Talk:The New York Times

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/us/ohio-hovater-white-nationalist.html

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. --95.165.94.78 (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: 73.16.106.159 / 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: 73.16.106.159 / 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)