Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself
1–10 of 152 posts
Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself
#2Weird to evaluate the NYT evolving the past four years and not mention The Daily podcast.
Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself
#3This is a good question: should news media like NYT report news without any political biases? Or is it OK for them to pick a side while reporting (progressive, liberal vs conservative etc).
If it is OK for media to report news with a bias, then will that accelerate the echo chambers across the political spectrum where news media only report on angles they favor?
Just wanted to raise this for discussion.
Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself
#4This is a good question: should news media like NYT report news without any political biases? Or is it OK for them to pick a side while reporting (progressive, liberal vs conservative etc). If it is OK for media to report news with a bias, then will that accelerate the echo chambers across the political spectrum where news media only report on angles they favor? Just wanted to raise this for discussion.
It is impossible to report news without bias. Instead, publications and journalists should strive to be honest about what their biases are, and to do what they can to correct for them.
Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself
#5This is a good question: should news media like NYT report news without any political biases? Or is it OK for them to pick a side while reporting (progressive, liberal vs conservative etc). If it is OK for media to report news with a bias, then will that accelerate the echo chambers across the political spectrum where news media only report on angles they favor? Just wanted to raise this for discussion.
People in media will usually tell you that there's no such thing as unbiased reporting; even the act of choosing which stories are important enough to report is a biased act.
However, I must say that I'm not subscribed to any newspapers, and the main reason I've chosen to do so is that newspapers can:
- Work for political and business moguls by offering crowd manipulation as a service
- Work for ad buyers by trying to optimise engagement
- Work for subscribed readers by trying their best to provide quality information
Any of those is a valid business I guess, but I'm only interested in the latter. And newspapers try to sell me the third option without dropping the others. It's true that if something's free you are the product, but in this case they're trying to both make me the product and make me pay. Not cool.
Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself
#6NYT decided to go all in on left leaning, all anti Trump all the time, and even then some of their readers think they are carrying water for Trump.
Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself
#7I have a simpler explanation for media failure.
Huge job cuts. Many journalists are now doing work of multiple positions in many places especially online media. New York Times has reduced the number of their total editors in the last 10 years for example. Every major online media had layoffs comparable to 10% of their total workforce in the last 5 years. It affects mid level journalists the most so there are more interns now.
Most of the jobs have been concentrated geographically. Whatever people say, environment changes how they act and what they believe in the most, likely to report.
There isn't enough exclusive content. Any big announcement or what rich people say can be read on social media by directly following their account. Why buy a NYT subscription for that?
There are thousands of big YouTubers reading the latest news from NYT to their subscribers and taking NYT's cut if they actually do something exclusive and costly.
News has become an entertainment commodity for people. The vast explosion of content means fewer people are willing to pay for less but greatly researched content compared to more content and noise.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/20/u-s-newsroo...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/04/25/media-bub...
Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself
#8NYT decided to go all in on left leaning, all anti Trump all the time, and even then some of their readers think they are carrying water for Trump.
No they didn’t. They are left leaning only in specific neo liberal ways.
Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself
#9In my opinion the NYT has been the clearest and most unrelenting source of anti-Trumpism in the Trump era, and continues to push hard as Trump is not showing signs of letting go. Historically this may play out as NYT devolving into a hopelessly polarized sensationalist pseudo news source, but it could be cemented as a clear stand against despotic inclinations in the Presidency when few others were so determined.
Re: Times Change: Inside the New York Times’ Heated Reckoning With Itself
#10NYT decided to go all in on left leaning, all anti Trump all the time, and even then some of their readers think they are carrying water for Trump.
My response to anybody that downvotes and disagrees with the parent comment is to just wait and see for yourself how long it'll take for the NYT or your news source of choice to ever report a negative story about Biden. Every day you read the news try to take a look through and find a negative story. I guarantee you the day will never come.
It absolutely blows my mind that people can say something like "CNN is relatively unbiased", and yet nearly 100% of every (political) story follows the same pattern: In the last four years I don't remember a single CNN headline that was positive of Trump. Of course you can say that he's a complete screw up that never once in four years did a single positive thing, but if you're honest with yourself, you know that's not true. The same way that in the next four years they won't publish a single negative article about Biden, but that doesn't mean he's a saint that never once did anything that could be reported on negatively. That people can't see how insanely biased these sources are really blows my mind. The proof is there for you to see - how many months or years will it take before you see a single negative story about Biden?