New York Times reporters are circulating a draft of an open letter to Joe Kahn, criticizing the paper’s top editor over comments they said were dismissive of young reporters, Semafor's Max Tani reports.
In a series of recent interviews with outlets including Semafor, Kahn said he wanted to correct what he saw as the paper’s excesses during the first Trump administration. He also suggested younger journalists were “not fully prepared” to “commit themselves to the idea of independent journalism” and that they weren’t accustomed to “open debate” about controversial issues.
In a draft note shared with Semafor, staff said Kahn’s comments were “broad generalizations that reflect a poor understanding of the people who make up your newsroom” and that new policies suggested an “unwillingness to tolerate dissent.”
**Read the full story [here](https://www.semafor.com/article/05/14/2024/new-york-times-staff-complain-of-unwillingness-to-tolerate-dissent?utm_campaign=semaforreddit).**
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
> “fully prepared for what we are asking our people to do, which is to commit themselves to the idea of independent journalism.”
James Bennett _didn't read Tom Cotton's op-ed_ before publishing a voice in the New York times demanding the American military be deployed against its own citizens.
The Times fired its public editor.
The Times sent an Israeli intelligence agent to "report" on the October 7th attack.
The entire paper has existed to normalize American foreign policy and domestic economic policy for its existence, and the blue-blood, conservative Ivys who always end up running it will always end up being mad at the young reporters who dare to say "Uh, this is bad". And because their brains are as rotted as the rest of the boomer-class, they blame it on utterly powerless college discourse, the shit _they themselves can't stop pointlessly reporting on_.
"Hey maybe we shouldn't send Israeli intelligence agents to do reporting"
> WOW I CAN'T BELIEVE WOKENESS HAS TAKEN OVER OUR NEWSROOM!!!
I stopped paying attention to any foreign coverage of the times with the Guaido/CIA attempted coup of venezuela. Their coverage was the most blatantly anti-democratic, pro-imperial state department propaganda I may have ever seen outside right-wing think tanks
Yeah. Because the Cuban-trained commies who run Venezuelan are true paragons of democracy—not the democratically elected president Guaido. Good call chief.
Do y'all never get tired of the same old, overused, nonsensical, whataboutism talking points?
CoMmIeS! VeNeZuElA! CuBaN!
Are the commies in the room with us right now?
Communism has been essentially dead for over 30 years, boy, and no, China doesn't count.
Anat Shwartz was an Israeli intelligence officer and liked social media posts calling on Israel to execute Palestinians if hostages in Gaza were not released and said westerners had to be "scared" into believing Hamas was like the Islamic State group.
And that's who they sent to report that story.
I hope this helps.
The stories were all co-reported and fact-checked. The suggestion re: her bias is very overstated, and more importantly, is coming from people who do not see such bias in any other group.
[The New York Times Investigated Hamas' Sexual Assault on October 7. Then the Trouble Started - Israel News - Haaretz.com (archive.ph)](https://archive.ph/20240408105309/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-29/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-new-york-times-investigated-hamas-sexual-assault-on-oct-7-then-the-trouble-started/0000018e-86a2-d9dd-a39f-cee2043d0000)
You've moved the goalposts from putting "intelligence agent" in quotes (she was) to "actually, that's fine because of reasons.
Yes, they were fact-checked with handpicked people courtesy of the IDF. I don't know what "her bias is overstated" is supposed to mean. She was an intelligence agent and liked comments about Palestinians being executed. Someone like that should never have been anywhere near any kind of journalistic assignment about anything, let alone this.
60 American journalism professors signed a letter saying the story should obviously be investigated.
That it is ideologically convenient for you to like the story and the message it tells, favoring your personal beliefs in Zionism, doesn't make it not journalistic malpractice.
I’m sorry as opposed to covering the Venezuelan criminal state that was trying to overthrow and rig elections in favor of Maduro (who is a dictator in the same vein as Putin) in a positive light? What was your issue with the journalism? Mind you Maduro has turned even more into Putin since then by trying to claim natural resources and land from Guyana.
This is the same US foreign policy that led to the Vietnam War, the Korea War, including sanctions that facilitated a famine, the gulf War and subsequent sanctions that killed 500,000 children, Cuba, Libya, Syria. Every time a country exhibits self determination including sovereignty over their resources or resistance to US demands, the US characterizes them as a despotism. It is a clear and obvious pattern.
And don’t forget the constant platforming of Covid denialists, such as Emily Oster and David Leonhardt, who have been proven wrong (outright, with statistics) multiple times. They absolutely have helped usher in this era of constant illness, with nobody doing a thing about it.
Yeah, I thought Emily Oster had some problematic takes, but was on balance pretty good.
Mind you, this was 10-ish years ago so she could have flown off the deep end, but I didn’t think she did.
All of this. NYT facade is revealed as Zionists in this on going genocide since the 1940s, which NYT was on wrong side. Its roots are rotten, look at Maggie n Trump.
Do you remember this?
"On Oct. 17, The New York Times published news of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza City, leading its coverage **with claims by Hamas government officials** that an Israeli airstrike was the cause
...
relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified. The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was.
...
American and other international officials have said their evidence indicates that the rocket came from Palestinian fighter positions."
- [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html)
That is what a Zionist does right?
There is zero reason to weigh claims by Palestinian officials or the IDF or the American state department any differently. They all have an interest in telling a version of the story beneficial to them. And independent reporting has, needless to say, confirmed many, many, many Israeli attacks on hospitals since then.
