The NY Times is not Fox "news."

[Cyrano]

The NY Times is one of the favorite targets of many here on DU. However, I believe they are still one of the great newspapers in the world. (Having said that, I've put on my flak suit and helmet in preparation for the incoming attacks.)

I've been reading the NY Times since I was a teenager in high school. It helped get me interested in science, the arts, politics, history, geography, and the rest of the world around us. It kept me informed a whole lot about a whole lot.

And yes, they've fucked up over the years with too much "both sides do it," and their negligent coverage of the 9/11 Iraq lie. However, in every single election since 1960, they've endorsed the Democratic candidate for the presidency. That's 60 years of standing behind the Democrat's values and idea of America, as opposed to the mindless crap that Republicans try to feed us.

They're not MSNBC. But much of what is on MSNBC is opinion. Aside from the OP page, the NY Times is (mostly) about the practice of journalism. Think about this. How many MAGAs, and other wingnuts of every variety, have ever read the NY Times?

Why don't we all stop wasting keystrokes on those who are not our "Domestic Enemies" and trying to destroy our freedoms. If the NY Times went out of business tomorrow, the corrupt fascists called the Republican Party would be in joy beyond compare. Is that what we really want?

[brooklynite]

1. I find that most of the "news" resources people claim to rely on here...

...are opining or elaborating on news collected by someone else.

[stopdiggin]

22. +1. good way of putting it

(little real journalism in some 'outlets')

[dpibel]

36. I find that most of the pronunciamentos here

that start out "I find" are, at best, opinion and, more often than not, empty bloviating.

I mean, that's a really broad net you're casting there. It might even catch some unintended fish.

[Hekate]

2. Thank you!

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. In some ways, NYT is w much worse than FOX

They give a sheen of legitimacy and normalcy to every distorted, both sides story they print.

From enabling and excusing the illegal Iraq war, to normalizing Trump via access journalism, to strengthening the “Biden is too old” narrative, the NYT has failed again and again and again to fulfill their role in speaking truth to power and informing their readers of the true stakes of elections, always choosing to focus on the horse race.

Judith Miller

Maggie Habermann

And the hack of all hacks, never-right-about-anything, David Brooks

[SheilaAnn]

4. You said it far better than I could and agree with every word. Used to read the NYT, gave up on them quite a while ago.

[PortTack]

15. Same

[Cyrano]

5. Yeah, I see their flaws

David Brooks is a right wing columnist, who writes his opinions. Not facts.

The "Biden is too old" narrative is news, whether we like it or not.

Normalizing Trump? Would you have them ignore him?

And I've already said they fucked up on the Iraq War.

As far as speaking truth to power, that is not the definition of journalism. They are there to report the facts as best they can (although they often screw it up.)

And as far as the "horse race" thing, it is a horse race. That really sucks. But no respectable newspaper is in business to "push" any candidate. (Except in the editorial column, where they've often said that Trump sucks.)

Do you really want the NY Times to be the Fox "news" of the Democratic Party? (Yeah, it would be nice, but that's not their function.)

[TwilightZone]

8. "it is a horse race"

The number of people who object to this characterization of the 2024 race just blows my mind. It's as though people have forgotten that the electoral college exists and that Trump has a built-in advantage there.

I think Biden wins, but some people really seem to believe that the polls are wrong on a massive scale and that Biden is going to win in some historic landslide. Unless there's some as-yet-unknown major event, it looks like a situation similar to 2020, with just a few states making the difference.

Agreed re: the Times. It was never going to be the Fox News of the left, nor should it be, if we're really interested in independent journalism. That doesn't mean that it's beyond criticism, of course, but the knee-jerk silliness that goes on around here about it is so over-the-top that it's laughable.

[Fiendish Thingy]

14. The focus of their reporting should be on the stakes, not the odds

Instead of normalizing Trump, they should be screaming about his fascist intentions for a second term.

Brooks is an idiot who endeavours to give Democrats advice on how to moderate their “extremism” in order to win elections.

Instead of reporting “some people say Nazis are bad, some say they are good”, NYT should be framing their reporting as “Trump’s reelection would threaten to end America’s democracy “

[Cyrano]

19. It's up to the paper's editorial staff and Op-Ed pundits to frame Trump and his "Nazi-like" intentions.

Reporting that “Trump’s reelection would threaten to end America’s democracy “ is not journalism. It's prophecy.

Sorry, Fiendish Thingy. Newspapers are supposed to report news, not opinions.

