4 ms·

In this review, the author of a paper that brought you the Iraq war is unhappy with Greenwalds impression of his and similar media properties.

cryoshon 13y ago
On one hand, I think that Greenwald fails to understand the nature of the NYT: The NYT seeks to turn a profit, and they do so via the formation and recapitulation of the most middle ground, most mainstream views and opinions. On the other hand, this kind of "perfectly normal and always palatable fare for the sake of always being popular" stuff is certainly very weak journalism. They're so low-brow that they can't even write a story that refutes their readership's expectations because they're afraid of losing business. When it comes to the government, the criticism of the NYT will always be pedestrian and surface-level rather than deep. This ends up serving the government because it implies that solutions will also be merely surface-level rather than far-reaching.
- deciplex 13y ago
  >On one hand, I think that Greenwald fails to understand the nature of the NYT: The NYT seeks to turn a profit, and they do so via the formation and recapitulation of the most middle ground, most mainstream views and opinions. Let's make an important distinction here: the NYT does not merely seek to turn a profit. That is, they do not try to cover their operating costs plus some extra percentage. Even at their size, they could engage in responsible journalism and still achieve this goal. Rather, the NYT seeks to maximize profit, above all else. And, if responsible journalism does not contribute to that goal, then responsible journalism will not get done.
eli 13y ago
I'm not sure the NYT's book reviewer had much to do with the Iraq war. Why even read the review if you automatically reject any opinion anyone in the Times might have about the book?
csandreasen 13y ago
I'm not sure that's a fair comparison when Glenn Greenwald himself was in support of the Iraq war... http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462 http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462

cryoshon 13y ago

On one hand, I think that Greenwald fails to understand the nature of the NYT: The NYT seeks to turn a profit, and they do so via the formation and recapitulation of the most middle ground, most mainstream views and opinions. On the other hand, this kind of "perfectly normal and always palatable fare for the sake of always being popular" stuff is certainly very weak journalism. They're so low-brow that they can't even write a story that refutes their readership's expectations because they're afraid of losing business. When it comes to the government, the criticism of the NYT will always be pedestrian and surface-level rather than deep. This ends up serving the government because it implies that solutions will also be merely surface-level rather than far-reaching.

deciplex 13y ago
>On one hand, I think that Greenwald fails to understand the nature of the NYT: The NYT seeks to turn a profit, and they do so via the formation and recapitulation of the most middle ground, most mainstream views and opinions. Let's make an important distinction here: the NYT does not merely seek to turn a profit. That is, they do not try to cover their operating costs plus some extra percentage. Even at their size, they could engage in responsible journalism and still achieve this goal. Rather, the NYT seeks to maximize profit, above all else. And, if responsible journalism does not contribute to that goal, then responsible journalism will not get done.

eli 13y ago

I'm not sure the NYT's book reviewer had much to do with the Iraq war. Why even read the review if you automatically reject any opinion anyone in the Times might have about the book?

csandreasen 13y ago

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison when Glenn Greenwald himself was in support of the Iraq war... http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462 http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297462