91–100 of 163 posts
Former NYT writer here.... NYT, as far as I know, has always had a "top-down" directive that coverage be critical. That's, you know, the job of journalism and all. Non-critical pieces are opinion, not reporting.
"And make sure to shit on tech, because everything else would be opinion, not reporting"?
I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me, if some one with actual direct knowledge commented publicly. Surely, if it was so widespread, and unambiguous, it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership.
> it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership
Yes, it would be difficult. Do you think the publisher or managing editor is going to admit to it?
A reporter in a position to know is a great source. The news business runs on "a source close to... said" and "a high-placed source said..."
If what the source said seems to contradict other evidence, that's a different matter.
I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me, if some one with actual direct knowledge commented publicly. Surely, if it was so widespread, and unambiguous, it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership.
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 think the tech page used to look more like the travel page today https://www.nytimes.com/section/travel If you take a look, its not doing investigations. Its just talking about cool places. Tech used to just be talking about cool gadgets. I believe them when they say it was "top down" but also it was self-evident that this would happen if tech companies went to a small part of the economy to the biggest in the worl…
I would like to see more proof for this than just one guy saying he heard it from others. It may very well be true, but it would be far more convincing, to me, if some one with actual direct knowledge commented publicly. Surely, if it was so widespread, and unambiguous, it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership.
Asking for proof about something that happens on the down-low is a dubious defense. How much proof would you expect to see, unless there was a court case with witnesses and discovered documents and texts? > it would not be be difficult to get clear evidence of this directive from NYT leadership Yes, it would be difficult. Do you think the publisher or managing editor is going to admit to it? A reporter in a position…
Perhaps Vox might be worth something if they did, Kelsey.
Former NYT writer here.... NYT, as far as I know, has always had a "top-down" directive that coverage be critical. That's, you know, the job of journalism and all. Non-critical pieces are opinion, not reporting.
> There was a top-down decision that tech could not be covered positively, even when there was a true, newsworthy and positive story.
The NYT is a center right paper that is generally friendly and welcoming to big money (see greenwashing "advertorials" by Shell and many others), it is not the leftist rag that right wing hacks like Yglesias constantly paint it as.
This should not be a surprise to anyone who has been reading the New York Times' technology journalism for the past several years. In fact, I'd argue that even before any such "directive" was made, the bias in high-profile papers was already predominantly anti-tech, except in rare circumstances where praising a technology sector or tech company served the overarching political narrative of the moment (e.g., then-nasc…
I don't think people got the impression that it is unsolvable, but hopefully people understand that it is difficult, and far from solved at the moment. That's not the feeling you'd get if you just blindly accepted tech companies' press releases.
Of course, major media outlets like NYT telling reporters to bend stories away from the reporter's own experience, and slant them towards an editorial position, is disturbing at the very least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"And make sure to shit on tech, because everything else would be opinion, not reporting"?
Pretty much every major tech company is either inherently or in practice worth shitting on.