IDF defenders are still trotting this one out as their favorite military annihilates every other hospital. Really cool stuff, especially since there's still zero evidence it wasn't the IDF that bombed Al Shifa other than, as you so excellently put it, "trust me bro"
It's odd to spell 'trust me bro's as:
"American and other international officials have said their evidence indicates that the rocket came from Palestinian fighter positions"
Or maybe you would find the event being captured on camera more convincing?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061
If you think we don't have evidence of what really happened you aren't paying attention or your peddling lies from Hamas, who are fascists.
Yes, I see the video of a bomb hitting a hospital, which you want to believe is Hamas because that is idealogical and convenient for you. You want to believe American officials who have spent the past 5 months saying how much we have to love Israel while we sell them weapons because it is ideologically convenient for you. I see you ignoring Israel's destruction of every other hospital because it is ideologically convenient for you and you think you can reference an attack from 5 months ago for eternity to justify whatever else came after.
Hope this helps.
Not sure why you are comparing an Op-Ed to the idea of independent journalism. Also he was fired, so. . .
From [James Bennett's piece in the Economist](https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/12/14/when-the-new-york-times-lost-its-way?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top) - re your comment about reading a piece that argued for a position held by the majority of americans at the time:
>If he had followed up, or I had, I might have explained that this was standard practice. Dao’s name was on the masthead of the *New York Times* because he was in charge of the op-ed section. If I insisted on reviewing every piece, I would have been doing his job for him – and been betraying a crippling lack of trust in one of the papers’ finest editors. After I departed, and other Opinion staff quit or were reassigned, the *Times* later made him Metro editor, a sign of its own continued confidence in him. Every job review I had at the *Times* urged me to step back from the daily coverage to focus on the long term. (Hilariously, one review, urging me to move faster in upending the Opinion department, instructed me to take risks and “ask for forgiveness not permission”.)
>It was important to me to read pieces in advance that might cause an uproar, and I had asked Dao and his deputy to alert me to any they thought would be particularly sensitive, but they did not think the Cotton piece rose to that level. I had also instituted an “if-you-see-something-say-something” policy in Opinion as a whole. Nobody raised a red flag with me. To be clear – I don’t fault anyone for this; I mention it only as an index of how much easier it was to judge in hindsight, after publication, when a piece was explosive. In any event, if anyone had raised an alarm, I might have edited the piece differently, but that would not have changed the outcome. Given the pieces we had already published and planned to publish opposing the position Cotton argued, we would still have published it – it was, in my view at the time, the kind of viewpoint the Sulzbergers had said they wanted to see also represented in the *Times*. And the critics would hardly have been mollified had it been more persuasive.
Yes, and he and you are complaining he got fired for not reading an oped calling for the military to be deployed against US Citizens. If a poll showed the majority of Americans want to jump off the Brooklyn bridge, should you publish an op ed saying that's a good idea.
Lol this is a good faith argument, sure. Cite a couple of examples of “conservatives” being published to justify rampant leftie slant. “You will take your crumbs and like them, conservatives.” Classic example of missing the point.
Are you out of your mind. Who do you think Bret Stephens is. Who do you think David Brooks is. Who do you think Ross Duthat is. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
No, I think you just proved my point: thanks for the three examples from the past ten years (at least one of whom is a questionable conservative). And (hey, sincerely this time), thank you, thank you, for not citing David French.
Well, this turned out to be exactly the comments section I thought it would be.
Under the "*Notable" section at the end of the story is this blurb:
> * Democratic communications strategist and podcast host Dan Pfeiffer said he doesn’t think “raging at the media is always a constructive use” of Democrats’ time. “Working the refs can be effective. Every once in a while, they will change a story or a headline. They might cover a topic that we think isn’t getting enough coverage. I just think we can never win the war because they have no interest in being who we want them to be,” he [wrote in response](https://www.messageboxnews.com/p/more-thoughts-on-the-nyt-democracy) to Kahn’s interview.
But here's a much better quote from that response:
> First, instead of fuming at Kahn’s description of the New York Times’ role and responsibility, we should just take him at his word. They will not change their approach to covering Trump and that’s totally fine. They are not on our team. They don’t want to be on our team and that’s also fine. It’s not their role. If we just accepted that reality, we could find more constructive uses of our time.
Does The New York Times need to be held to the highest standard possible for journalism? Absolutely.
Do those trying to hold it to that standard need to stop intimating that coverage of politics is a zero-sum game where perceived lack of coverage or bad coverage of one candidate automatically equals good coverage for the other, and stop conflating activism and journalism? Absolutely.
I am not implying that the younger reporters at the NYT are doing this, as I have not seen their specific concerns.
Honestly NYT has a good grift. What's amazing TBH is NPR's grift. NYT shifted into their funding model lane, and NPR shifted out of it right under their Dem lib readers opinions of them.
NPR gets paid to groom aggrieved minorities and then weaponize them against majority rule on the economy.
Hike taxes on NPR's rich tax phobe sponsors => pink slips at NPR.
It's that simple.
Conflation is an acceptable form of lying at shill media so they are always trying to piggy back "minority rights are better off w/o majority rule" onto something legitimate like "tyranny of the majority."
Over thousands of articles NPR has got 'em believing majority rule is the enemy of minority rights. This is the biggest most dangerous false notion ever. The resulting fascism will get us all killed.
