The New York Times - They're even more evil now

I read an article in the Washington Post this morning about a riot in Union Square in which stores were looted, vehicles were vandalized and multiple police officers and civilians were injured, all in the course of mass arrests.

Wanting to learn more I turned to the NYT.  Strangely, there was no mention of the incident on their home page. Curious, I did a google search and finally did turn up a NYT article which was listed on a side bar in their New York section.  A note at the bottom stated that the story had run on page 17 of the 8/5 printed edition.

I found this lack of attention to a major eruption of civic disorder in the heart of a US city puzzling, particularly since it seems that every mugging or liquor store robbery in Los Angeles, Oakland or Portland is worthy of front page coverage.


I've hung on to my digital subscription largely for sentimental reasons but I think it may really be time to let it go.


I read it in my “hard copy” version this morning. 


Yup, as I noted above, I eventually found it on a side bar in the New York section (far, far from the home page).  At the bottom of the article, there was a note stating that it had been tucked away in the printed edition on page 17.


They covered it in the most minimal way they possibly could, a VERY different approach from the one they've taken with incidents of cvil unrest in other cities.


GoSlugs said:

They covered it in the most minimal way they possibly could, a VERY different approach from the one they've taken with incidents of cvil unrest in other cities.

I thought this morning’s article was pretty thorough. It was a flash mob that the police admit they should have been better prepared for. And it didn’t last long, over before dark. 


GoSlugs said:

Yup, as I noted above, I eventually found it on a side bar in the New York section (far, far from the home page). At the bottom of the article, there was a note stating that it had been tucked away in the printed edition on page 17.

The main section of many newspapers, The Times included, is organized by region. The Times does it this way: first international news, then national news, then metropolitan news. Any local story that doesn’t start on the front page will appear toward the back of the A section. Today, the first (and only) local news page was A17.


https://abc7ny.com/union-square-crowds-kai-cenat-twitch/13599469/

This idiot promised everyone a twitch if they showed up in union square. When the crowd reached into the thousands, the police came to disperse them and they refused to move. Nearly a hundred young people arrested. 
This is ridiculous! He should be made to pay for the damage done to property. 


nohero said:

I thought this morning’s article was pretty thorough. It was a flash mob that the police admit they should have been better prepared for. And it didn’t last long, over before dark. 

66 arrested, multiple officers injured. Several shops were looted.  The Times has devoted EXTENSIVE coverage to depicting West Coast cities as post apocalyptic hell holes (I have been to most of them in the last year and they are not) but mayhem on its own door step gets put on the back burner.

It's their paper, they can obviously do with it as they please.  I'm just not going to continue subsidizing what appears to be a puzzling agenda.


nohero said:

GoSlugs said:

They covered it in the most minimal way they possibly could, a VERY different approach from the one they've taken with incidents of cvil unrest in other cities.

I thought this morning’s article was pretty thorough. It was a flash mob that the police admit they should have been better prepared for. And it didn’t last long, over before dark. 

It wasn't a mob. It was merely a large gathering.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/04/chicago-mayor-slams-reporter-for-calling-riots-mob-actions/



GoSlugs said:

I read an article in the Washington Post this morning about a riot in Union Square in which stores were looted, vehicles were vandalized and multiple police officers and civilians were injured, all in the course of mass arrests.

Wanting to learn more I turned to the NYT.  Strangely, there was no mention of the incident on their home page. Curious, I did a google search and finally did turn up a NYT article which was listed on a side bar in their New York section.  A note at the bottom stated that the story had run on page 17 of the 8/5 printed edition.

I found this lack of attention to a major eruption of civic disorder in the heart of a US city puzzling, particularly since it seems that every mugging or liquor store robbery in Los Angeles, Oakland or Portland is worthy of front page coverage.

the article appears to have described the events as they happened. Is your beef that they didn't use the words "riot" and "looting"?


ml1 said:

the article appears to have described the events as they happened. Is your beef that they didn't use the words "riot" and "looting"?

