5 ms·

The NY Times seems to have a serious ongoing credibility problem. Just a couple of days ago they seriously mis-reported the investigation into the Clinton email

The NY Times seems to have a serious ongoing credibility problem. Just a couple of days ago they seriously mis-reported the investigation into the Clinton emails[1], and a couple of weeks ago they all but admitted that their Ellen Pao coverage was ideologically biased[2]. And that's just in the past couple of weeks! [1] http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246 http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-email... [2] http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/sunday-review/did-reddit-boss-coverage-cross-a-line-ellen-pao.html http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/sunday-review/did-reddi...

steve19 11y ago
There needs to be an internet "law" about how all news reporting websites eventually tend towards populism and "fluff" (Ten X About Y That Will Shock|Terrify|Amaze You), rather than unbiased reporting, over time. Edit: And maybe another law about how frequently they tend toward populism that ends up alienating the silent-majority of their audience setting up a feedback loop as they strive to even greater monetization despite a decreasing audience.
- ageek123 11y ago
  The funny/sad thing is that the NY Times basically admitted that's what they've become. In the Ellen Pao "Public Editor" column I linked to, the NY Times Public Editor herself said "I often hear from readers that they would prefer a straight, neutral treatment — just the facts. But The Times has moved away from that, reflecting editors’ reasonable belief that the basics can be found in many news outlets, every minute of the day."
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Sweet zombie jesus. I can't believe they not only outright said that, but apparently think it's somehow a good thing. The only thing the NYT has going for it is reliability. If it's their view that the facts can be had anywhere and what makes them special is the "added value" then they are almost outright admitting that they no longer have any reason to exits.
    - function_seven 11y ago
      So can we safely say they are no longer "the newspaper of record"? That's one of the massive pillars that their reputation has been staked on for more than a century. I was just as flabbergasted as you when I read that line. "Added value" is why the New York Post exists.
      - busterarm 11y ago
        Sad/funny thing is...the Post has been totally nailing it on some of their stories lately. http://nypost.com/2015/07/10/apparently-its-now-ok-to-pee-on-the-streets-of-new-york-city/ http://nypost.com/2015/07/10/apparently-its-now-ok-to-pee-on...
  - jinushaun 11y ago
    If everybody holds this belief, then where am I supposed to get my "basics?"
    - thaumasiotes 11y ago
      Read the story 5 times in a variety of places, and see what didn't change from report to report. :/
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - PhantomGremlin 11y ago
    OMG. Thanks for calling attention to this. It's unbelievable. Is there a chance that somehow The Onion has hijacked DNS for the Times and redirected it to a spoof site? Because that's how I read what the Public Editor said! We're also treated to Orwellian Newspeak. When articles are written with an SJW slant it's not "opinion", but "analysis". BTW at this moment there are 226 comments on that column on the Times website. People are outraged. Here are some excerpts from a few comments: The color commentary disgused as "context and analysis" is just awful—stop it! Just the facts, please. This is why the Times has diminishing readership and crediblity. I'm just boggled. Readers hammered you on the factual inaccuracies, bias and agenda pushing in that article. And that's your response? My world is crumbling and there's nothing I can do to stop it. I've saved a copy of both the column and the comments. When I need a reminder of how bad traditional media has become, I'll reread them.
austenallred 11y ago
Every news site has (and has always had) an ongoing credibility problem. We're just noticing now that there's the Internet
- ics 11y ago
  At least, we're noticing much more quickly than might have been reasonable before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
pessimizer 11y ago
About [1]: "Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control." The 55,000 emails were exported from the system by her staff, IIRC. I've never read another story that said that her emails were ever under the control of the State Department, which would of course make the email story completely insensible. If this is a false claim, Newsweek is just as confused as the NYT about Clinton's emails, if not more. At some point the NYT and other media outlets decided the Clinton email story was about "classified emails" rather than an official conducting state business over their own private email. Newsweek is reducing it in this article to an insignificant technicality about FOIA. It's not about FOIA, it's about having a record of state business. FOIA is the only tool that the public has to force release of such records, but FOIA is not the reason we keep them. That's like saying that the reason you have a lock is so you have a place to use the key. By making the story about the possible release of classified information, it just gives Clinton something that is easy to deny. I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton team were intentionally steering the coverage in that direction, because when her denials of emailing classified information are proved true, the story will evaporate.
scoofy 11y ago
It's rather sad. I switched to the Washington Post after the Snowden debacle, when the NYT was hedging their reporting. I've found that the Post's journalism is vastly more serious. Then again, if i want to learn about fluff that doesn't matter, the NYT is still excellent.

