The New York Times - Motley Rainbows and Dead Unicorns

The Sunday crossword is fairly easy, so I'm not sure where the evil is there.

Now Saturday's - that can get pretty nefarious.


I used to have a weekend-only subscription to the NYT, because I only really have time to read it in the weekend. But then Dr Evil got elected, and now I have the fullest subscription possible because truth may prevail, but it may need a bit of sponsorship here and there.


drummerboy said:

The Sunday crossword is fairly easy, so I'm not sure where the evil is there.

Now Saturday's - that can get pretty nefarious.

 Probably a time zone issue for me.


joanne said:

 The point you’re making there, for what appears to an analysis or opinion piece, is a slightly different matter. And not necessarily against what I was trying to communicate. 
if you feel opinions are swayed by these articles, in fact that’s not evidence of poor or ‘bad’ writing. Quite the opposite. Lousy ‘journalism’, if by journalism you mean holding to principles of writing objective observations. Not everyone does; not every publication does; not every publisher does.

We all know the publisher of the NYT doesn’t care a fig for objective journalistic values. 
Many of us have been aware for a very very long time of the subtle ways in which these values were manipulated stylistically to convey certain shades of opinion, especially in politically valuable pieces. You’ve only fairly recently woken to the manipulation, and think it’s the writing at fault. I’d argue that in most cases (maybe not this one) the journo is trying to stay employed. 

 I honestly am not following your argument, but re the bolded statement - what makes you think I've only "fairly recently woken to the manipulation"?

And who cares for the reason why someone writes what they do - whether it be to stay employed or not? All we have is the writing to evaluate (and the editing), and the writing/editing is what's at fault.


True. All we have to do is read, oh. I don't know,  something the drummer posts


DB, I mean ‘in recent years’, - some of us have been dreading this eventuality in publishing since the 70s. (Murdoch’s intent was certainly in evidence as I was beginning, in the mid-70s and someone who had worked with him in the 60s told me then it was apparent much earlier.)

I’m sorry you can’t see what I’m trying to convey. Perhaps Dave S can make it clearer?

And I can’t begrudge people an income when the world is changing so rapidly and we’re losing the opportunity for decent living wages for most adults with families.


what "eventuality in publishing"? stupidness?

who's begrudging anyone an income?

what?


The concentration of media ownership = the pushing of one (corporate/govt) view = pushing other voices into silence (thereby making them sound less credible and ever more on the fringe)

Surely you're aware that automation and consolidation of news gathering has resulted in fewer paid journalism positions? In fact publishing as an industry has fewer paid roles than ever before, in almost any format, globally. This is replicated in most industries. 

I'm not the only experienced editor/proofreader here (MOL) who's had to change careers, and I've changed three times due to technological change. 


Are we talking about the same thing anymore?


Sorry - I had to sleep. 

In one sense, we are, since owners/publishers set the editorial tone and also their hiring pattern (which is part of what you're decrying) determines the voice of their publication. 

This is continuing a global trend of declining standards in paid journalism for rewarding work that's based on what we think of as 'quality' - objectivity, solid evidence, good sources, crisp concise writing, etc.  Think of all the media scandals in the last decade - all the hero journalists who actually faked their war stories, or got their big scoops through illegal phone taps, as well as the drop in circulation figures (the fraud in those is another thing!), the concentration of ownership and the other things I've mentioned. 

In another sense, no, we're not talking about the same things any more. And I'm sorry I got us off topic. There are certain titles globally we hold to a higher journalistic standard, and NYT used to be one of them. For several years now, in the places where editors and writers let off steam, I've been reading about their (NYT editorial & production) frustration with internal declining standards and changing rules, just to stay 'relevant' in an increasingly careless world.  That's clearly a different discussion to the one you started. 



On page 8 in today’s print edition of NYT, there is a full page editorial on the whistle-blower story. . I don’t see it in the digital edition. I also can’t remember when the paper last  had a full page editorial.


mtierney said:

On page 8 in today’s print edition of NYT, there is a full page editorial on the whistle-blower story. . I don’t see it in the digital edition. I also can’t remember when the paper last  had a full page editorial.

 Any comment on the substance of the piece?


On page 8 in today’s print edition of NYT, there is a full page editorial on the whistle-blower story. . I don’t see it in the digital edition. I also can’t remember when the paper last  had a full page editorial.

PVW said:

 Any comment on the substance of the piece?

 The “ substance” of my post concerned the size and location of the opinion  piece — not its content, already discussed in depth for weeks.


mtierney said:

On page 8 in today’s print edition of NYT, there is a full page editorial on the whistle-blower story. . I don’t see it in the digital edition. I also can’t remember when the paper last  had a full page editorial.