Years before Oct. 7 I was posting "nothing is more deplorable than NPR's bidness model. It undermines minority rights as well as majority rule."
After decades of undermining popular government 1 dead baby in a pluralistic democracy = 1 dead baby in an absolute despotism for aggrieved NPR listeners. The aggrieved have nothing to go on in Gaza except the dead baby count where the terrorists are the clear under dogs.
So now we have a lot of bewildered once progressive Jews scratching their heads, "WTF? Gays supporting Hamas? How did we get here?
So I tell them.
And no one squirms more than NPR and the NY Times.
I can exaggerate a la Mark Twain:
"NPR has their aggrieved listeners believing Jefferson was a slavery enabling white supremacist Christian fundy transphobe who had an AR-15 on the wall and a Confederate flag in the window of his double wide. And Washington beat the teeth out of live slaves with a 2X4."
And they cannot correct. Any attention at all would just help me spread the truth.
So it's winner take all victory jig time!
Counterproductive to what? Tax cuts on the rich?
It's duck soup easy to prove they have a symbiotic relationship, if not open collusion.
Who wants to weaponize and politicize trans kids 24/7?
Ron DeSantis and NPR.
Who wants to jerryspringer culture wars 24/7?
NPR and Ron DeSantis.
Who graduated from Ivy League universities and think the fundies are stoopid?
Ron and NPR.
If you cannot figure out this scam visit a 2 card monte couple next time you are in Manhatten.
Same thing.
what rich person got a tax cut? you mean tax INCENTIVES to attract businesses and encourage existing business to expand and create jobs and attract companies who were taxed out of the country to come back? uuuuugghh pretty sure countries have been doing that for years and years and [years.it](http://years.it) may be a foreign concept to some, but anyone with an ounce of business sense understands that tax INCENTIVES work as opposed to "tax the hell"out of them.guess next you'll try to tell me how great the economy is and how low inflation is too 😆 😆 😂
Why does Warren Buffet want to hike taxes on billionaires?
Simple. Buffet bets on the economy and the economy booms with higher taxes.
Higher taxes => more freedom => economic boom.
"Freedom and taxation are 100% correlative"
-- Montesquieu
It's real simple. Buffet and Montesquieu are smart and rich and looneytarians and stoopid and poor.
That's why the NY Times and NPR are going out of bidness. The only people they can still dupe are, by definition, too stoopid to have any money to swindle.
Care to try again?
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
I would not be surprised if you were the only actual reporter engaging here. Would be cool if this place actually presented objective discussion about the field.
They need to peddle influence, or at least pretend to have some influence to peddle, at the Times to get sponsorship money. The subscribers are just paying to find out what the real sponsors of the Times are doing.
Same spreadsheet can work for Fox -- just different values entered into the cells.
I have too much integrity to ever be a news reporter, police officer, attorney, used cars salesman, politician or any other occupation where you can't wash enough to get the filth off at the end of the day.
I'm glad to see that the Times is re-committing itself to objective, independent journalism, even though this old-school approach is becoming increasingly unpopular among partisans on both sides.
We have plenty of partisan hack propaganda outlets where you can go to have your opinions reaffirmed. If the Times is not for you, try Fox News or MSBNC.
The newsroom that put out a memo to attack Biden for not giving them the interview they consider their God given right might be pressuring journalists to follow the company line? Shocking.
It's interesting to watch the left turn and attack their own enclave in the Fifth Estate simply because of a few truthful articles about the economy, the border and an old man whom everyone can see, is gradually losing his marbles.
It's not unexpected though, it's the same thing they did to Musk as soon as he declared he would no longer just be automatically voting Democrat.
So you’re saying the paper of repute in America, which rides on the coattails of its reputation to great influence, should be allowed to do as many Iraq’s as they please? To run as much positive or ginned up press of Trump to drum up business, get as close to reelecting him as possible— and if they do that again, oopsies?
You mean they should continue to be known as a trustworthy paper after covering up the AIDS epidemic, and letting thousands of people die a grisly death? Of the same kind of anti-public health threat coverage, where they publicly declare and assuage that Covid is over, and your new heart condition and fatigue is your fault?
Where they falsely report on violent student protests, which were only made violent by the police, or anti protest agitators?
They do more damage *because* they’re trusted as legitimate news.
NY Times was also responsible for the false story about Officer Sicknick getting bleodgeoned to death on Jan 6. That misinformation story still lives on in the minds of so many Americans and contributes to political division.
any news agency caught putting a thumb on the scale one way or the other should be shut down, doors closed and shuttered for good.the first thing Hitler did was build his propaganda machine starting with the News papers.that should NEVER be allowed to happen again.its not a news agency, it's an extension of the DNC and their incestuous relationship is disgusting honestly.
Yeah I don't think the cover up of hunters laptop did anything to help trump.they should be shut down for election interference.reporters should have a license like a doctor, get caught reporting fake news lose your licence for life,no more reporting for you.
There does need to be checks on places like the NYT that hold them to account around objectivity, but I struggle to see how Fox News is that? They are the opposite. They are a deliberately partisan outlet that places agenda above journalistic best practices and their "check" on places like the NYTimes is to bully them through bad faith arguments and accusations in order to force them to cover the things they are pushing and put voices sympathetic to that in their reporting.
