Posted on 07/24/2016 3:58:19 AM PDT by Drango
I HAVE been here less than a month, but already I’ve discovered something that surely must be bad for business if your business is running The New York Times. ~snip this perception by many readers strikes me as poison. A paper whose journalism appeals to only half the country has a dangerously severed public mission. ~snip
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If I recall, the NY SLIMES endorsed John Kasich this time around. Everyone knew he had no chance in hell of winning the nomination. That endorsement shows their depth of perception at the SLIMES.
An odd related item: The NYT can publish a story at 6 or 7 in the morning and it will have thousands of comments - all of them whacko leftists - by 9 am at which point ‘comments are closed.’
I’m not itching to comment there but it’s curious and curiously convenient. And a tiny window of time.
Come back tomorrow for “Why Fans See the Yankees as a Basebll Team” and thoughts they have about joining the NFL since not everyone likes baseball.
The Ministry of Propaganda is just now realizing we know they are the Ministry of Propaganda
because it is.
Well, Liz, you won’t see your second month. Time to consider a more honorable profession. Pole dancer, for example, would be a step up from journalist.
Liz Spayd, That paper does not "appeal" to one half of people. It lies to everyone. It spews propaganda daily. The NYT as a whole DESPISES it's readers. It wants to manipulate not to appeal.
Yup, omission is their most effective tool.
Posted this (for what its worth)
he advent of so-called “objective journalism” wasn’t so long ago. The Times led the way in moving from highly partisan newspapers to a more neutral presentation, but that has changed. Most folks in ‘fly over country’ as well as the Times’ own readers consider it a Democratic paper fully committed to liberal causes. And that’s OK if you don’t want to be the national newspaper of record. To change the perception of the paper as secretly biased, I recommend these changes: 1. Proclaim your governing principles on the front page and/or the editorial page. (e.g. 1. The Times is a progressive newspaper. 2. we support the Democratic party. 3. We are pro LGBT issues.) Take the time to formulate your principles as a self-examination of the image and message you project. 2. Transparency should be an important part of a paper that aspires to be the national paper of record. I believe -and so should the Times—that when reporters or editors have personal interests that could affect their writing, those interests should be disclosed. That holds true, no doubt, for stock ownership when a story or editorial is published, but how about other personal interests. Do they get the same transparency scrutiny in your ethical rules. Some years ago Times editor Richard Berke revealed that the majority of the Times editors were LGBT. Could identity issues have influenced their news judgements, policy and writing on issues like gay marriage and free transgender surgeries in the armed forces ?
At least she took the advice from Bob Barker.
FEC records show 129 donations in this 2016 election cycle to people who list their employer as “New York Times” or “NY Times”.
Only 2 of those donations were to Republicans.
NYT is 98% Democrat by their own admissions.
And the default display of those comments is “NYT Picks,” which are always, without fail, only the most hardcore lefty opinions. It is totally corrupt for a “news” organization to print a story, and then highlight a specific reaction to it. But, we all know modern advocacy journalism is about “analysis & interpretation,” instead of “facts.”
The hyperbole is marginally entertaining: according to the readers, Hillary keeps a pair of angel wings under those potato sack suits and her hair is actually candyfloss.
One can just imagine the eunuchs sitting in a Manhattan Starbucks freeloading wifi and typing this rubbish into their iPads.
Well stated...it was bad enough when the Sulzbergers were a ‘media family’ (albeit spawned from gold speculators) along with Katherine Graham at the Wash Post.
Somehow they have both transformed into something much, much worse with zillionaires Carlos Slim (NYT) and Jeff Bezos (Post) propping them up financially.
Slim wants all North American borders eliminated with a view to eliminating borders worldwide.
It’s hard to tell what Bezos wants beyond DC serving his personal whims but obviously Trump is not it.
As usual, the lefty hysteria over Rupert Murdoch’s so-called tactics blinds them to what their own media do on a daily, even hourly basis.