Both of us would love to see "TRUMP IS A FASCIST PIG WHO WILL DESTROY AMERICA" above the fold on page one of every publication that exists. Ain't gonna happen. How would you like to see a headline like that about Joe Biden in every right-leaning newspaper in America? -- Yeah, neither would I.

(By the way, I agree with you that “Trump’s reelection would threaten to end America’s democracy .“)

[dpibel]

27. No polls? No MOS? No experts?

If the media are only "supposed to report news, not opinions," why do we see articles outside the editorial pages reporting on polls (which I believe are sometimes referred to as "opinion" polls)?

Why do we see NYT reporters venturing to East Backwater for diner interviews? You're telling me that what some random individual tells a reporter is news and not opinion? Even the ones who say "Trump is my lord and savior"?

Why do we see articles in which battling experts are quoted giving their analysis of the news? That's opinion, innit?

And in each of those cases, the inclusion or exclusion of particular voices is a pure matter of editorial discretion. If a publication regularly makes the decision to, say, report the widespread opinion that Joe Biden is hovering on the feather edge of dementia, that does not actually transform the belief (i.e., opinion) into fact (i.e., news, if I'm correctly understanding your definition of the term.

The idea that reporters just gather facts and editors just make sure the reporters have the facts right is a tiny bit naive.

I'm not sure it's quite as easy to sort all this out as you're making it out to be.

[Fiendish Thingy]

30. You misinterpreted my post

There is plenty of factual evidence in the form of Agenda 47, project 2025, and Trump’s own words and tweets, as well as those of his minions, to report as news, not opinion, that the intentions of a second Trump administration would be to create a fascist, authoritarian regime, with minority rule, increased political violence , and reduced rights of the citizens, as well as drastically reduced power of the other two co-equal branches of government.

Not framing the stakes of the next election in such a way is a failure to accurately inform the public.

[moniss]

24. It is worse than that

and they commit bias at times, more frequently now, by the headline method and burial method. The headline may be written in a way that gives an impression or highlights an aspect not supported by the facts or magnitude/relevance of actual involvement to a story yet it gets into the headline.

The burial method is done three main ways. One is that an article is written at length and leads a reader along a particular path of interpretation and involvement/responsibility of some act/person. Yet the information that negates that meme is not laid out until a very brief mention way down in the article. That is done purposely because everybody who has ever taken classes in communication/journalism knows that the research shows how large of a percentage the drop off is when you go from those who skim a headline to those who begin to read an article and those who go a certain length into an article. It decreases at each stage so the person "holding off" until way late in an article knows that information will be seen by the fewest readers. So why would someone do that? The answer is obvious. They have a slant, they want that slant to be the dominant takeaway for most people and they want to defend themselves by pointing to something buried deep in the article. As a side not some publication used to put articles back and forth across several pages which means even fewer people are going to go all the way with the article. In other words the article starts on Page 3, then goes to Page 13, then goes back to Page 8 and then finally finishes on Page 5. Each time you hit the "Continued On" you can measure the drop in readers.

A second usual burial method is used in cases of stories that seemed "hot" and had high visibility for a day or two. Then the actual truth comes out perhaps a month or so later but if any followup is carried at all it is buried way deep on page 26 with a nondescript headline and an article of minimal description/length.

A third burial method is similar to the second but this has to do with retraction and corrections. Once again if a publication is being completely honest, unbiased and just giving me the facts why would they engage in such conduct? The answer is they do knowingly engage in that conduct and so negate their claims to honesty, lack of bias and just factual reporting.

The editorial/opinion section should never in any way bleed over to the rest of a news publication. But it does and manipulators know that it does and they give information to certain reporters who they know will write "a certain way". Like Judith Miller for example.

[Cyrano]

6. Duplicate post deleted

[brooklynite]

18. So you're unhappy with one opinion writer and two reporters

Last I checked, the Times had a substantially larger number of reporters and writers.

And it’s always interesting to see how many paywall complaints there are when the Times breaks a big story.

[Fiendish Thingy]

26. Sorry I didn't list their entire roster

Would it have been clearer if I had said Krugman is the only (well, him and Wordle) thing worth reading in the NYT?

I thought I was clear when I said NYT has consistently failed in its role to speak truth to power, inform it readers, and act as a check on government overreach.

[Basic LA]

23. Re Maggie Haberman...

I just don't recall ever reading a single pro-Trump word from her. Yet she's always listed that way. I know I missed something. Help.

[Fiendish Thingy]

31. Her tepid criticism is exchanged for planting exclusive quotes from Trump and insiders

Maggie is a vessel for exclusive, anonymous quotes from Trump and his minions that advance their narratives and frame issues in the way they want them covered.