 It was full-page because it reproduced and annotated the "original whistleblower's" concerns, to illustrate this truth:

"The thing is, Mr. Trump, virtually every piece of information that the public first learned from the whistle-blower’s complaint has been corroborated by the White House’s reconstructed transcript of your call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or by the congressional testimony and documents provided by current and former administration officials. In the few remaining cases, save one, journalists have backed up his assertions through reporting."

So the identity of the whistleblower is superfluous now.  It's not necessary in order to proceed based on all of the facts that have surfaced.


mtierney said:

On page 8 in today’s print edition of NYT, there is a full page editorial on the whistle-blower story. . I don’t see it in the digital edition. I also can’t remember when the paper last  had a full page editorial.

PVW said:

 Any comment on the substance of the piece?

 The “ substance” of my post concerned the size and location of the opinion  piece — not its content, already discussed in depth for weeks.

 why are you concerned about the size and location?


drummerboy said:

 why are you concerned about the size and location?

 More the extreme rarity of usage of space. Is it reportage? Journalistic desperation? TNYT is still paying penance for its coverage of the Clinton emails (33,000 still missing BTW) and the results of the 2016 election. Folks on CNN recently did a mea culpa, however more forthright than the Times.


mtierney said:

drummerboy said:

 why are you concerned about the size and location?

 More the extreme rarity of usage of space. Is it reportage? Journalistic desperation? TNYT is still paying penance for its coverage of the Clinton emails (33,000 still missing BTW) and the results of the 2016 election. Folks on CNN recently did a mea culpa, however more forthright than the Times.

 You seriously need to change the channel on your TV.


Also, the mythical 30,000 emails are not "missing", regardless of the number of times you hear that on Fox News..

Also also - what penance is the Times paying? They were the most aggressive of all of the news outlets in covering the the email issue, much to Hillary's deteriment. You should be grateful to them for helping to elect Trump. That's their mea culpa.

Also * 3 - I'd be very interested in seeing this CNN mea culpa. Do you have a link?


mtierney said:

On page 8 in today’s print edition of NYT, there is a full page editorial on the whistle-blower story. . I don’t see it in the digital edition. I also can’t remember when the paper last  had a full page editorial.

PVW said:

 Any comment on the substance of the piece?

 The “ substance” of my post concerned the size and location of the opinion  piece — not its content, already discussed in depth for weeks.

 If you've discussed this for weeks, it was likely on a thread I rarely or never visit. Would you mind giving the short version of your views on the substance? Or even just a link to the post where you laid this out?


mtierney said:

 More the extreme rarity of usage of space. Is it reportage? Journalistic desperation? TNYT is still paying penance for its coverage of the Clinton emails (33,000 still missing BTW) and the results of the 2016 election. Folks on CNN recently did a mea culpa, however more forthright than the Times.

do you actually know anything about those "missing" emails?  If you recall the entire brouhaha was over the fact that Clinton was using a personal email server for official business.  The "missing" emails were deemed by her attorneys to be personal and not government business.  They then deleted all those personal emails.  Unless you believe Clinton's attorneys committed felonies by destroying government records, there is no reason for you and all the other right wing nuts to continue to harp on those emails.

The process for deciding which emails to turn over to the investigators included the following criteria:

To determine which emails were work-related, a member of Clinton’s legal team did four things: she automatically deemed any email sent from or to a .gov and .mil address as related to work; she searched the tens of thousands of emails for names of senior State Department officials, lawmakers, foreign leaders and other government officials; she conducted a keyword search for work-related terms; and she looked at the sender, recipient and "subject" of every email for other potentially work-related emails, but she did not read the contents of those emails.

and:

"Clinton told the FBI that she directed her legal team to provide any work-related or arguably work-related emails to State; however she did not participate in the development of the specific process to be used or in discussions of the locations of where her emails might exist," the FBI concluded in its investigative summary of the case.

Comey testified that the FBI "didn't find any evidence of evil intent and intent to obstruct justice."

Why Hillary Clinton Deleted 33,000 Emails on Her Private Email Server

Or do you think the FBI and James Comey were covering up for Clinton?





drummerboy said:

Also, the mythical 30,000 emails are not "missing", regardless of the number of times you hear that on Fox News..

Also also - what penance is the Times paying? They were the most aggressive of all of the news outlets in covering the the email issue, much to Hillary's deteriment. You should be grateful to them for helping to elect Trump. That's their mea culpa.

Also * 3 - I'd be very interested in seeing this CNN mea culpa. Do you have a link?

 Easy peasey...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cnn-legal-analyst-apologizes-for-covering-the-news-hurting-hillary-clintons-2016-campaign%3F_amp%3Dtrue


mtierney said:

drummerboy said:

Also, the mythical 30,000 emails are not "missing", regardless of the number of times you hear that on Fox News..