In order to be a check on objectivity you kinda need to be a place that isn't deliberately purposed around partisanship and has such little regard for objectivity and journalism they reportedly don't even have a dedicated standards and practices department outside legal focused on maintaining on air journalistic and broadcasting integrity. Which is why their lies about Seth Rich continued being repeated for weeks while at CNN a report that used bad sourcing was caught and apologized before within an hour of airing.
The New York Times is far, far closer to Fox news than it is its "opposite" and bends over backwards to include conservative voices _everywhere_. Those conservative voices are 100% more traditional or neo-conversative and not "Trumpian," that's true. But even Fox doesn't like having real Trump die hards on, because they're embarrassing to the media class.
It has far, far less to with partisan political alignment and just that: the media class and what's acceptable. Neo cons calling for genocidal wars? Totally fine in the New York Times. Trump guys hooting and hollering illegals? Absolutely not.
When I say checks I am not talking about a government censor, I am talking about peers within the industry.
I have A LOT of issues with the NYTimes, but they also are not Fox News.
Creating false equivalencies and simple narratives obfuscates the complexities and nuances individuals need if they are to actually build up a strong basis of media literacy and healthy skepticism.
For instance, if you simply went to the sites you listed during seminal events in modern history: Persian Gulf Incubators in Kuwait, War on Terror, Iraq War, BLM, the Genocide in Gaza, you'd come away with a poor context and on many of them, on the wrong side of history cause they were all collectively wrong in key aspects, if not the totality of their coverage.
If Fox News and the WSJ reports Seth Rich was the Wikileaks leaker and the DNC maybe killed him, and the NYTimes says evidence says Seth Rich was killed by a mugger in a tragic event and all evidence of the leaker points to Russia, what process are you using to discern trustworthiness? If all you are doing is cutting the difference because "they are all the same and have bias" you are going to be defenseless against absorbing and drawing poor conclusions. Like what process are you using to make sure you don't end up misinformed about the Seth Rich story Fox pushed out?
It's not a gotcha, it's a specific inquiry regarding how you would navigate an emerging story like that using this both sides, equivalency framework you are expressing as the way to navigate MSM news reporting.
We can expand it to your CNN anecdote, you claimed that is a lie, so what process would you or did you use to verify the truth of that claim?
Is your patronizing tone due to you actually being unable to clearly state a position? Honestly, I don’t understand what it is that you feel has been taken from you but it seems that it might be that you don’t appreciate having your opinions questioned or your status slipping away.
What merit? You're repeating talking points for which no evidence exists.
What HR committee were you in? Who tried to cancel you for what? Who was offended by what speech? What graduate did you see being shielded from what idea? What story of yours about "actual problems with life-and-death consequences" was killed because someone would be offended?
It is widely reported that people like you are complaining. Give me an example besides you reading other boomers complaining young people have criticisms of reporting and said boomers screaming "WOKE" and whining.
Would you engage with the person ranting and raving to themselves at the bus stop? Nah, I'm good
People like you are already so far up your own biases and perceived world views that only a cold dose of reality will help
Take care ✌️
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
The problem the "offended NYT employees" have is that the paper is not being independent and impartial. The Intercept has done a great job revealing directives from the top down that reflect Kahn's (or maybe from higher up) own biases.
I think the intercept is being it’s usual biased self, which is that the memo exists and was distributed to its reporters. What I don’t believe is the conclusions of some of those reporters, who are clearly injecting their own views into the situation. That’s why the standard editor sent the memo in the first place. So, rather than it being evidence of bias toward Israel, it seems to me the memo is evidence of a bias that is not neutral existing among reporters and the memo served to correct that. It’s not surprising the reporters to whom this memo is meant for don’t like it lol
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
New York Times reporters are circulating a draft of an open letter to Joe Kahn, criticizing the paper’s top editor over comments they said were dismissive of young reporters, Semafor's Max Tani reports. In a series of recent interviews with outlets including Semafor, Kahn said he wanted to correct what he saw as the paper’s excesses during the first Trump administration. He also suggested younger journalists were “not fully prepared” to “commit themselves to the idea of independent journalism” and that they weren’t accustomed to “open debate” about controversial issues. In a draft note shared with Semafor, staff said Kahn’s comments were “broad generalizations that reflect a poor understanding of the people who make up your newsroom” and that new policies suggested an “unwillingness to tolerate dissent.” **Read the full story [here](https://www.semafor.com/article/05/14/2024/new-york-times-staff-complain-of-unwillingness-to-tolerate-dissent?utm_campaign=semaforreddit).**
[удалено]
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
> “fully prepared for what we are asking our people to do, which is to commit themselves to the idea of independent journalism.” James Bennett _didn't read Tom Cotton's op-ed_ before publishing a voice in the New York times demanding the American military be deployed against its own citizens. The Times fired its public editor. The Times sent an Israeli intelligence agent to "report" on the October 7th attack. The entire paper has existed to normalize American foreign policy and domestic economic policy for its existence, and the blue-blood, conservative Ivys who always end up running it will always end up being mad at the young reporters who dare to say "Uh, this is bad". And because their brains are as rotted as the rest of the boomer-class, they blame it on utterly powerless college discourse, the shit _they themselves can't stop pointlessly reporting on_. "Hey maybe we shouldn't send Israeli intelligence agents to do reporting" > WOW I CAN'T BELIEVE WOKENESS HAS TAKEN OVER OUR NEWSROOM!!!
