Talk:The New York Times

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon media.svg

This Media related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


In reality needs citations[edit]

The last paragraph of the "In reality" section could do with some citations so that we could actually examine for ourselves the referenced articles or study, or generally have evidence that these statements are founded in any way.

Removed the paragraph entirely, because it had little evidence for its claims and the use of "Kool-Aid" is not only unprofessional, but a red flag that the writer had an axe to grind.Colossal Squid (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi puffpiece[edit]

On top of hiring Bret Stephens for an "alternate" viewpoint of science denial. I categorize them as Enablers, as in, they go far in their "balance" and bend backward to promote shitty viewpoints, but also give them a platform and an air of legitimacy. Hence, they enable terrible viewpoints like global warming "skepticism". --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, it seems important enough that we got at least two parody articles on it. This is their notpology. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
As I believe, placing the NYT somewhere between Lyndon LaRouche and Donald Trump is... well... at least unfair. As far as I know, that particular article was among the few about a pro-Trumper, with the overwhelming majority of other texts from the NYT (as seen from Facebook at least) is about those that are hurt by Trump's policies: Stoneman shooting victims, transgenders, Afro-Americans etc. This doesn't seem to be "continuously giving these people (pro-Trumpers) attention" (sure, you may have different examples; if you do, please, do not hesitate to show them). About Mr. Stephens -- well, that's a shame, really, but I consider this just as one of their unlucky days (again, you may have different examples).
Now here comes the part that may be offending (for which I truly apologize, as I don't have any intent to offend you): the one about "the undeserving supporters". It is true that someone must end this hurly-burly the US of A is currently in. It is also true that wingnuttery and all that playing around with Nazism is unacceptable. However, I would call it imprudent not to seek the reason behind certain actions and to reject the possibility that we have a human on the other side instead -- on the wrong side, sure, but a human nevertheless, with one's own mind and thoughts. This doesn't mean we have to embrace such views and thoughts, though. Neither does the NYT (as it looks to me), but provides some insight into all this, with the author's disbelief and criticism intended (and they are right in their "notpology"). As for other media outlets -- the main text is not about them, but the New York Times. And again -- feel free to share different examples.
Sorry for all this TL;DR stuff, I just want my position to be as clear as possible :) Call for additional links from my side, if needed. -- (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What the hell is this.[edit]

"willing to drink from the race/class/gender Kool-Aid that proved so pervasive"

Wow. I thought Rational Wiki actually progressive. Fuck this shit. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, there's nothing "rational" or otherwise admirable about referring to giving a shit about social-justice issues as "drinking the Kool-Aid." — Unsigned, by: / talk
I'm not sure what that sentence means overall, it's hard to tell because the pejorative mucks everything up. Even the entire phrase "they replaced the original writer with one willing to drink from the race/class/gender Kool-Aid that proved so pervasive; they then ran some truly atrocious articles and subsequently refused to correct their blatant factual errors" is confusing to me as there's no specifics. Who is the writer, what does "drink from the Kool-Aid" mean in this context, what exactly are those "truly atrocious articles" and why are they atrocious, and what are those "factual errors"? This isn't good writing. Worse, I can't check the citation anyway; it's just a link to the book on Amazon. There is no page number cited either. :/ FYI, the entire paragraph was added by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) , then removed (see above discussion) but was readded. This is very sloppy editing and I do think that entire paragraph should've been culled. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 01:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

New York Times during the 1920s[edit]

I can't access the pages, but I recall some Current Affairs article delving into how it approached Hitler.[1]

The first mention of Adolf Hitler in the New York Times was on November 21, 1922, buried on page 21. From the headline, one could almost have thought the article was about a cabaret singer or literary celebrity: “NEW POPULAR IDOL RISES IN BAVARIA.” It was not until the fifth sub-headline that the Times mentioned that Bavaria’s new pop idol, in addition to raising a “gray-shirted army armed with blackjacks and revolvers,” was “anti-Red and anti-Semitic.” In the body of the article, the Times correspondent frankly portrayed Hitler’s militarism, acknowledging the tendency of his group to “beat up protesting Socialists and Communists.” But, it said, there are multiple perspectives on Hitler: “[He] is taken seriously by all classes of Bavarians… he is feared by some, enthusiastically hailed as a prophet and political economic savior by others, and watched with interest by the bulk.” Most of the article was spent documenting Hitler’s gifts as a political organizer, noting that “in addition to his oratorical and organizing abilities, has another positive asset: he is a man of the ‘common people,’” who had won the Iron Cross, which for “a common soldier is distinctive evidence of bravery and daring,” and “he is credibly credited with being actuated by lofty, unselfish patriotism.”