It's about the placement.  Last week, a story about some dude who died of an overdose in PDX lingered on the home page for almost a week, but this story can only be found if you click on the NY section?  

The NYT is awfully concerned about motes in eyes on the West Coast for someone who's cornea has been pierced by a beam.


It's other things too.  I am a late life convert to the cause of banning most guns but, as someone who grew up around lots of firearms, I know enough to say that their coverage of the issue is full of factual errors (continuous references to semi automatic weapons as automatic weapons being one of the most egregious). 

 Why weaken a good cause with what is, at best, super sloppy fact checking and, at worst, intentional factual errors*? It makes me wonder what they are getting wrong/lying about with regards to subjects about which I am less well informed.

*they have been doing this for years so I am guessing that someone has pointed it out to them at some point.


GoSlugs said:

It's other things too.  I am a late life convert to the cause of banning most guns but, as someone who grew up around lots of firearms, I know enough to say that their coverage of the issue is full of factual errors (continuous references to semi automatic weapons as automatic weapons being one of the most egregious). 

 Why weaken a good cause with what is, at best, super sloppy fact checking and, at worst, intentional factual errors*? It makes me wonder what they are getting wrong/lying about with regards to subjects about which I am less well informed.

*they have been doing this for years so I am guessing that someone has pointed it out to them at some point.

seriously, who gives a crap about the distinction between semi-automatic versus automatic? That's usually an anti-gun-control talking point.


drummerboy said:

seriously, who gives a crap about the distinction between semi-automatic versus automatic? That's usually an anti-gun-control talking point.

Well, if you want to get gun owners to stop listening to you, that's a good place to start.  


GoSlugs said:

ml1 said:

the article appears to have described the events as they happened. Is your beef that they didn't use the words "riot" and "looting"?

It's about the placement.  Last week, a story about some dude who died of an overdose in PDX lingered on the home page for almost a week, but this story can only be found if you click on the NY section?  

The NYT is awfully concerned about motes in eyes on the West Coast for someone who's cornea has been pierced by a beam.

I'll agree with the NYT tendency to print copaganda, and I'd say the Portland stories fit into that law and order narrative. 

But just because they go overboard in that direction other times doesn't mean they need to balance it by doing the same on the Union Square incident. 


ml1 said:

I'll agree with the NYT tendency to print copaganda, and I'd say the Portland stories fit into that law and order narrative. 

But just because they go overboard in that direction other times doesn't mean they need to balance it by doing the same on the Union Square incident. 

Maybe.  I think there is a pronounced anti West Coast agenda in much of their reporting.


GoSlugs said:

drummerboy said:

seriously, who gives a crap about the distinction between semi-automatic versus automatic? That's usually an anti-gun-control talking point.

Well, if you want to get gun owners to stop listening to you, that's a good place to start.  

if that's gonna stop them from listening, they'll never listen.


GoSlugs said:

It's about the placement.  Last week, a story about some dude who died of an overdose in PDX lingered on the home page for almost a week, but this story can only be found if you click on the NY section?  

The NYT is awfully concerned about motes in eyes on the West Coast for someone who's cornea has been pierced by a beam.

I had to look up what you were talking about.  It's not "a story about some dude who died of an overdose", it was a detailed look at a drug policy and its effects. Completely different.

 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/31/health/portland-oregon-drugs.html?smid=url-share

[Edited to add] And as noted in the online edition, it was printed "Aug. 1, 2023, Section D, Page 1 of the New York edition"

Section D on Tuesday is the "Science Times" weekly section. It's not the front page of the paper, and it's not the first section of the paper.


drummerboy said:

if that's gonna stop them from listening, they'll never listen.

Dude, it's low hanging fruit.  Also, there is a real difference between semi automatic and fully automatic firearms (almost all fully automatic firearms are illegal in the US and have been since the 1930s).