While she will occasionally engage in mild criticism of Trump, she is largely his unquestioning stenographer.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/is-trump-whisperer-maggie-haberman-changing-the-new-york-times

[Basic LA]

32. Thank you!

Guess I wasn't reading between the lines. Missed it completely.

[ificandream]

39. You can bet her competitors are jealous of the fact she has such a good source from the Trump side.

The fact that Trump whines about the media but trusts her says he has an outlet of a respected media source (and don't believe he doesn't know that) to give quotes to. Be glad that Haberman does what she does.

(And read her book "Confidence Man" on him. Great book and goes deep into his background.)

[LetMyPeopleVote]

34. Any publication that thinks that Maggie Haberman is a journalist is a publication that should be ignored

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

In the J6 hearings it came out that Cassidy Hutchinson was told that the NYT was in TFG's pocket and would push whatever lies that TFG wanted pushed

Link to tweet

[Basic LA]

35. Thanks for all that

I was reading superficially because I like her news-desk, old Broadway writing voice.

[ificandream]

40. That shows how little his five-and-dime lawyers know about the media.

And for God's sake, why does anyone take the word of a Trump lawyer?

[jrthin]

29. God darn it, you have hit the nail on the head.

[chouchou]

7. I enjoy them a lot. They were better in their younger days,...

..but even the main prime news nowadays pretty much sucks. (especially ABC, NBC)
"Our next segment will have all you dumb-asses fawning over a 12 year old boy, selling
lemonade for 50 cents in Timbuktu, Idaho. ..in order to pay down the national debt!!!

Excuse me while I puke.

[cachukis]

9. The Times has its opinionists, for sure. I read them,

sometimes screeching.
In the end, when I search for news of the day, I am mostly comforted that it shows up in the Times or Post.
If it doesn't make it to the Times, it is unverified, to me. They have an ombudsman and do make corrections.

We have to have a standard, albeit flawed, but show me some better, in the grand scope and I'll follow.

Face it, it's the best newspaper in the world. The Post sometimes surpasses. The Guardian presents a worldview worth a look. Reuters outpaces AP in my book.

Mind you, this is from a westerner, with worldly travels in his back pocket, but not conversant with the high thinking in Beijing nor Budapest nor Paris, for that matter.

I ask of others, where do you get your news?
If they knock the Times, they didn't get what they were looking for, but I don't think that is necessarily bad.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. OPINION: The NY Times owes Hillary Clinton an apology

I cancelled my subscription to the NYT due to the unfair coverage of Hillary Clinton. The NYT and Haberman helped elect TFG

Link to tweet

“The 2-year frenzy over the emails was a political Rorschach test where everyone saw something different in what was ultimately nothing. Call it sexism, Republican depravity, ratings-hungry media, it’s time we acknowledge it was bullshit, and write that into the history books.” – Hillary Clinton

Back in 2016, their reporter Maggie Haberman amplified the Hillary Clinton conspiracy which Trump campaigned on. I and many other conservatives who supported Trump (including others like me who learned this was a mistake) did our best to get this to the masses to say ‘Hillary Clinton was an irresponsible leader and unfit to be President.’ At the time I was spreading this lie, I didn’t know it was a lie, and the fact that the Times writer amplified it, even more, made us believe we were right and this possibly persuaded undecided electoral voters to pick Trump. Little did I know that I would eventually learn that Hillary Clinton was exonerated of any wrongdoing, and I apologized for my part in spreading this lie.,,,,,

Maggy Haberman and the not-so-liberal media the NY Times owe Hillary Clinton a public apology.

We all owe a thank you to Nick Merill for informing all of us about a disservice to the public emanating from the Old Gray Lady when it suddenly began to betray its motto of publishing “all the news that’s fit to print.”

Link to tweet

[czarjak]

16. Kevin told everybody it was a plot.

You weren't listening?

[ificandream]

41. If the Times "refused" to print the quote (which I don't believe), how did the tweeter get it?

I smell a social media rat.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. The NYT should tell readers whether it helped crooked FBI agents get Trump elected in 2016

The combination of the NYT and crooked FBI agents got TFG elected. I canceled my subscription to the NYT back in 2016 due to the biased coverage. The NYT is not a real news organization and actually worked with the NYC office of the FBI to elect TFG

Link to tweet

https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/commentary/mcgonigal-russian-oligarch-trump-2016-election-20230129.html

It was arguably the most consequential “October Surprise” in the history of American presidential elections. In the waning days of the 2016 race, with polls showing Hillary Clinton clinging to a lead over Donald Trump, two last-minute stories broke that rekindled on-the-fence voters’ ethical doubts about Democrat Clinton and quashed a budding scandal around her GOP rival.

