Doing good journalism is hard. Yes, the NYT sucks, but they do good reporting too. And this article is very good, so if you want to complain about how bad the NYT is maybe reserve that criticism for those times when a bad article from the NYT hits the front page.
I have the same reasoning. The NY Times has done some awful things, and they have some biases that are offensive to me.
But I am a paid subscriber! (As I am with the WSJ). Why? It's a much better source, even with the faults, than all that "free" journalism that the Hacker News people seem to like so much.
I'd not like to see this response go unanswered; I'm the first to attack these organisations for the damage they do and I've long abandoned reading them, having written them off for the damage they've already done.
But I can respect honest acknowledgement of the bad while arguing the good side is worth staying. You'll (obvs) have a better perspective as a subscriber and given you can approach the thing with nuance I'm willing to go with your take on it.
I basically agree with you. But the fact that the NYT is "bad for America" doesn't mean this article exploring the slander industry is bad or wrong, only a bit ironic.
You are right, the article is not bad just because it came from the NYT. There are still the occasional useful piece, though Always and only on safe or inconsequential matters. But the bad far outweighs any good. At any rate, irony is precisely what I pointed out.
Nah, a reminder of how bad the NYT is, is always a good reminder.
NYT isn’t guilty of making mistakes, they are guilty of spreading lies.
To frame their deception as an honest mistake, is deceptive in and of itself.
I wish these kinds of vitriolic posts cited some specific instances and sourced their claims. Otherwise I'm left to Google "NYT bad" to try to corroborate any of it.
Glenn Greenwald talks about this on his Substack a lot, too, and the malpractice of the larger media as a whole. This recent and highly topical Twitter thread is one of many examples.
news is ultimately someone's opinion that something is 'news' in the first place. i went to mcdonalds earlier - is that news? i guarantee you vice.com could come up with some kind of news story about bored 30-somethings with nothing better to do during the pandemic than go to mcdonalds as a way to take a break from the internet. does that make it news though, just because a news site says its news?
something can be news somewhere [0], and not news somewhere else [1].
News is news wherever it is. No one credible talked about the non-story you mentioned.
Trend stories (like you talked about with McDonald's) are considered "soft news" and is filler.
Meanwhile, the person we are talking about was published on the editorial page. That's not "discretion about what news to publish". That is literally "this is opinion only"
So what you're saying it that's it's utterly essential for the posters complaining about The NY Times to source their claims? Why don't they do it then?
Oh no. I was just making a random philosophical point. Nothing really to read into. Just that it would be difficult to find examples of organization x criticism, using organization y, if both x & y are partners.
It’s common knowledge amongst most educated people. Sorry if you had to find out by googling. Probably a sickening feeling if you’ve been a subscriber or passed along any of their retracted news as fact. I too used to trust the nyt, but “show me incentive and I’ll show you the outcome.”