Plus, you know......facts?


nohero said:

I had to look up what you were talking about. It's not "a story about some dude who died of an overdose", it was a detailed look at a drug policy and its effects. Completely different.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/31/health/portland-oregon-drugs.html?smid=url-share

[Edited to add] And as noted in the online edition, it was printed "Aug. 1, 2023, Section D, Page 1 of the New York edition"

Section D on Tuesday is the "Science Times" weekly section. It's not the front page of the paper, and it's not the first section of the paper.

There was also this story, which appeared on Page 1 last Saturday:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/29/us/portland-oregon-fentanyl-homeless.html

From what I can tell, that story was on the Times homepage from Saturday morning to Sunday morning. Looks like the story you linked to was on the homepage from Monday evening to Tuesday evening.

ETA: Currently, the homepage is promoting the story you linked to as one of its Weekender recommendations. Earlier today, when GoSlugs posted after noon, a Union Square followup was listed under More News.


GoSlugs said:

drummerboy said:

if that's gonna stop them from listening, they'll never listen.

Dude, it's low hanging fruit.  Also, there is a real difference between semi automatic and fully automatic firearms (almost all fully automatic firearms are illegal in the US and have been since the 1930s).

Plus, you know......facts?

btw, I did a quick search through the NYT for "automatic weapon" and they're pretty careful about distinguishing between the two, so not sure why you have that impression.


I have definitely seen them used interchangeably multiple times over the years.  Generally, it comes up when they are referring to a specific weapon.  I am not sure how familiar you are with firearms, the mistakes might not be obvious to someone who doesn't know anything about the subject (brands, models, etc).

That said, its the sort of thing that fact checkers would catch if they were interested in checking facts.


In any case, I canceled my subscription this morning. They can say what they want, it just won't be on my dime moving forward.


GoSlugs said:

In any case, I canceled my subscription this morning. They can say what they want, it just won't be on my dime moving forward.

The NYT is a good paper, but despite its positioning as a national paper, this doesn't offset the depth and perspectives we've lost with the decline of regional and local outlets. I'd encourage you to do a tiny part in combating that and take the subscription dollars you were formerly spending on an east-coast based paper  and find a quality local or regional paper to support. And maybe post the occasional excerpt here to give us a different point of view.


GoSlugs said:

That said, its the sort of thing that fact checkers would catch if they were interested in checking facts.

We’re not perfect, but we’re interested.


nohero said:

I feel sorry for the staffers who had to watch all of the thousands of episodes of Tucker's show, including the fascist/sexist/racist/xenophobic parts that Paul Surovell pretends don't exist.

I've never (until now) posted on this thread, so I was surprised (even from you) that my name would be mentioned.

If you have something to say about me show some integrity and provide some evidence that supports what you're saying. In this case you can't because you're just engaging in a gratuitous, libelous attack.


paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

I feel sorry for the staffers who had to watch all of the thousands of episodes of Tucker's show, including the fascist/sexist/racist/xenophobic parts that Paul Surovell pretends don't exist.

I've never (until now) posted on this thread, so I was surprised (even from you) that my name would be mentioned.

If you have something to say about me show some integrity and provide some evidence that supports what you're saying. In this case you can't because you're just engaging in a gratuitous, libelous attack.

Was my comment from before or after Fox News ("even Fox News!") got tired of ignoring the fascist/sexist/racist/xenophobic parts?


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

I feel sorry for the staffers who had to watch all of the thousands of episodes of Tucker's show, including the fascist/sexist/racist/xenophobic parts that Paul Surovell pretends don't exist.

I've never (until now) posted on this thread, so I was surprised (even from you) that my name would be mentioned.

If you have something to say about me show some integrity and provide some evidence that supports what you're saying. In this case you can't because you're just engaging in a gratuitous, libelous attack.

Was my comment from before or after Fox News ("even Fox News!") got tired of ignoring the fascist/sexist/racist/xenophobic parts?

I rest my case.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Real Estate Listings

Advertise here!