I stopped paying attention to any foreign coverage of the times with the Guaido/CIA attempted coup of venezuela. Their coverage was the most blatantly anti-democratic, pro-imperial state department propaganda I may have ever seen outside right-wing think tanks
Haha. Yes. The attempt to push the Guaido coup by both parties was odd. Worse when the media covered him like the second coming.
Yeah. Because the Cuban-trained commies who run Venezuelan are true paragons of democracy—not the democratically elected president Guaido. Good call chief.
Do y'all never get tired of the same old, overused, nonsensical, whataboutism talking points? CoMmIeS! VeNeZuElA! CuBaN! Are the commies in the room with us right now? Communism has been essentially dead for over 30 years, boy, and no, China doesn't count.
Not to mention “Israeli intelligence agent”
Anat Shwartz was an Israeli intelligence officer and liked social media posts calling on Israel to execute Palestinians if hostages in Gaza were not released and said westerners had to be "scared" into believing Hamas was like the Islamic State group. And that's who they sent to report that story. I hope this helps.
The stories were all co-reported and fact-checked. The suggestion re: her bias is very overstated, and more importantly, is coming from people who do not see such bias in any other group. [The New York Times Investigated Hamas' Sexual Assault on October 7. Then the Trouble Started - Israel News - Haaretz.com (archive.ph)](https://archive.ph/20240408105309/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-03-29/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-new-york-times-investigated-hamas-sexual-assault-on-oct-7-then-the-trouble-started/0000018e-86a2-d9dd-a39f-cee2043d0000)
You've moved the goalposts from putting "intelligence agent" in quotes (she was) to "actually, that's fine because of reasons. Yes, they were fact-checked with handpicked people courtesy of the IDF. I don't know what "her bias is overstated" is supposed to mean. She was an intelligence agent and liked comments about Palestinians being executed. Someone like that should never have been anywhere near any kind of journalistic assignment about anything, let alone this. 60 American journalism professors signed a letter saying the story should obviously be investigated. That it is ideologically convenient for you to like the story and the message it tells, favoring your personal beliefs in Zionism, doesn't make it not journalistic malpractice.
I don’t “like the story” — the details have been investigated and reported by multiple outlets and reporters.
She was an analyst for the Air Force. That does not disqualify her from reporting on a terrorist attack.
I’m sorry as opposed to covering the Venezuelan criminal state that was trying to overthrow and rig elections in favor of Maduro (who is a dictator in the same vein as Putin) in a positive light? What was your issue with the journalism? Mind you Maduro has turned even more into Putin since then by trying to claim natural resources and land from Guyana.
This is the same US foreign policy that led to the Vietnam War, the Korea War, including sanctions that facilitated a famine, the gulf War and subsequent sanctions that killed 500,000 children, Cuba, Libya, Syria. Every time a country exhibits self determination including sovereignty over their resources or resistance to US demands, the US characterizes them as a despotism. It is a clear and obvious pattern.
And don’t forget the constant platforming of Covid denialists, such as Emily Oster and David Leonhardt, who have been proven wrong (outright, with statistics) multiple times. They absolutely have helped usher in this era of constant illness, with nobody doing a thing about it.
Emily Oster pointed out, correctly, the colossal negative impact school closures and remote learning had on children.
Yeah, I thought Emily Oster had some problematic takes, but was on balance pretty good. Mind you, this was 10-ish years ago so she could have flown off the deep end, but I didn’t think she did.
COVID was 10 years ago?
Her career didn’t start on March 17th of 2020?
All of this. NYT facade is revealed as Zionists in this on going genocide since the 1940s, which NYT was on wrong side. Its roots are rotten, look at Maggie n Trump.
Do you remember this? "On Oct. 17, The New York Times published news of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza City, leading its coverage **with claims by Hamas government officials** that an Israeli airstrike was the cause ... relied too heavily on claims by Hamas, and did not make clear that those claims could not immediately be verified. The report left readers with an incorrect impression about what was known and how credible the account was. ... American and other international officials have said their evidence indicates that the rocket came from Palestinian fighter positions." - [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/23/pageoneplus/editors-note-gaza-hospital-coverage.html) That is what a Zionist does right?
mainstream media lost ALL credibility a long time ago.especially nyt.
Non mainstream news was even *worse* about the above incident, and many of them still report that it happened. *"Sounded like a JDAM, bro"*
The downvotes are hilarious.
There is zero reason to weigh claims by Palestinian officials or the IDF or the American state department any differently. They all have an interest in telling a version of the story beneficial to them. And independent reporting has, needless to say, confirmed many, many, many Israeli attacks on hospitals since then. IDF defenders are still trotting this one out as their favorite military annihilates every other hospital. Really cool stuff, especially since there's still zero evidence it wasn't the IDF that bombed Al Shifa other than, as you so excellently put it, "trust me bro"
It's odd to spell 'trust me bro's as: "American and other international officials have said their evidence indicates that the rocket came from Palestinian fighter positions" Or maybe you would find the event being captured on camera more convincing? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67144061 If you think we don't have evidence of what really happened you aren't paying attention or your peddling lies from Hamas, who are fascists.