Also also - what penance is the Times paying? They were the most aggressive of all of the news outlets in covering the the email issue, much to Hillary's deteriment. You should be grateful to them for helping to elect Trump. That's their mea culpa.

Also * 3 - I'd be very interested in seeing this CNN mea culpa. Do you have a link?

 Easy peasey...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cnn-legal-analyst-apologizes-for-covering-the-news-hurting-hillary-clintons-2016-campaign%3F_amp%3Dtrue

 ok - so you agree that the email coverage was unfair and detrimental to Hillary?

somehow, I doubt that.


Unfair......yet.....detrimental?


mtierney said:

On page 8 in today’s print edition of NYT, there is a full page editorial on the whistle-blower story. . I don’t see it in the digital edition. I also can’t remember when the paper last  had a full page editorial.


I believe you are mistaken and that there were Letters to the Editor on that page. I do not know how to find it to verify that.



mtierney said:

 Easy peasey...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/cnn-legal-analyst-apologizes-for-covering-the-news-hurting-hillary-clintons-2016-campaign%3F_amp%3Dtrue

 wow, what an incredibly dishonest take that is.  But what else is to be expected from a Washington Examiner columnist?


Don’t like the news? Kill the messenger.


mtierney said:

Don’t like the news? Kill the messenger.

 That's exactly what the author of the piece you linked is doing. He attacked Toobin, not what Toobin wrote. 


mtierney said:

Don’t like the news? Kill the messenger.

The messenger completely misrepresented the meaning of what Toobin wrote.  It was a deeply dishonest piece of writing.  He completely twisted Toobin's words to make him look like a pompous *** and a partisan hack.


After being completely taken in by this conniving right wing hack on the Uranium One non-scandal, the love affair with Peter Schweizer continues.

https://www.cjr.org/opinion/schweizer-times-biden-opinion.php

...

Schweizer was identified by the Times as “an investigative journalist” and “the author, most recently, of ‘Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends.’” To those who follow the ins and outs of right-wing funding networks, he has other credentials. He is a senior contributor to Breitbart. He wrote speeches for George W. Bush and advised Sarah Palin. He presides over the Florida-based Governmental Accountability Institute (GAI), which is funded by the family foundation of hedge-fund tycoon and major Trump 2016 funder Robert Mercer. (As of 2017, the chairman of the GAI board was Mercer’s daughter Rebekah.) Schweizer’s earlier books include Do As I Say (Not as I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy (2005); Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less…and Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals (2008); and, most consequentially, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich (2015).

The Times had previously aired Schweizer’s worldview in its news pages. In 2015, his Clinton Cash was offered for previews to The New York Times, the Washington Post, and Fox News. Times editor Matt Purdy later said that the Times declined an offer of exclusive rights to Schweizer’s material, but later asked his permission to use one of his story lines, which in turn built on Times reporting dating back to 2008. The Times investigated further, and took to Page 1 in a state of alarm: “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.”

This story, by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, made waves and sold books. The article credited Schweizer and called him “right-leaning,” but failed to mention that Schweizer’s work was funded by a man who would become one of Donald Trump’s chief donors. As Jane Mayer wrote in The New Yorker,

The story insinuated that, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had risked national security by facilitating the sale of American uranium mines to Russia in exchange for more than two million dollars in contributions to the Clinton Foundation from the businessmen behind the deal, who worked for a company called Uranium One. The story enabled Clinton’s opponents to frame her as greedy and corrupt. Even a year after she had lost the race, the Fox News host Sean Hannity was still invoking it on air, calling it “the biggest scandal ever involving Russia.

But there was neither a here nor a there there. Hannity, Schweizer’s conduit, alleged that Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, had given “to Vladimir Putin and Russia twenty percent of America’s uranium, which is the foundational material to make nuclear weapons”— purportedly in return for huge payments to the Clinton Foundation. But in fact, the interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States had signed off on the uranium deal, which involved nothing like Hannity’s “twenty percent.” There was no evidence that Hillary Clinton had ever spoken about or otherwise intervened in approving the deal, or even attended the meeting at which it was approved. A noncontroversial deal had been spun into a national security threat. A story about donations to the Clinton Foundation had morphed into an insinuation that Hillary Clinton was party to quid-pro-quo corruption.

In their tenth paragraph, Becker and McIntire entered a caveat: “Whether the donations [to the Clinton Foundation] played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation.” Thus did a high-drama claim beginning with “Vladimir Putin’s goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain” devolve into a story of “special ethical challenges.” The Times bent over so far backwards to show that it was not “liberal,” it fell over.


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

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business