11–20 of 130 posts
Huh, it's as if the NYT has a narrative they wish to push, and will use lazy/questionable journalism to do it... Makes ya wonder what other topics they're doing this with...
WMD comes to mind.
They're kind of maddening in some ways. They certainly do crap like that, but also still do some occasional really good investigative reporting.
I subscribed to the Washington Post, as it's cheap through Amazon and they seem to be doing a bit better job in some ways.
Huh, it's as if the NYT has a narrative they wish to push, and will use lazy/questionable journalism to do it... Makes ya wonder what other topics they're doing this with...
WMD comes to mind.
"Straightforward" extrapolation is the worst! Reminds me of the RIAA damages numbers often quoted in courts "Well, it was a $2 mp3, and ~100M copies were downloaded, that's $2 * 100M = $200M in lost revenue/damages!!" As if 1 download = 1 guaranteed lost sale. On the contrary sometimes 1 download = 1 future sale where there was none before! By that logic the easiest way to make a million is just to download (or copy)…
No. That's the easiest way to owe $1M.
I know people who work at the NYT. They're absolutely smart enough to know the difference.
I ignored it for the most part, until I paid more attention to their hypocritical advertising, user tracking, and the unforgivable dark patterns they use to throttle unsubscribes - the state of residency feature flag for online unsubscribe / forcing the subscriber to hold on the phone for an hour before triaging them to a sales rep. Fuck you NYT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WMD comes to mind.
That has more with W's threats to cut off press room access to anyone who wouldn't stick to the patriotic script they wanted everyone to follow.
The New York Times is no longer the steady unbias pillar it once was. They hire fresh out SJW types to do their writing and it shows. Once I finally came to that realization, I stopped taking them seriously, but I feel others have not quite reached that epiphany yet. Keep in mind they almost went bankrupt if it were not for Carlos Slim bailing them out. Then you saw a bunch of praise pieces about Slim, and you realiz…
Based on your comment, I, and I'm sure many others, would have quickly countered by pointing out that it shouldn't matter who you hire provided you have a competent and passionate ombudsman to rein in your inadequacies as a company. However, the link I've provided shows that they fired (without replacement) their ombudsman in 2017. This certainly supports your argument.
"Straightforward" extrapolation is the worst! Reminds me of the RIAA damages numbers often quoted in courts "Well, it was a $2 mp3, and ~100M copies were downloaded, that's $2 * 100M = $200M in lost revenue/damages!!" As if 1 download = 1 guaranteed lost sale. On the contrary sometimes 1 download = 1 future sale where there was none before! By that logic the easiest way to make a million is just to download (or copy)…
The New York Times is no longer the steady unbias pillar it once was. They hire fresh out SJW types to do their writing and it shows. Once I finally came to that realization, I stopped taking them seriously, but I feel others have not quite reached that epiphany yet. Keep in mind they almost went bankrupt if it were not for Carlos Slim bailing them out. Then you saw a bunch of praise pieces about Slim, and you realiz…
Okay, I'm open to hearing this - I've certainly noticed a decrease in quality (vs quantity - NYT still leads there) vs, say, the Washington Post.
> They hire fresh out SJW types
I'm not even sure what this means. I'm used to seeing "SJW" as an attack label that is absent actual meaning, similar to "snowflake" or "libtard", stemming from groups stauchly biased themselves. Are you using it here as an attack based on political belief, or do you have some more nuanced substantive meaning? The rest of your comment doesn't expand on this "epiphany" so I'm left uncertain as to your argument.