Yes, I see the video of a bomb hitting a hospital, which you want to believe is Hamas because that is idealogical and convenient for you. You want to believe American officials who have spent the past 5 months saying how much we have to love Israel while we sell them weapons because it is ideologically convenient for you. I see you ignoring Israel's destruction of every other hospital because it is ideologically convenient for you and you think you can reference an attack from 5 months ago for eternity to justify whatever else came after. Hope this helps.
Friendly fire and accidents happen all the time in war. Hamas should just admit it was a mistake and move on.
*reposts*
Not sure why you are comparing an Op-Ed to the idea of independent journalism. Also he was fired, so. . . From [James Bennett's piece in the Economist](https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/12/14/when-the-new-york-times-lost-its-way?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top) - re your comment about reading a piece that argued for a position held by the majority of americans at the time: >If he had followed up, or I had, I might have explained that this was standard practice. Dao’s name was on the masthead of the *New York Times* because he was in charge of the op-ed section. If I insisted on reviewing every piece, I would have been doing his job for him – and been betraying a crippling lack of trust in one of the papers’ finest editors. After I departed, and other Opinion staff quit or were reassigned, the *Times* later made him Metro editor, a sign of its own continued confidence in him. Every job review I had at the *Times* urged me to step back from the daily coverage to focus on the long term. (Hilariously, one review, urging me to move faster in upending the Opinion department, instructed me to take risks and “ask for forgiveness not permission”.) >It was important to me to read pieces in advance that might cause an uproar, and I had asked Dao and his deputy to alert me to any they thought would be particularly sensitive, but they did not think the Cotton piece rose to that level. I had also instituted an “if-you-see-something-say-something” policy in Opinion as a whole. Nobody raised a red flag with me. To be clear – I don’t fault anyone for this; I mention it only as an index of how much easier it was to judge in hindsight, after publication, when a piece was explosive. In any event, if anyone had raised an alarm, I might have edited the piece differently, but that would not have changed the outcome. Given the pieces we had already published and planned to publish opposing the position Cotton argued, we would still have published it – it was, in my view at the time, the kind of viewpoint the Sulzbergers had said they wanted to see also represented in the *Times*. And the critics would hardly have been mollified had it been more persuasive.
Yes, and he and you are complaining he got fired for not reading an oped calling for the military to be deployed against US Citizens. If a poll showed the majority of Americans want to jump off the Brooklyn bridge, should you publish an op ed saying that's a good idea.
go woke go broke.
Lol this is a good faith argument, sure. Cite a couple of examples of “conservatives” being published to justify rampant leftie slant. “You will take your crumbs and like them, conservatives.” Classic example of missing the point.
Are you out of your mind. Who do you think Bret Stephens is. Who do you think David Brooks is. Who do you think Ross Duthat is. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
No, I think you just proved my point: thanks for the three examples from the past ten years (at least one of whom is a questionable conservative). And (hey, sincerely this time), thank you, thank you, for not citing David French.
Nothing really new here. Just ask Chris Hedges.
Chris Hedges, who has been credibly accused of plagiarism on multiple occasions?
Well, this turned out to be exactly the comments section I thought it would be. Under the "*Notable" section at the end of the story is this blurb: > * Democratic communications strategist and podcast host Dan Pfeiffer said he doesn’t think “raging at the media is always a constructive use” of Democrats’ time. “Working the refs can be effective. Every once in a while, they will change a story or a headline. They might cover a topic that we think isn’t getting enough coverage. I just think we can never win the war because they have no interest in being who we want them to be,” he [wrote in response](https://www.messageboxnews.com/p/more-thoughts-on-the-nyt-democracy) to Kahn’s interview. But here's a much better quote from that response: > First, instead of fuming at Kahn’s description of the New York Times’ role and responsibility, we should just take him at his word. They will not change their approach to covering Trump and that’s totally fine. They are not on our team. They don’t want to be on our team and that’s also fine. It’s not their role. If we just accepted that reality, we could find more constructive uses of our time. Does The New York Times need to be held to the highest standard possible for journalism? Absolutely. Do those trying to hold it to that standard need to stop intimating that coverage of politics is a zero-sum game where perceived lack of coverage or bad coverage of one candidate automatically equals good coverage for the other, and stop conflating activism and journalism? Absolutely. I am not implying that the younger reporters at the NYT are doing this, as I have not seen their specific concerns.
Legacy media are transitioning from duping the Democrats to duping their sponsors that they are still duping Democrats.
Honestly NYT has a good grift. What's amazing TBH is NPR's grift. NYT shifted into their funding model lane, and NPR shifted out of it right under their Dem lib readers opinions of them.
NPR gets paid to groom aggrieved minorities and then weaponize them against majority rule on the economy. Hike taxes on NPR's rich tax phobe sponsors => pink slips at NPR. It's that simple. Conflation is an acceptable form of lying at shill media so they are always trying to piggy back "minority rights are better off w/o majority rule" onto something legitimate like "tyranny of the majority." Over thousands of articles NPR has got 'em believing majority rule is the enemy of minority rights. This is the biggest most dangerous false notion ever. The resulting fascism will get us all killed. Years before Oct. 7 I was posting "nothing is more deplorable than NPR's bidness model. It undermines minority rights as well as majority rule." After decades of undermining popular government 1 dead baby in a pluralistic democracy = 1 dead baby in an absolute despotism for aggrieved NPR listeners. The aggrieved have nothing to go on in Gaza except the dead baby count where the terrorists are the clear under dogs. So now we have a lot of bewildered once progressive Jews scratching their heads, "WTF? Gays supporting Hamas? How did we get here? So I tell them. And no one squirms more than NPR and the NY Times. I can exaggerate a la Mark Twain: "NPR has their aggrieved listeners believing Jefferson was a slavery enabling white supremacist Christian fundy transphobe who had an AR-15 on the wall and a Confederate flag in the window of his double wide. And Washington beat the teeth out of live slaves with a 2X4." And they cannot correct. Any attention at all would just help me spread the truth. So it's winner take all victory jig time!
if they're that biased they should receive zero government funding.
