31–40 of 163 posts
You agree that, by your own lights, editorial stances of newspapers are none of your business, yes? Free speech, yes?
Everyone says 'both sides' but that's not actually the case, is it? Shoe, meet other foot.
[EDIT]: typos removed
From former journalist Matt Yglesias on Twitter: a few years ago the New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage. Instead of covering the industry with a business press lens or a consumer lens they started covering it with a very tough investigative lens — highly oppositional at all times and occasionally unfair. Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. This…
Unfortunately the NYT editorial board has become quite political in a way that I don't think journalists should. I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital. They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately the NYT editorial board has become quite political in a way that I don't think journalists should. I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital. They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian so…
It’s hilarious that your critique of them is that they are far right. They might be doing something right if they have somehow managed to piss off both the left and right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately the NYT editorial board has become quite political in a way that I don't think journalists should. I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital. They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian so…
It’s hilarious that your critique of them is that they are far right. They might be doing something right if they have somehow managed to piss off both the left and right.
From former journalist Matt Yglesias on Twitter: a few years ago the New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage. Instead of covering the industry with a business press lens or a consumer lens they started covering it with a very tough investigative lens — highly oppositional at all times and occasionally unfair. Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. This…
Unfortunately the NYT editorial board has become quite political in a way that I don't think journalists should. I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital. They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian so…
It certainly seems like you wouldn't have any bias when discussing this topic as well.
> They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian sources. Maybe from a strict mathematical definition that is still a "majority" but it's certainly not what anyone imagines when they hear the word.
What non-strict, non-mathematical definition of the word majority do you propose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately the NYT editorial board has become quite political in a way that I don't think journalists should. I finally stopped reading them after their highly biased coverage and openly stated support of the Canadian alt-right occupation of our capital. They had statements in their articles such as "the majority of the funding for the protests came from Canada" when the actual number was 54% came from Canadian so…
The NYT is the mouthpiece of the centrist establishment. If the NYT is too "right" for you then you probably want WashPo or HuffPo. And if those are still too right, you're an ultra-progressive and I don't knwo what they read.
edit: Interestingly I also like the Globe and Mail, and people debate whether that is slightly right or slightly left.
I don't get why this seems like a big deal or a negative thing. Why wouldn't you want reporters to be critical? Isn't that like the whole point. That's even why we have freedom of press in the 1st amendment, so journalists can be critical.
Yes and no, it's important to have critical reporting, but imagine say that all reporting on medicine could only be critical, no articles about breakthroughs in cancer treatment or curing disease, all malpractice and ballooning costs. That wouldn't be wrong, but it'd be incomplete?
I don't get why this seems like a big deal or a negative thing. Why wouldn't you want reporters to be critical? Isn't that like the whole point. That's even why we have freedom of press in the 1st amendment, so journalists can be critical.
I don’t really get how people keep misunderstanding the point that it’s not that journalists are being critical, it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests. The absurdity of the NYT crying over big tech for practices the NYT uses all the time ( dark patterns, user tracking, algorithmic curation, etc. ) should not go unnoticed.
> Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential.
Why does it need to be in awe? that seems like an extreme in an unproductive direction.
> it’s that they’re being selectively critical to propagate their own interests.
where in the thread is the support for this?
From former journalist Matt Yglesias on Twitter: a few years ago the New York Times made a weird editorial decision with its tech coverage. Instead of covering the industry with a business press lens or a consumer lens they started covering it with a very tough investigative lens — highly oppositional at all times and occasionally unfair. Almost never curious about technology or in awe of progress and potential. This…