Of course it pays to fact check these (if Wikipedia is anything to go by, the paper HAS been under fire for its bad aspects of World War II coverage)[2] and had a book about it called Buried by the Times. However they did not support Hitler as some edits by Ledlecreeper suggested (this user's edits are also generally questionable but that's another subject) and I doubt it supported Mussolini. That it praised the Nazi-hosted Olympics is not necessarily indicative of their support for Hitler; at worst they could've just disturbingly glossed over this fact, but I couldn't check the statement, since, well, paywall. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario Your analysis is spot-on. The edits made by the 2600:4040:403c:f300:6479 BoN and Ledlecreeper suggest something sinister on the part of the Times in the years leading up to World War II, but looking at these articles and contemporary discussion shows that their recent edits are rather distorted and biased. And the bit about supporting nao-Nazis, that was simply unsubstantiated and backed up by a reference to a screed in some obscure student newspaper. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 20:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about the 20th century, that was Ledle. 2600:4040:403C:F300:6351:FDFE:501C:9665 (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
My commentary was on Eli Mosley, criticisms of being too soft on modern nazis, and NYTimes' otherwise good integrity 2600:4040:403C:F300:6351:FDFE:501C:9665 (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I understand you want to write a fair defense of the paper for saying that it engages in essential journalism and isn't owned by Jeff Bezos (though I think the paper is owned by wealthy interests; LA Times has a billionaire for a president), but these claims ("the New York Times remains a clear leader in relatively unbiased newspaper content") need to be well-substantiated before we make this sort of conclusion. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, their editorial department is by definition biased, and they are not shy of it, but their editorial department has an hard internal separation from their news department. As far as statistics on the bias or lack thereof of their news department, I admittedly don't have those, but its a newspaper of record that I think commands the most respect these days. Which may not be that much respect as news media and wikipedia sanctioned 'reputable sources' in general are distrusted widely 2600:4040:403C:F300:6351:FDFE:501C:9665 (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I remember reading some study pointing out that academic sources are the only professional sources the average American trusts more than their own mouth. But just barely. 2600:4040:403C:F300:6351:FDFE:501C:9665 (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Although, a well researched book might have more truth-value and lack of bias than both news and academia. The latter two being mired in error by omission, politics and culture war nonsense 2600:4040:403C:F300:6351:FDFE:501C:9665 (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah and that's generally okay. I do think it's generally reliable for journalism (as with Washington Post, LA Times, Seattle Times; what's our alternatives... Washington Examiner? Washington Times? ew). It's a good resource (if you can read the articles anyway), I've used it a few times myself. If people are going to dismiss New York Times because of a "bias" or whatever rather than actually measuring their claims against what other newspapers are saying, they're kinda lost, especially those that entirely dismiss fact-checkers. If people dismiss a simple fact-check article that simply goes "we can't find evidence for these claims except some forwarded emails by some weirdos" without ANY additional political appraisal, they'll dismiss ANYTHING. The problem with academic sources are, well, they have the same issues as well as coming with their own. Some legitimate publishers publish a few stupid things. There are predatory publishers everywhere that will publish anything for money. You should look at published papers when news reports on them (especially hypey news like "RESEARCH SHOWS A STEP CLOSER TO ANTI-AGING BUT ALSO BEDS CAUSE CANCER") Books, too, there's a lot of nonsense books out there. There's more than just a few people who have published... things... that amount little more than screeds. It illuminates their biases, sure, but probably not useful to figure out the truth of things. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
If you read Gallup's survey on media, yes, news media is not trusted. However, one of the most interesting notes of this Gallup survey is just how much people tend to lean towards what I see as less reliable mediums (cable news, local TV news, and especially Internet news) instead of newspapers. There's sort of a self-inflicted wound thing going on there...
I find pejorative "bias" style claims irritating, personally. People should be able to read past biases. The Wall Street Journal for instance is not my bias "cup of tea", and also has (ala the NY Times) an editorial section where they "let their ranters go", and you have to watch for the occasional "touch of Murdoch" these days, but it still is a good paper. "Good" is not "perfect", the New York Times and Wall Street Journal (and all others) will massively flub occasionally, and all papers have a viewpoint you have to "tune" around. Both are still more useful than something like a Breitbart which massively flubs often and is tuned towards a certain style of not very useful outrage theater instead of reporting. BobJohnson (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
For clarity, that poll says 16% of Americans trust print newspapers, 11% trust television, and 16% trust digital journalism. I don't think you summarized it right. There's little to be gained from that poll, other than journalism in general almost no one trusts. 2600:4040:403C:F300:C679:ABD4:F7F5:32B7 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The sections which was a "tell" to me is the "Please indicate how often you get your news from each of the following sources". Local newspapers for instance took a big hit from 2008 to 20019 in the "every day" department. The "every day" section that increased the most in the last couple decades is "news on the computer or a smartphone". Yes, Gallup's survey is very spotty and un-detailed, so it's tough to come up with too many conclusions. It's just a postulate of sorts.
I guess the wording could very well imply that the people are selecting generally reliable news sources. According to Similarweb, well, it's a mixed bag. The top "news site" internationally according to Similarweb is a sometimes questionable aggregator (Yahoo) which you always have to look for what the actual source is. Some reliable sources are in this list, but also some questionable tabloid ones.
But what the SimilarWeb list doesn't say is how many people get their "news" from social media and call it a day. The first Google hit I see attempting to figure this out indicates that a depressingly large amount of people do get at least some "news" from shit social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, and Tiktok, that should not be relied for anything at all. Variety also has a report that is sadly behind a paywall. Even if a reliable news source is the background behind various social media "news" posts, anecdotally, what I've seen is that many social media posts will re-title, distort, or tilt so that it ends up as clickbait, just to get upvotes on the outrage, with the karma/like farmers figuring that most people won't click the article I guess. (Usually, the comments section will catch obvious errors and commentators will grumble about the karma/like farmers, but still.) Also, most social media "news" tends to swirl around whatever excites "mob opinion", which (again IMHO) tends to be a heavier, more emotion-rage-filled bias than the typical quality newspaper bias. The main benefit of the Internet is the ease of switching sources, so it's easy to "jump bias bubbles" if you want (this benefit is declining, of course, as more non-shit journalism sources understandably erect paywalls). But my postulate is the shitshow of social media is dragging down the opinion of journalism due to the above. We'll have to see if more data comes in to support my conclusion, or if I'm just a grumpy old luddite that just doesn't get the Like And Subscribe now era. :) BobJohnson (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
What's worst about those paywalls run entirely counter to the idea you should be browsing multiple news sources, not one. You can't rely on one news source, but once you subscribe to one, you're invested in that one and it's not like access opens to the other ones. I doubt they're entirely necessary, the paywalls, especially for major newspapers. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 19:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)