steve19 11y ago

There needs to be an internet "law" about how all news reporting websites eventually tend towards populism and "fluff" (Ten X About Y That Will Shock|Terrify|Amaze You), rather than unbiased reporting, over time. Edit: And maybe another law about how frequently they tend toward populism that ends up alienating the silent-majority of their audience setting up a feedback loop as they strive to even greater monetization despite a decreasing audience.

ageek123 11y ago
The funny/sad thing is that the NY Times basically admitted that's what they've become. In the Ellen Pao "Public Editor" column I linked to, the NY Times Public Editor herself said "I often hear from readers that they would prefer a straight, neutral treatment — just the facts. But The Times has moved away from that, reflecting editors’ reasonable belief that the basics can be found in many news outlets, every minute of the day."
- mikeash 11y ago
  Sweet zombie jesus. I can't believe they not only outright said that, but apparently think it's somehow a good thing. The only thing the NYT has going for it is reliability. If it's their view that the facts can be had anywhere and what makes them special is the "added value" then they are almost outright admitting that they no longer have any reason to exits.
  - function_seven 11y ago
    So can we safely say they are no longer "the newspaper of record"? That's one of the massive pillars that their reputation has been staked on for more than a century. I was just as flabbergasted as you when I read that line. "Added value" is why the New York Post exists.
    - busterarm 11y ago
      Sad/funny thing is...the Post has been totally nailing it on some of their stories lately. http://nypost.com/2015/07/10/apparently-its-now-ok-to-pee-on-the-streets-of-new-york-city/ http://nypost.com/2015/07/10/apparently-its-now-ok-to-pee-on...
- jinushaun 11y ago
  If everybody holds this belief, then where am I supposed to get my "basics?"
  - thaumasiotes 11y ago
    Read the story 5 times in a variety of places, and see what didn't change from report to report. :/
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- PhantomGremlin 11y ago
  OMG. Thanks for calling attention to this. It's unbelievable. Is there a chance that somehow The Onion has hijacked DNS for the Times and redirected it to a spoof site? Because that's how I read what the Public Editor said! We're also treated to Orwellian Newspeak. When articles are written with an SJW slant it's not "opinion", but "analysis". BTW at this moment there are 226 comments on that column on the Times website. People are outraged. Here are some excerpts from a few comments: The color commentary disgused as "context and analysis" is just awful—stop it! Just the facts, please. This is why the Times has diminishing readership and crediblity. I'm just boggled. Readers hammered you on the factual inaccuracies, bias and agenda pushing in that article. And that's your response? My world is crumbling and there's nothing I can do to stop it. I've saved a copy of both the column and the comments. When I need a reminder of how bad traditional media has become, I'll reread them.

austenallred 11y ago

Every news site has (and has always had) an ongoing credibility problem. We're just noticing now that there's the Internet

ics 11y ago
At least, we're noticing much more quickly than might have been reasonable before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

pessimizer 11y ago

About [1]: "Second, contrary to the implication from the first Times story, Clinton’s emails sent in her role as secretary of state were automatically saved into a secure data system under the control of the department. In fact, where does the Times think the FOIA offices for the State Department and the intelligence community are finding the 55,000 emails now under review that it cites in its new story? Are officials breaking into Clinton’s house in the middle of the night to examine them by flashlight? Nope. They are pulling them off of the system under the department’s control." The 55,000 emails were exported from the system by her staff, IIRC. I've never read another story that said that her emails were ever under the control of the State Department, which would of course make the email story completely insensible. If this is a false claim, Newsweek is just as confused as the NYT about Clinton's emails, if not more. At some point the NYT and other media outlets decided the Clinton email story was about "classified emails" rather than an official conducting state business over their own private email. Newsweek is reducing it in this article to an insignificant technicality about FOIA. It's not about FOIA, it's about having a record of state business. FOIA is the only tool that the public has to force release of such records, but FOIA is not the reason we keep them. That's like saying that the reason you have a lock is so you have a place to use the key. By making the story about the possible release of classified information, it just gives Clinton something that is easy to deny. I wouldn't be surprised if the Clinton team were intentionally steering the coverage in that direction, because when her denials of emailing classified information are proved true, the story will evaporate.

scoofy 11y ago

It's rather sad. I switched to the Washington Post after the Snowden debacle, when the NYT was hedging their reporting. I've found that the Post's journalism is vastly more serious. Then again, if i want to learn about fluff that doesn't matter, the NYT is still excellent.