this in the most non ad hominem way possible. At what point would you disclose your former and ongoing relationship with the NYT in making a comment like that?
- PilateDeGuerre 13y ago>especially for Bush is more than a stretch of reality. I don't necessarily agree with your parent's assertion, but do you not remember the NYT beating the drums of war as loud as anyone in the lead up to Iraq?
- ryguytilidie 13y agoBut the guy above you heard that they are a liberal media organization, and a conservative media organization said that, so it must be true that the NYT are a bunch of pinko liberal hippies.
- sentenza 13y agoThis was the reason I stopped reading it. You have to remember that "over here" in Europe it was very clear how weak the case for going to war was even before the attack had started. I wonder if Colin Powell knew that he was throwing away his reputation that day. Lately, I have found the Guardian much more informative.
- alexeisadeski3 13y agoFor Bush's first term, the characterization is only a bit inaccurate. For Bush's second term, it's obviously wildly off the mark. For Obama's time in office, both terms, the NYT has indeed functioned as a de facto press room of the administration.
- wnevets 13y agoThe NY Times stopped using the word torture to describe what the US was doing because of the Bush Admin. The New York times supported the Iraq War and was the leading the charge for a war with Iran during Bush's second term.
- smsm42 13y agoSupporting certain action of the administration and being a mouthpiece for the administration is a very different thing. Do you think any media org that supports, for example, the killing of Bin Laden, which is commonly attributed to Obama administration, is an Obama mouthpiece? There were many people that supported Iraq War, from many political persuasions. Some regretted it, some didn't. It doesn't mean they all were Bush's mouthpieces, there is place for genuine agreement even in today's politics.
- wnevets 13y agoHow do you characterize changing the language reporters are allowed to use in the paper to appease the Bush admin?
- etherael 13y agoDoing their patriotic duty. ;)
- smsm42 13y agoIsrael just released 26 terrorists from jail about a week ago to appease Palestinian government. Does it mean the government of Israel is now an agent and mouthpiece of Hamas and PLO?
- wnevets 13y agoThe notion that Israel does anything to appease Palestinian is kinda funny.
- 13y ago
- rhizome 13y agoGoogle "Judy Miller."
- aric 13y agoNo, the characterization borders on reality. Reality is absurd; I'll give you that.
- mcantelon 13y agoNYT protected Bush by sitting on their knowledge of AT&T-facilitated domestic wiretapping. Pretty big story they could have broke. The NYT's usefulness is due to their pretence of being proponents of transparency and democracy.
- revelation 13y agoHow many more times do they have to write another "anonymous government official said this outrageous thing [1]" article for you to start doubting? 1: that happens to be exactly the government line
- nickff 13y agoThey have been more statist than partisan in the recent past. The NYT editorial board is most consistent in its advocacy for additional powers being granted to the federal government. You might say it is a mouthpiece for the government, but not the political administration; NYT tends to favor the administrative bureaucracy.
- blah32497 13y agoThis is a natural consequence of the type of journalism they practice. I recently listened to an interesting interview on the BBC with the late french spy novel author Gérard de Villiers. One of the things he mentions is that journalists need sources, and to get sources you need to do favors. It's a game of you-say-something-nice-about-me-and-my-gov't-program and I'll give you a scoop. That's why they come off as slobbering the shaft of gov't officals. You don't go interview some department boss and then bad mouth him, b/c you won't get invited next time.
- Tobu 13y agoThis is more a consequence of PR being cheap (nicely packaged chunks of the article at no cost) and journalism expensive. If the NYTimes stopped playing by various players' be-nice rules, they would still have access (they have enough relevance that blacklisting them would hurt), but it would be more expensive to produce.
- HelloMcFly 13y agoI've found ProPublica to be great. I also really like Frontline, and often appreciate NPR though they could have handled a few situations better. I really do miss having Neal Conan doing his show.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- shmerl 13y agoIt reminds me this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6693608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6693608
- jstalin 13y agoI think it would be more accurate to simply state that the NYT is an apologist for the state.