Except the “October Surprise” was no surprise to one key player: Rudolph Giuliani, the ex-New York mayor and Trump insider who later became the 45th president’s attorney. Late that month, Giuliani told Fox News that the trailing Republican nominee had “a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days. I mean, I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.”

Just two days later, then-FBI director James Comey revealed the bureau had reopened its probe into Clinton’s emails, based on the possible discovery of new communications on a laptop belonging to disgraced New York politico Anthony Weiner. The news jolted the campaign with a particularly strong boost from the New York Times, which devoted two-thirds of its front page to the story — and the notion it was a major blow to Clinton’s prospects.

It was later reported that Comey was motivated to make the unusual announcement about the laptop because he feared leaks from the FBI’s New York field office, which, according to Reuters, had “a faction of investigators based in the office known to be hostile to Hillary Clinton.” Indeed, Giuliani bragged immediately after that he had sources in the FBI, including current agents.

Link to tweet

......The government allegations against the former G-man Charles McGonigal (also accused of taking a large foreign payment while still on the FBI payroll) and the outsized American influence of the sanctioned-and-later-indicted Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska — also tied to U.S. pols from Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort to Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell — should make us also look again at what was really up with the FBI in 2016.

How coordinated was the effort in that New York field office to pump up the ultimate nothingburger about Clinton’s emails while poo-pooing the very real evidence of Russian interference on Trump’s behalf, and who were the agents behind it? What was the role, if any, of McGonigal and his international web of intrigue? Was the now-tainted McGonigal a source who told the New York Times that fateful October that Russia was not trying to help Trump win the election — before the U.S. intelligence community determined the exact opposite? If not McGonigal, just who was intentionally misleading America’s most influential news org, and why?......

It’s not only that America’s so-called paper of record has never apologized for its over-the-top coverage of the Clinton emails or the deeply flawed story about the FBI Trump-Russia probe. It’s that the Times has shown a stunning lack of curiosity about finding out what went wrong. In May 2017, or just seven months after Trump’s election, then-Times executive editor Dean Baquet ended the position of public editor, an independent journalist who was embedded in the newsroom to cover controversies exactly like these.

[Tommy Carcetti]

12. The NY Times is imperfect. But they are far less imperfect than some other sources.

They are as much of an institution as you can find in the media world, and like any institution that means you take the good with the bad.

I do get a kick out of the “New York Times Pitchbot” Twitter page and how they poke fun at the Times’ frequent habit of over-nuance.

But all in all, I’m glad they are there, along with the Washington Post.

[tenderfoot]

13. The NY Times primary objective is to stave off any threat to the status-quo

eom

[BigOleDummy]

17. WaPo and

BBC for me. Here. AlterNet. but mainly WaPo/BBC

[republianmushroom]

20. Truer, but, they do act like it at times.

[maxsolomon]

21. Interestingly, many local papers carry NYT stories on their front pages

Our Seattle Times, which regularly endorses reprehensible GQP cretins for office, prints NYT stories about international events.

So, many MAGAts read the NYT "spin" and they don't even realize it.

[stopdiggin]

25. +100 we talk about information silos

and cognitive bias. And then throw a fit over anyone that has ever offended.
I don't live in a world of such purity
(and, if we're honest about it, neither does anyone else .. )

[SocialDemocrat61]

28. No one cares about who they endorse

That’s a one day story and very few people are influenced by it.

It’s their coverage that matters and their coverage has had many factual and ethical issues over the last 30 years.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

33. The NYT and Haberman were determined to elect TFG and carried the Clinton email story for an unreal number of times

Link to tweet

Compare the NYT treatment of Clinton to how Haberman and the NYT treats TFG

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

The above examples are NOT responsible reporting.

I do not want to be poorly informed by a rag that worked hard to elect TFG. I cancelled my subscription to the NYT back in 2016. The NYT does not fairly report the issues and the NYT and Maggie Haberman helped elect TFG.

[ificandream]

42. Just remember this: All pundits are just guessing.

The vast majority are making their opinions from nothing solid, only their intuition.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

37. The NYT is lying about Sarandon

Link to tweet

[ificandream]

38. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

I've posted many times that Fox (I refuse to put "news" after their name) is the real enemy, not the NY Times or Washington Post. Clamoring about real news outlets like the Times and WashPost is what Trump does to sow distrust in the media. The Times and the Post are on our side. I say that as a journalism grad and a newsroom employee at a Pulitzer-winning newspaper for 37 years. We need newspapers (especially local ones.) Support journalism!