Oh you mean unlike the login-wall they've put up for every article in the past two weeks? That open access? Edit: I'm pretty mad that every NYT link I've been clicking for what has felt like two weeks has asked me to login. I was forced to finally make an account. Screw that. I'd pay if you gave me an option that made sense. I'm not going to drop $500+/year to subscribe to all the places I read from when I only read…
The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election
161–170 of 207 posts
Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree... HRC is a corporatist conservative and Trump is a populist conservative.
What Clinton position do you consider conservative?
HRC is strongly supported by the banking and finance industry, as well as by essentially all large, establishment industry groups. This is the definition of conservatism, preserving the status quo.
HRC also focuses very much on American exceptionalism and makes a moralistic argument for US foreign policy. She's presided over the largest arms deal in the history of the world, selling US arms to Saudi Arabia.
She wishes for the US to be the world hegemon and to use drone strikes (terrorism) to intimidate and subjugate the (often) brown-skinned people who might try to prevent that.
As we've seen via Wikileaks, HRC has used her and WJC's considerable political influence to amass a fortune exceeding a quarter of a billion dollars. She's advocated most of the economic policies that the super-rich want most. Some of these are, frankly, good policies, but many are handouts and loopholes that help preserve the status quo at the expense of those on the bottom and in the middle.
I would never vote for Donald Trump, but I would also never vote for HRC for many of the same reasons that prevent me from voting for someone like Trump or George W. Bush, etc.
As we've seen with Wikileaks, HRC despises the Sanders voters and strategized not just to sabotage Sanders' candidacy by installing her own cronies in the DNC, but also by pretending to care about their issues while telling banks the opposite. Not only is HRC a political pragmatist, she's on record actively trying to stop the only moderately successful leftist political movement in the US (Sanders) and joking about it to bankers!
Voting for HRC because she's a woman evokes a tribal instinct that is on the same level as voting for someone because they are white. We all want a world of equal rights and we all want to respect powerful, even flawed, leaders whether they are male or female. But HRC goes way too far with the sabotage of Sanders' campaign and the warmongering. Thus I believe voting for HRC (or Trump) is an unconscionable act.
Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election
#163I am disgusted with the NYT and media in general. I am a lifetime democrat, and in my opinion the news media has treated outside candidates like Trump and Sanders very unfairly. People should have information to make their own judgements, and not have the 'news' be a one hour infomercial for one candidate or another. I am also unhappy with so many of my friends who only see one side of things, one side not respecting…
> Sanders’ media coverage during the pre-primary period was a sore spot with his followers, who complained the media was biased against his candidacy. In relative terms at least, their complaint lacks substance. Among candidates in recent decades who entered the campaign with no money, no organization, and no national following, Sanders fared better than nearly all of them. Sanders’ initial low poll numbers marked him as less newsworthy than Clinton but, as he gained strength, the news tilted in his favor.
And for Trump:
> By our estimate, Trump’s coverage in the eight news outlets in our study was worth roughly $55 million. Trump reaped $16 million in ad-equivalent space in The New York Times alone, which was more than he spent on actual ad buys in all media during all of 2015. In our eight outlets, the ad-equivalent value of Trump’s coverage was more than one-and-a-half times the ad-equivalent value of Bush, Rubio, and Cruz’s coverage, more than twice that of Carson’s, and more than three times that of Kasich’s. Moreover, our analysis greatly underestimates the ad-equivalent value of Trump’s exposure in that it’s based on only eight media outlets, whereas the whole of the media world was highlighting his candidacy. Senator Cruz might well be correct in claiming that Trump’s media coverage was worth the equivalent of $2 billion in ad buys.
It's an interesting read.
http://shorensteincenter.org/pre-primary-news-coverage-2016-...
Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an interesting spin. Ignore the fact that Politico gave a candidate a "head's up" about a damaging piece and be happy that at least they still published it despite push back. It's less terrible than you thought it was!
There is nothing illegal (or even unethical in my opinion) to give someone an article before publishing so they can comment on it. It's ridiculous to infer collusion when the result is such a negative article about Clinton. Which piece of information did not make it into the article because it was first send to Paustenbach? Please be specific.
Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election
#165I am disgusted with the NYT and media in general. I am a lifetime democrat, and in my opinion the news media has treated outside candidates like Trump and Sanders very unfairly. People should have information to make their own judgements, and not have the 'news' be a one hour infomercial for one candidate or another. I am also unhappy with so many of my friends who only see one side of things, one side not respecting…
Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this during pledge drives or just all the time?
I do find it interesting that they advertise in a backhanded way: "This was brought to you because of a generous donation from XYX Corp."
"This program is brought to you by -insert brand name, followed by slogan of the brand-".
Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
So did I. There's nothing wrong with a news org expressing its opinions -- on the editorial page. But a news organization earns respect by offering solid, objective reporting. To paraphrase George Orwell, journalism is writing the stories that powerful interests don't want written! The Times did the exact opposite and had a political campaign proofread stories before publication. If it weren't such a major failure of…
> The Times did the exact opposite and had a political campaign proofread stories before publication. This is false, or misleading at best, if you're referring to the Mark Leibovich profile of Clinton. He sent an off-the-record transcript the campaign asking whether it could be put on the record, and the campaign only allowed him to publish part of it. Not ideal of course, but I'm not sure how you would avoid this, u…
It's absurd that candidates should be treated with such kid gloves. HRC should be happy to subject herself to whatever interviews, etc., from the nation's most respected paper simply to allow her side of the story to be noted.
The predominant vibe should be adversarial, skeptical of her motives and promises, and doing the interview and reading the resulting piece should be unpleasant for the candidate.
I know the NYT tailors the composition of various pages based on the print, afternoon, or online edition, etc., but throughout most of September and October, the pre-paywall politics section contained at least two flattering/fluffy stories about the HRC campaign every single day.
I'm sure there are people who want to read that stuff, but they should be asking how she'll turn all the promises into law, why she waited to support gay marriage, why she allowed her cronies to sabotage Sanders' campaign on her behalf, etc. The NYT did none of that. So coupled with the very friendly treatment by Leibovich, the news org doesn't really seem much like a news org.
Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
They survived the Judith Miller controversy. What is it about the HRC-NYT emails that ends their credibility in ways that Judith Miller didn't? edit: I can't think of a good reason to downvote this question (please do explain), but I'll rephrase: the Judith Miller Iraq reporting was bad to say the least, and they got rid of her. In this case I am under the impression that the problem is a few isolated cases, but I'm…
Judith Miller and the NYT’s (and news media more generally) credulous Iraq War boosterism were much more damning. Most of the folks involved, either on the media side or the government side, suffered absolutely no consequence to their reputations.
I still cannot believe this. In fact, it's probably the single most poignant fact of the Iraq war. It shows us that the NYT was not outraged by the "mistake" but supported what was effectively a propaganda effort.
This is why I liken the NYT to America's Pravda. The stories it runs help to bolster the legitimacy of certain institutions and create PR and misdirection as needed to allow the status quo to continue.
Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
However there are documented instances, with Politico for instance where stories were given prior approval by the Clinton campaign before publishing. There's lots of evidence that reporters colluded with the Clinton campaign. That's not 'negotiating access.' Reporters ethically are bound to not give sources the ability to approve stories. Otherwise those stories might as well be press releases. I went to journalism s…
> However there are documented instances, with Politico for instance where stories were given prior approval by the Clinton campaign before publishing. Did they show the story to get 'approval' or did they check elements of the story before publication?
If you get all of an organization's emails, you are bound to find an email that looks like some conspiracy on the surface. The people who think this email is an issue are simply not inclined to challenge their biases, so they display their ignorance proudly.
Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election
#170I am disgusted with the NYT and media in general. I am a lifetime democrat, and in my opinion the news media has treated outside candidates like Trump and Sanders very unfairly. People should have information to make their own judgements, and not have the 'news' be a one hour infomercial for one candidate or another. I am also unhappy with so many of my friends who only see one side of things, one side not respecting…
The usual narrative is that coverage of Trump and Sanders couldn't be more different, with Sanders struggling for attention while Trump received vast amounts of free advertising. There is a lot of truth to it, but, according to a study: > Sanders’ media coverage during the pre-primary period was a sore spot with his followers, who complained the media was biased against his candidacy. In relative terms at least, thei…
Trump has received more media coverage because he has simply said and done more things that are newsworthy.