When the Yankees win the World Series, does it go on the front page of the New York Times? Does it get 40 stories in three days? Of course it does! How about when they beat the Tigers in May? Of course it doesn’t!
It’s called news judgment, and the Times is the world leader in responding to criticism of theirs by pretending there is no such thing.
Simple question that of course Smith didn’t ask: Where did the presidency of Harvard rank among the most important issues of the day in public polling? You know—the issue the Times pushed relentlessly for a solid month?
Uh huh.
Another simple question Smith of course didn’t ask: Kahn, in his defense of underplaying Trump’s danger to democracy, is very casually acknowledging that Trump is in fact a danger to democracy. Has the Times ever told people that on their news pages? In their “analysis” pieces (which are just opinion pieces by their reporters)?
Uh huh.
What Kahn is too wrapped up in victimhood and self-celebration to notice, or acknowledge, is that (with all due respect to the importance of the Times in your childhood) I’m not *asking* the Times to *do* anything, consciously, for my benefit. I’m *telling* them that I notice what they do instinctively, and I react accordingly.
They have made it clear that they still think the day is coming when conservatives think they’re AOK. And that they want a Trump supporter’s money more than mine. So I did my part toward making their dream come true. You’re welcome.
As Republicans have lurched to the right, people think the middle moved with it. If the old left was 0 and the old right 20, the center is 10. If the left stays the same and the right move to 100, the center becomes 50. But 10 is still the center. It’s why we call some right wing Republicans “moderates”, like John Kasich, who is still a fully right wing Conservative. The Times has done similar, moving to the new middle. It should cover, as stated, only the facts in the order of importance. But, instead, it lurches right as politics does. Like Obama did with ACA, offering hundreds of changes (to a Republican drawn plan) to try to bring Republicans on board. And in the end, no Republican voted for it.
Great summary of what journalism should be. And it should be the same no matter if we're in the Trump era or not. They should not be going out of their way to be "equitable", they should be reporting on true things that are important. Often, this means treating one side less favorably than the other for a period of time.
This is the best description of the problem with the NYT that I’ve read. Great job. I have always suspected that the most important source of the problem is the desire to attract conservative readers. Who especially love stories and columns that give liberals heartburn!
Adolph Ochs, not Arthur, was the great-great grandfather of the current publisher of the NYT. You don't have a fact checker? I remembered this from my history of journalism class 30 years ago and didn't have to look it up - but there it is on Wikipedia. Accuracy is just as important as balance and fairness, IMHO.
Repeating myself here, and you may view my opinion as too simplistic. When Jerry Springer proved to the higher ups what We Peasants actually want in our "News, therefore pay for, are entertainment filled with drama. Truth was never important. What obviously was important was to increase the dramatic value. Paid for by increased dramatic crap. Fox news learned from that example and it too begin "Show Me The Money" drama filled "News". Tucker Carlson would still be there had he not been used as an "example". The Times would like a slice of that as well. Besides they're still pissed Biden wouldn't give them the exclusive they wanted so badly. Also, the Kings and Queens are happy to contribute to keeping We Peasants entertained with diversion tactics. Again, that we pay for.
I honestly don't feel trump will win this go round either. But, don't be fooled, Nixon's ghost is in the shadows, waiting for revenge. The political hacks we hire to rule over us have the power. We Peasants handed it to them when we hired them, without any oversight by us employers. Every four years we're able to review them and fire them if unhappy with their performance, that's it. SCOTUS is simple a joke, filled with more "Show Me The Money* clowns. Those who understand factual history, know that every single country has the exact type of "government" that the Peasants deserve to have.
Justification, it'll implode this empire in due time as well.
I disagree with basically every thought you have on this subject lol but I love you. I am going to write a post about how much I hate the substance here but I’m only going to do that because I know you’re a big boy who won’t start crying and kill themselves. You’re a good egg! Xoxo
I'm hopeful that your empathy skills shine brightly as always. Will the article will focus on your hostility towards truth, or just another comedy piece. I'll be over here in a dark corner waiting patiently for its arrival.
When the Yankees win the World Series, does it go on the front page of the New York Times? Does it get 40 stories in three days? Of course it does! How about when they beat the Tigers in May? Of course it doesn’t!
