/linked/2017/02/20/om-nyt

Comments

Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
Its doing terribly because its a propaganda piece for the left.
2:09 am — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
Shake it around:
It went from "The Paper of Record" to "Bong Water cleanup tool."
3:40 am — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
My Optional Name:
>Its doing terribly because its a propaganda piece for the left.

Yes, there's only money in feeding propaganda to the right, who eat up bullshit like it's their last meal.
4:20 am — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
anonymous:
My Optional Name, how'd that smugness work out for you in November?
7:57 am — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
John Rodham Gruber:
Who cares?
9:00 am — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
My Optional Name:
>My Optional Name, how'd that smugness work out for you in November?

About as well as it did for you the previous 8?
2:21 pm — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
My Optional Name:
Lesson learned: propaganda works. Just ask the Nazis.
2:22 pm — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
anonymous:
The day NYT files for bankruptcy is the day I open a bottle of fine wine.

Fuck NYT.
3:06 pm — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
anonymous:
yeah, fuck those liberal assholes with their facts and figures. they deserve to go down in flames. breitbart and infowars ftw!
6:36 pm — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
anon:
I hate how they always have news I hate. I just want news that I like - things that conform to my suspicions and things I learned from my grandpa
7:07 pm — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
ano:
I've been a fan of the NYTimes my whole life, but there is no denying the slide into editorial clickbait over the past five years.

With the reports that they plan to eliminate more veteran staff and editors, it can only get worse.

I'm glad they're surviving, but much has been lost.
7:30 pm — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
John Rodham Gruber:
>yeah, fuck those liberal assholes with their facts and figures.

Have you actually read anything written by their "editorial" board? They're batshit crazy. "Facts and figures" my ass.
7:57 pm — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
anonymous:
Forget My Optional Name's hysterics (nice equivocation with Nazis), if the New York Times had any interest in truth or news, they wouldn't have banged the drums of war as we headed into Iraq.
8:31 pm — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
EB:
I love the NYTimes. One of the few remaining bastions of real journalism. I am a daily reader, and have been a subscriber for years and years. What gets my goat is that it is cheaper to get the Sunday Times delivered and read it digitally (I read it predominantly on my iPhone and iPad, and partially on my desktop and laptop) then to just pay for the digital subscription, since pricing is still structured around number of eyes reading print ads (in my case I never see the print ads).

To get a digital subscription that covers the three pillars of iPhone, iPad and computer costs more than to just get the Sunday delivered and then you get 2 email accounts unlimited access to all 3. I wish I could pay for the digital services at the same rate as the print media and not waste the physical paper... (or better yet, at a discounted rate since I am not incurring the cost of print and delivery)
10:05 pm — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
EB:
And as to the last anonymous poster - I do agree the NYTimes banged the drums of war, and that period in their history was despicable. The early naughts at The New York Times brought us Judith Miller, Jayson Blair, and William Kristol, just to name a few. Thankfully, rationality has returned to the Times and they are currently seeing a renaissance of deep investigation, well thought editorialist, and emphasis on accuracy and research. What that taught me is that trying to attract a wider input of views at the NYTimes brought in what usually comes in from the right - lies, untruths, and fake news. Now with more conscionable conservative editorial members such as David Brook and Ross Dothan, those more thoughtful individuals have a hard time defending truly outrageous falsehoods and are more concerned for the country than the false ideology of the alt-right and neo-fascists.

I see the degeneration of the posts here, once my daily read and now an occasional browse, as a sad testament the idiocracy is the new norm in town. Hopefully sanity will once again settle on this great nation of ours (and the DFWC page).
10:26 pm — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
anonymous:
> Have you actually read anything written by their "editorial" board? They're batshit crazy. "Facts and figures" my ass.

examples, please.
11:38 pm — Tuesday, 21 February 2017
Hairy Lime:
Hey, I'm a NYT reader, but I'm also one of those old-school libtards who believes in listening to other views and ideas. What conservative newspaper(s) of record would defenders of the right care to suggest? Honest question.
1:47 am — Wednesday, 22 February 2017
anonymous:
EB, I don't see what you describe as a 'renaissance of deep investigation, well thought editorialist, and emphasis on accuracy and research.'

Instead, I see them narrowing their focus and further insulating an echo chamber.

Discourse isn't served by slant masquerading as truth, or propaganda (in the least inflammatory sense) masquerading as news.

Their focus is now to hobble and hurt Donald Trump. It should not be. Nor should it be to help him. It should be to hold those who have or aspire to have power to account.

We are far too blind to the degeneration of our own side.
1:55 am — Wednesday, 22 February 2017
anonymous:
Hairy Lime, what conservative newspaper of record even exists? The media is institutionally liberal.
1:57 am — Wednesday, 22 February 2017
ano:
> What conservative newspaper(s) of record would defenders of the right care to suggest? Honest question.

I would say the Wall Street Journal in general has a less sensationalist angle than the modern day Times.

I also highly disagree that the Times is better now than it was in the aughts, Judith Miller aside.

> > Have you actually read anything written by their "editorial" board? They're batshit crazy. "Facts and figures" my ass.

> examples, please.

Some of the crap they ran during the leadup to the election was ridiculously biased. I can't believe they published this, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/opinion/campaign-stops/the-men-feminists-left-behind.html

Or their focus on social psychology topics that have been shown to be part of the replication crisis. Their recent weeklong series on Implicit Bias, for example.

Their new cuts will eliminate more editorial oversight positions, and hire more direct, young, bloggy voices. You see what that's done to The Washington Post. I think NYTimes will increasingly head in that direction

If you follow them on Facebook, they publish the most clickbaity of their daily stories there.
4:38 am — Wednesday, 22 February 2017
My Optional Name:
>Hairy Lime, what conservative newspaper of record even exists? The media is institutionally liberal.

Maybe that's because in pursuit of the news, reporters dig up and report the facts, and facts aren't widely embraced by conservatives.
4:52 am — Wednesday, 22 February 2017
anonymous:
My Optional Name, fantasies like that are why you've been reduced to a regional party.
6:24 am — Wednesday, 22 February 2017
anonymous:
I thought Om was dead.
9:06 am — Wednesday, 22 February 2017
anonymous:
>https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/opinion/campaign-stops/the-men-feminists-left-behind.html

fair enough. but i think you should separate editorials from actual investigative journalism. the author of that article isn't even employed by the times, it's an opinion piece.

clickbaity twitter headlines are what drives traffic, which drives ad revenue, which allows them to do actual reporting.
5:38 pm — Wednesday, 22 February 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!