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

Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 152 posts

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#131

Post by tsycho »

0898 wrote: post #128

I've observed the NYT's recent drift with dismay. Here's a recent example I noticed: https://imgur.com/a/uST4zE0 Somebody was murdered at a protest, and two bullet-points the NYT splashes with are "blame the victim" context hits because the deceased was on the "wrong" side. It should not be necessary to visit a toxic site like Breitbart to get a balanced diet, but at the moment as an NYT reader I feel it is.

I don’t get it. The bullet points in your screenshot seemed factual to me. Which part of it felt like victim blaming to you?

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#132

Post by colinmhayes »

wonnage wrote: post #123
colinmhayes wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the times does ok at having some conservative pieces to balance out. They got a bit unlucky in all their republican columnists, Brooks and Douthat in particular, being never trumpers, but they try to throw in some pro trump op-eds.

I never understood this particular viewpoint. The Times is fairly centrist to begin with, and we have to balance that out by inviting the occasional fascist to write a column? What does anyone gain from that?

The goal is to see perspectives outside your echo chamber.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#133

Post by 0x445442 »

tsycho wrote: post #131
0898 wrote: post #128

I've observed the NYT's recent drift with dismay. Here's a recent example I noticed: https://imgur.com/a/uST4zE0 Somebody was murdered at a protest, and two bullet-points the NYT splashes with are "blame the victim" context hits because the deceased was on the "wrong" side. It should not be necessary to visit a toxic site like Breitbart to get a balanced diet, but at the moment as an NYT reader I feel it is.

I don’t get it. The bullet points in your screenshot seemed factual to me. Which part of it felt like victim blaming to you?

Really? You see nothing wrong with a news article throwing around terms like "Far Right"?

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#134

Post by rayiner »

unethical_ban wrote: post #116
rayiner wrote: post #87

Tucker Carlson defended the NYT in 2009, saying the paper had a liberal slant but was careful about the facts. He urged conservative media to pay attention to accuracy. But sadly, after devastating revenue losses from 2010-2016, the NYT decided to become Fox News instead.

This proves that a broken clock, or broken man, can be correct upon occasion. Tucker Carlson is a despicable human being, utterly without guile or integrity or good faith.

My comment was about the NYT, not Tucker Carlson. The point is that even in the recent past, the paper had credibility even among people like Tucker Carlson.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#135

Post by lawnchair_larry »

unethical_ban wrote: post #116
rayiner wrote: post #87

Tucker Carlson defended the NYT in 2009, saying the paper had a liberal slant but was careful about the facts. He urged conservative media to pay attention to accuracy. But sadly, after devastating revenue losses from 2010-2016, the NYT decided to become Fox News instead.

This proves that a broken clock, or broken man, can be correct upon occasion. Tucker Carlson is a despicable human being, utterly without guile or integrity or good faith.

> Tucker Carlson is a despicable human being, utterly without guile or integrity or good faith.

Can you explain this? I don’t particularly like him and have only seen a few clips here and there, but I am surprised anyone might have such a strong reaction.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#136

Post by mthoms »

tathougies wrote: post #103
tarlinian wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication of working coronavirus vaccine by end of October was that it would be available for use (you can find quotes from the Trump administration saying they were working on distribution of hundreds of millions of doses by the end of the month), not that there would be a preliminary report from a still ongoing trial indicating that the vaccine works. The Steele dossier includes information from Russian sourc…

> The Steele dossier includes information from Russian sources. It was not "paid for" by Russia. Literally in USA today today my man: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/10/we-d... Quote: When the FBI obtained the dossier in September 2016, compiled by a former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, Comey told lawmakers he was unaware Steele's primary source was a suspected Russian agent. A R…

>the dossier was sourced from misinformation spread by a paid Russian agent.

You're moving the goalposts. You original said the report itself was "known to have been paid for by Russia".

It's plainly false that the report was paid for by Russia and your attempt to assert this as an indisputable fact by prefixing it with "known to" makes it doubly disingenuous.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#137

Post by seppin »

c06n wrote: post #112
seppin wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand why any news org has an opinion page. The two have nothing to do with one another.

It's in the article: Opinion at NYT produces 10% of the output, but 20% of the views. Emotions, especially negative ones, drive engagement.

Sadly this is the answer.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#138

Post by weakfish »

0x445442 wrote: post #133
tsycho wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get it. The bullet points in your screenshot seemed factual to me. Which part of it felt like victim blaming to you?

Really? You see nothing wrong with a news article throwing around terms like "Far Right"?

I agree that the bullet points are on the victim blaming end of things, but Far Right is a factual term and I'm not sure what the issue with it is - could you elaborate on your point please?

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#139

Post by weakfish »

IgorPartola wrote: post #63
tathougies wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice dodge of the question! I cited specific examples of ludicrous things he's said that have come true, and you cite small lies he's told. I can do the same for any politician you name, that doesn't mean they never say something worth listening to. Like I said though... Keep going. People like you have converted me from a never Trumper to a Trump supporter. And people like you have converted my aunt, a former Obama-…

> People like you have converted me from a never Trumper to a Trump supporter. It’s not my job to think for you. And are you really trying to use reverse psychology to get me to argue with you? You are spewing conspiracy theories straight out of 4chan and Trump’s Twitter feed. You have lived under Trump for almost four years and you still support him? And I’m supposed to attempt to convert you back? No thanks, I have…

> It’s not my job to think for you.

This should be the modus operandi of most internet discussions. Well said.

Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself

#140

Post by zaroth »

tzs wrote: post #109
zaroth wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? I doubt entirely Trump will prevail, but there's no question he's entitled to due process. Votes are still being counted. If the situation was reversed, I doubt Biden would concede until the last vote was counted either. In any case, when he loses--and then looks like a sore loser--it can only possibly help democratic turnout in the GA runoff. Anyway, that's arguing the finer points and missing the forest for th…

> If the situation was reversed, I doubt Biden would concede until the last vote was counted either. The situation was essentially reversed when it was Clinton and Trump. Clinton was behind after the night of the election in 3 states that she needed to win, by amounts ranging from about 0.25% to 0.7%. That's comparable to where Trump is now in the 4 states he needs to win. She conceded the morning after the election.…

> She conceded the morning after the election.

Yes, and she also said that was a mistake, spent the last 4 years saying the election was stolen from her by Russia, and said that "Biden should not concede under any circumstance."

Post reply on HN