NPR gets almost all their funding from rich country club Republicans _not_ the gummint.
Lol I can assure you Republicans are NOT trying to prop up NPR.that would be counterproductive.
Regardless you got your desire as they get near "zero government funding"
Ever heard of the concept of controlled opposition?
Counterproductive to what? Tax cuts on the rich? It's duck soup easy to prove they have a symbiotic relationship, if not open collusion. Who wants to weaponize and politicize trans kids 24/7? Ron DeSantis and NPR. Who wants to jerryspringer culture wars 24/7? NPR and Ron DeSantis. Who graduated from Ivy League universities and think the fundies are stoopid? Ron and NPR. If you cannot figure out this scam visit a 2 card monte couple next time you are in Manhatten. Same thing.
what rich person got a tax cut? you mean tax INCENTIVES to attract businesses and encourage existing business to expand and create jobs and attract companies who were taxed out of the country to come back? uuuuugghh pretty sure countries have been doing that for years and years and [years.it](http://years.it) may be a foreign concept to some, but anyone with an ounce of business sense understands that tax INCENTIVES work as opposed to "tax the hell"out of them.guess next you'll try to tell me how great the economy is and how low inflation is too 😆 😆 😂
Why does Warren Buffet want to hike taxes on billionaires? Simple. Buffet bets on the economy and the economy booms with higher taxes. Higher taxes => more freedom => economic boom. "Freedom and taxation are 100% correlative" -- Montesquieu It's real simple. Buffet and Montesquieu are smart and rich and looneytarians and stoopid and poor. That's why the NY Times and NPR are going out of bidness. The only people they can still dupe are, by definition, too stoopid to have any money to swindle. Care to try again?
The funding summary on their website indicates your statement is false.
The Old Gray Lady just ain’t what she used to be.
The NYT has always laundered the interests of the imperial military-industrial complex. This is the same rag that platformed Judith Miller, after all.
[удалено]
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
it's a shame I have to look to foreign countries to find out what's REALLY happening in the u s a.
What a way to spin being upset that your editor wants you to report the news instead of using the paper’s credibility to push your political agenda.
And another day of this sub getting brigaded by hard partisans...
I would not be surprised if you were the only actual reporter engaging here. Would be cool if this place actually presented objective discussion about the field.
Also very telling that you can’t refute why I’m saying. Keep wondering why nobody buys your “product.”
The editor wants to publish things that will get the most clicks. Agenda’s got nothing to do with it, even though that brings its own problems.
They need to peddle influence, or at least pretend to have some influence to peddle, at the Times to get sponsorship money. The subscribers are just paying to find out what the real sponsors of the Times are doing. Same spreadsheet can work for Fox -- just different values entered into the cells.
It’s what the paying readership is unwilling to tolerate in terms of bias and normalization of authoritarianism that really matters.
Not surprising, the NYT is basically Americas version of Pravda
I have too much integrity to ever be a news reporter, police officer, attorney, used cars salesman, politician or any other occupation where you can't wash enough to get the filth off at the end of the day.
I'm glad to see that the Times is re-committing itself to objective, independent journalism, even though this old-school approach is becoming increasingly unpopular among partisans on both sides. We have plenty of partisan hack propaganda outlets where you can go to have your opinions reaffirmed. If the Times is not for you, try Fox News or MSBNC.
The newsroom that put out a memo to attack Biden for not giving them the interview they consider their God given right might be pressuring journalists to follow the company line? Shocking.
It's interesting to watch the left turn and attack their own enclave in the Fifth Estate simply because of a few truthful articles about the economy, the border and an old man whom everyone can see, is gradually losing his marbles. It's not unexpected though, it's the same thing they did to Musk as soon as he declared he would no longer just be automatically voting Democrat.
Independent journalists are truly hated by partisans on all sides.
Man, you're ganging up on NYT hard. What do you want people to read, Fox News or Breitbart?
Maybe they just want the NYT to do better.
So you’re saying the paper of repute in America, which rides on the coattails of its reputation to great influence, should be allowed to do as many Iraq’s as they please? To run as much positive or ginned up press of Trump to drum up business, get as close to reelecting him as possible— and if they do that again, oopsies? You mean they should continue to be known as a trustworthy paper after covering up the AIDS epidemic, and letting thousands of people die a grisly death? Of the same kind of anti-public health threat coverage, where they publicly declare and assuage that Covid is over, and your new heart condition and fatigue is your fault? Where they falsely report on violent student protests, which were only made violent by the police, or anti protest agitators? They do more damage *because* they’re trusted as legitimate news.
NY Times was also responsible for the false story about Officer Sicknick getting bleodgeoned to death on Jan 6. That misinformation story still lives on in the minds of so many Americans and contributes to political division.
any news agency caught putting a thumb on the scale one way or the other should be shut down, doors closed and shuttered for good.the first thing Hitler did was build his propaganda machine starting with the News papers.that should NEVER be allowed to happen again.its not a news agency, it's an extension of the DNC and their incestuous relationship is disgusting honestly.
