Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

mobile.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 207 posts

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#171

Post by soundwave106 »

mudil wrote: post #36
dariusm5 wrote: post #16

I lost all trust in the NYT after Wikileaks revealed how they sabotaged Bernie Sanders and acted as a PR agency for the Clinton campaign. http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-propped... https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sand...

The level of Democratic party and media cooperation is staggering. Media has effectively become a part of the liberal part of the government. The reason Wikileaks scandal got so little attention is because they all, CNN, NYT, etc, are in bed with each other. It's effectively a government-media complex. Interview with Julian Assange: https://youtu.be/_sbT3_9dJY4

One thing I'm personally tiring of in this election cycle is the very strong "media is an xyz conspiracy" narrative; a lot of the reasoning seems nothing more than, gasp, people actually have opinions and bias, and marketing spin is a thing. I don't see spin as a "conspiracy", frankly. There is no such thing as unbiased media, I've never known it ever. Connections are not surprising here either. It's rather puzzling to hear opinion and connections being treated automatically as strong conspiracy.

For the record, liberals these days will tend to say rather the same thing as the above, but substitute Fox News and Breitbart, maybe even the WSJ. There's certainly connections -- Fox News certainly has hired Republican big guns in the past, and Breitbart's executive chairman went on to manage Trump's campaign after all. There's also certainly spin in the other direction. You treat the source accordingly.

Narrative, spin, and marketing will always exist (not just for government and media, but for any organization, from big businesses all the way down to non-profit advocacy groups), it's omnipresent in life. It's a good skill in life to develop a sense for looking past the more egregious forms of marketing and spin in life (the "clickbait" of the web, as it were).

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#172

Post by jccalhoun »

oiiuks wrote: post #100
physicalist wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low information voter detected.

Nice jab son. But the fact of the matter is I think that closing the borders is in fact the best thing for all lower socioeconomic classes by lessening the wealth transfer from the working poor to the ownership classes. Incidentally this would most positively affect hispanic and black laborers. So every time NYT or TG calls me a racist for supporting Trump I kind of wonder why they aren't talking about his policies.…

>If someone wants to sway my vote they can try using numbers and analyses and facts instead of shoving some pussy grabbing video in my face because, any honest individual will admit they've heard worse talk at basically any college party.

Not at the college parties I've been to. Nor in the lockerrooms I've been in. If people do say worse things then they are also bragging about sexual assault just like Trump was.

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#173

Post by JustSomeNobody »

deckard1 wrote: post #154
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #140

>The New York Times is inviting readers to take advantage of its reporting, analysis and commentary from the lead-up through the aftermath of the 2016 election. Aftermath? Somehow this smacks of already leading the narrative.

in what way? Are you referring to the slightly apocalyptic connotation of the word? Or are you suggesting there won't be a conclusion to the election?

Aftermath: the consequences or aftereffects of a significant unpleasant event.

Why is the election of a new President an "unpleasant event"? For some, it may not be. So, the NYT is leading the narrative already.

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#174

Post by ones_and_zeros »

07d046 wrote: post #163
mark_l_watson wrote: post #143

I 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…

Interesting Ctrl+F Sanders: 35, Clinton: 49, Trump: 70.

> 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.

This is revisionist history. I think the issue I and many of my friends have is that he did have organization and did have a national following but lacked the appropriate media coverage still. I can't comment on money but I'll concede that Hillary had more money based on the fact that they have essentially been raising money for her campaign for the past 10 years. Maybe, just maybe, Clinton had better poll numbers because she had more media coverage?

Anecdotally, I remember the morning commute that I decided to never give a dime of my money to NPR when Sanders' landslide win in NH was covered, but the panel all agreed that his campaign was a no go due to Hillary having the super delegates locked up...

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#175

Post by knz »

ascagnel_ wrote: post #142
knz wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR ( http://www.npr.org/ ) seems to be doing ok - they have a good mix of online reporting, audio from radio reporting, special features for events such as the election, and a number of successful podcasts associated with their various shows.

Also, since it's radio (vs print or video), they can capture the driving to work market, which is gigantic in the United States (the US Census [1] has it at 85.8 million). The others would largely require your undivided attention. [1] http://blogs.census.gov/2015/08/13/majority-of-americans-dri...

Good point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-listened-to_radio... reflects how significant that it.

1. All Things Considered - 13M weekly listeners 3. Morning Edition - 13M 6. Marketplace - 9M

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#176

Post by _fizz_buzz_ »

rayiner wrote: post #138
monfrere wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. This is just how journalism works: the reporter has to request/negotiate access to the source. The PR folks will obviously try to spin everything positively to the reporter; that's their job. Afterward, the reporter writes up a story as objectively as possible. When some part of the story happens to be…

> I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. Imagine if judges gave litigants pre-publication copies of opinions.

Vogel isn't a judge though. He is a journalist. Was the Clinton campaign able to change the article in any meaningful way?

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#177

Post by totalZero »

monfrere wrote: post #84
dariusm5 wrote: post #16

I lost all trust in the NYT after Wikileaks revealed how they sabotaged Bernie Sanders and acted as a PR agency for the Clinton campaign. http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-new-york-times-propped... https://medium.com/@Starkweather/new-york-times-edited-berni... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sand...

I read the leaked emails referred to in these articles, and I don't see much that is troubling about NYT's behavior. This is just how journalism works: the reporter has to request/negotiate access to the source. The PR folks will obviously try to spin everything positively to the reporter; that's their job. Afterward, the reporter writes up a story as objectively as possible. When some part of the story happens to be…

If you were correct, then the spin would be spinning the other direction from time to time.

Doesn't seem like that has happened with the Times.

If the bias is because they are systematically getting information from one side of the story, then it's still bad journalism.

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#178

Post by 24gttghh »

0xCMP wrote: post #33

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…

I find it funny that people complain about paying for their news, when large newspapers for the longest time weren't (and still are not) free...

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#179

Post by totalZero »

briandear wrote: post #117
blintz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"PR agency" is quite the stretch. If you read the actual email ( https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10634 ) instead of the poor secondhand accounts you linked, you'll see that there's a staffer that says "I think it’s as good as we could hope for. We were able to keep him from including more on the JVF" This is a staffer saying that they talked the reporter from the NYT out of focusing on an area they didn't li…

I would argue the Clinton campaign isnt slimey because of this -- it's smart media relations. What does call credibility into question is The NY Times was "talked out of" reporting on something. An objective reporter would tell them to pound sand at a request to not report something.

Doesn't look so smart now, with everyone combing through their emails...

Re: The New York Times to Offer Open Access on Web and Apps for the Election

#180

Post by iamdave »

fuqted wrote: post #90
iamdave wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it felt as if I was being told how I should be voting I've felt this sentiment since slightly before the conventions. Ask this independent voter why he's anxious for this to all be over? It's all the "Do you want Trump? Because that's how you get Trump" histrionics.

"Do you want Hillary?"

That too.
Post reply on HN