It’s called news judgment, and the Times is the world leader in responding to criticism of theirs by pretending there is no such thing.
Simple question that of course Smith didn’t ask: Where did the presidency of Harvard rank among the most important issues of the day in public polling? You know—the issue the Times pushed relentlessly for a solid month?
Uh huh.
Another simple question Smith of course didn’t ask: Kahn, in his defense of underplaying Trump’s danger to democracy, is very casually acknowledging that Trump is in fact a danger to democracy. Has the Times ever told people that on their news pages? In their “analysis” pieces (which are just opinion pieces by their reporters)?
Uh huh.
What Kahn is too wrapped up in victimhood and self-celebration to notice, or acknowledge, is that (with all due respect to the importance of the Times in your childhood) I’m not *asking* the Times to *do* anything, consciously, for my benefit. I’m *telling* them that I notice what they do instinctively, and I react accordingly.
They have made it clear that they still think the day is coming when conservatives think they’re AOK. And that they want a Trump supporter’s money more than mine. So I did my part toward making their dream come true. You’re welcome.
As Republicans have lurched to the right, people think the middle moved with it. If the old left was 0 and the old right 20, the center is 10. If the left stays the same and the right move to 100, the center becomes 50. But 10 is still the center. It’s why we call some right wing Republicans “moderates”, like John Kasich, who is still a fully right wing Conservative. The Times has done similar, moving to the new middle. It should cover, as stated, only the facts in the order of importance. But, instead, it lurches right as politics does. Like Obama did with ACA, offering hundreds of changes (to a Republican drawn plan) to try to bring Republicans on board. And in the end, no Republican voted for it.
Great summary of what journalism should be. And it should be the same no matter if we're in the Trump era or not. They should not be going out of their way to be "equitable", they should be reporting on true things that are important. Often, this means treating one side less favorably than the other for a period of time.
This is the best description of the problem with the NYT that I’ve read. Great job. I have always suspected that the most important source of the problem is the desire to attract conservative readers. Who especially love stories and columns that give liberals heartburn!
They’re worried about people that don’t even read their rag.
“Cletus hunting” at the Chat ‘n’ Chew in Silage, Ohio
Adolph Ochs, not Arthur, was the great-great grandfather of the current publisher of the NYT. You don't have a fact checker? I remembered this from my history of journalism class 30 years ago and didn't have to look it up - but there it is on Wikipedia. Accuracy is just as important as balance and fairness, IMHO.
Repeating myself here, and you may view my opinion as too simplistic. When Jerry Springer proved to the higher ups what We Peasants actually want in our "News, therefore pay for, are entertainment filled with drama. Truth was never important. What obviously was important was to increase the dramatic value. Paid for by increased dramatic crap. Fox news learned from that example and it too begin "Show Me The Money" drama filled "News". Tucker Carlson would still be there had he not been used as an "example". The Times would like a slice of that as well. Besides they're still pissed Biden wouldn't give them the exclusive they wanted so badly. Also, the Kings and Queens are happy to contribute to keeping We Peasants entertained with diversion tactics. Again, that we pay for.
I honestly don't feel trump will win this go round either. But, don't be fooled, Nixon's ghost is in the shadows, waiting for revenge. The political hacks we hire to rule over us have the power. We Peasants handed it to them when we hired them, without any oversight by us employers. Every four years we're able to review them and fire them if unhappy with their performance, that's it. SCOTUS is simple a joke, filled with more "Show Me The Money* clowns. Those who understand factual history, know that every single country has the exact type of "government" that the Peasants deserve to have.
Justification, it'll implode this empire in due time as well.
I disagree with basically every thought you have on this subject lol but I love you. I am going to write a post about how much I hate the substance here but I’m only going to do that because I know you’re a big boy who won’t start crying and kill themselves. You’re a good egg! Xoxo
I'm hopeful that your empathy skills shine brightly as always. Will the article will focus on your hostility towards truth, or just another comedy piece. I'll be over here in a dark corner waiting patiently for its arrival.
I couldn't agree more!
Just the facts, please and thank you.