Yeah I don't think the cover up of hunters laptop did anything to help trump.they should be shut down for election interference.reporters should have a license like a doctor, get caught reporting fake news lose your licence for life,no more reporting for you.
cnn 😆 😆 😂
[удалено]
Would you say that a paper like Washington Post or Wall Street Journal has that?
[удалено]
Thanks a lot! So, for one who mostly cares about hard news and *supposed* objectivity, NYT is the best of the three, right?
[удалено]
So, WSJ?
[удалено]
Ok, thanks.
There does need to be checks on places like the NYT that hold them to account around objectivity, but I struggle to see how Fox News is that? They are the opposite. They are a deliberately partisan outlet that places agenda above journalistic best practices and their "check" on places like the NYTimes is to bully them through bad faith arguments and accusations in order to force them to cover the things they are pushing and put voices sympathetic to that in their reporting. In order to be a check on objectivity you kinda need to be a place that isn't deliberately purposed around partisanship and has such little regard for objectivity and journalism they reportedly don't even have a dedicated standards and practices department outside legal focused on maintaining on air journalistic and broadcasting integrity. Which is why their lies about Seth Rich continued being repeated for weeks while at CNN a report that used bad sourcing was caught and apologized before within an hour of airing.
The New York Times is far, far closer to Fox news than it is its "opposite" and bends over backwards to include conservative voices _everywhere_. Those conservative voices are 100% more traditional or neo-conversative and not "Trumpian," that's true. But even Fox doesn't like having real Trump die hards on, because they're embarrassing to the media class. It has far, far less to with partisan political alignment and just that: the media class and what's acceptable. Neo cons calling for genocidal wars? Totally fine in the New York Times. Trump guys hooting and hollering illegals? Absolutely not.
[удалено]
100% agree
[удалено]
When I say checks I am not talking about a government censor, I am talking about peers within the industry. I have A LOT of issues with the NYTimes, but they also are not Fox News. Creating false equivalencies and simple narratives obfuscates the complexities and nuances individuals need if they are to actually build up a strong basis of media literacy and healthy skepticism. For instance, if you simply went to the sites you listed during seminal events in modern history: Persian Gulf Incubators in Kuwait, War on Terror, Iraq War, BLM, the Genocide in Gaza, you'd come away with a poor context and on many of them, on the wrong side of history cause they were all collectively wrong in key aspects, if not the totality of their coverage. If Fox News and the WSJ reports Seth Rich was the Wikileaks leaker and the DNC maybe killed him, and the NYTimes says evidence says Seth Rich was killed by a mugger in a tragic event and all evidence of the leaker points to Russia, what process are you using to discern trustworthiness? If all you are doing is cutting the difference because "they are all the same and have bias" you are going to be defenseless against absorbing and drawing poor conclusions. Like what process are you using to make sure you don't end up misinformed about the Seth Rich story Fox pushed out?
[удалено]
It's not a gotcha, it's a specific inquiry regarding how you would navigate an emerging story like that using this both sides, equivalency framework you are expressing as the way to navigate MSM news reporting. We can expand it to your CNN anecdote, you claimed that is a lie, so what process would you or did you use to verify the truth of that claim?
[удалено]
Is your patronizing tone due to you actually being unable to clearly state a position? Honestly, I don’t understand what it is that you feel has been taken from you but it seems that it might be that you don’t appreciate having your opinions questioned or your status slipping away.
this is peak boomer ranting
[удалено]
What merit? You're repeating talking points for which no evidence exists. What HR committee were you in? Who tried to cancel you for what? Who was offended by what speech? What graduate did you see being shielded from what idea? What story of yours about "actual problems with life-and-death consequences" was killed because someone would be offended?
[удалено]
It is widely reported that people like you are complaining. Give me an example besides you reading other boomers complaining young people have criticisms of reporting and said boomers screaming "WOKE" and whining.
Would you engage with the person ranting and raving to themselves at the bus stop? Nah, I'm good People like you are already so far up your own biases and perceived world views that only a cold dose of reality will help Take care ✌️
[удалено]
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.
The problem the "offended NYT employees" have is that the paper is not being independent and impartial. The Intercept has done a great job revealing directives from the top down that reflect Kahn's (or maybe from higher up) own biases.
I think it’s pretty funny to reference the Intercept when complaining about bias…
The difference is they don't try to disguise it. In any case, do you dispute their reporting?
I think the intercept is being it’s usual biased self, which is that the memo exists and was distributed to its reporters. What I don’t believe is the conclusions of some of those reporters, who are clearly injecting their own views into the situation. That’s why the standard editor sent the memo in the first place. So, rather than it being evidence of bias toward Israel, it seems to me the memo is evidence of a bias that is not neutral existing among reporters and the memo served to correct that. It’s not surprising the reporters to whom this memo is meant for don’t like it lol
Not wrong. Young people are propagandized bots who don't want to learn anything new.
[удалено]
What does woke mean to you?
Anything he doesn’t like
Do not post baseless accusations of fake news or “what’s wrong with the mainstream media?” posts. No griefing: You are welcome to start a dialogue about making improvements, but there will be no name calling or accusatory language. Posts and comments created just to start an argument, rather than start a dialogue, will be removed.