In a way, Murdoch is the opposite of Slim & Bezos: Murdoch, admittedly, elevates certain stories to provoke a reaction ie opinion. Lefties stomp their feet and complain about bias but rarely, if ever, are they able to debunk the stories.
The NYT and the Post, on the other hand, regularly present opinion as fact, which their undemanding audiences eat up.
I think that she simply asked a question that needed to be asked (it eliminates assumption) - even though she already knew the answer. To some extent (the length of which I do not know), she baited them for the article.
Conservatives such as I have seen, not merely the NYT, but all of “the MSM” as biased since the Vietnam era and even before.I as a conservative must, of course, consider the possibility, even inevitability, that “where I stand depends on where I sit.” You may be sure that I have examined that issue, and reexamined it. My conclusion, which I know is fairly fixed in my character by now, is that a “liberal” slant inheres in what journalists see as their mission. I mean, the mission of selling newspapers and attracting attention (yes, to advertisements).
Bad news sells. That is an objective fact. So when a newspaper implements an “If it bleeds, it leads” policy, it is doing what is objectively good for business. And doing things which are good for business is, well, a business necessity. If there have been newspapers that did not follow that line, well, Darwin.
But there is something else. Something which amplifies the perspective, or bias, of journalism. And that is the fact that all major newspapers, and all major broadcasters - yes, even FNC - are formally associated. Indeed they are, every one of them who are members of the Associated Press. And the situation is little different for any newspapers which are not members of the AP, but use different wire service(s). All major journalistic institutions go along and get along with each other.
Thus, a Dan Rather can put out the “news” that - before the commercial advent of Microsoft Word - an obscure officer in the Texas Air National Guard wrote memos which reflect badly on - who else - a sitting Republican president. And, mysteriously, the default settings of Microsoft Word can be used to exactly replicate these memos, which were, putatively, typed on a far less sophisticated manual typewriter. Just as mysteriously, these putative memos were never seen from the time of their putative dates in the early 1970s until, surprisingly enough, the reelection campaign of 2004. And then these putative memos appear - not as typewritten originals, which would show impact artifacts of the typewriter and therefore could be forensically verified, but as tenth(?) generation copies of copies of copies in which no forensic verification could be expected to be possible. But of course, finding a copy of a copy of a copy of something implies one of two things - either that the memos are no secret at all, because everybody and his brother is seeing a copy, and making a photocopy for himself, or that somebody, quite possibly the actual author of fraudulent documents, has intentionally given a false impression.
The long and short of the matter is that the “Killian Memos” are an obvious, unsophisticated fraud, created not in the 1970s but three decades later. And yet neither the New York Times nor any other mainstream journalism institution has ever given CBS or Dan Rather the hundredth part of the grief they have tried to give Fox News Channel, for the sin of having been not quite as biased as putatively “objective” journalism is.
To be clear: journalism is negative because bad news sells, and that embeds a pervasive negative, even cynical, perspective in journalism. And to purport that that sort of journalism “objective” cannot be anything other than cynical. Even if you were not negative, you would betray cynicism by claiming objectivity as a fact rather than an aspiration. I am trying to be objective. It is even possible that I might be objective - but in the nature of things I cannot know that I am objective. And neither can you. And neither can anyone else - whether they agree with you or not.
Believe it or not, at one time, (and yes, I know this was 40 years ago), as a special forces operative we had to keep current in the U.S. and World events. Their were 4 Newspapers that we read to keep current. The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Miami Herald and the Los Angeles Times, these were considered the best source for news and unbiased information.
Then in the 1990’s this stopped. Why? Because these newspapers were slanting their news coverage to the extreme Left, and not being objective in there coverage. This has not only continued, but has increased to the point that many people will not read them because they are so biased.
They got want they wanted.
She is new to her role which specifically involves issues of journalistic integrity. Variations of this article have been written before by other NYT’s Public Editors and like those previous ones this one will have no impact on the paper’s culture. The only two purposes for writing this article was to establish her own credibility and to meet a press deadline.
Taqiyya.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.