This is the rhetorical question I ask of everyone who trashes the paper’s “lousy reporting”: Whis is the NYT cited in most other media including the reporters on MSNBC? Why is the NYT frequently linked to in aggregate reporting including Political Wire and Daily Kos? Why are NYT reporters frequent guests on news shows including those on MSNBC? There’s a herd mentality at work here sometimes, and never more so when this newspaper and the Clintons are under discussion
1 Like
You miss the obvious because your hands are never dirtied by newsprint.
1 Like
You see an insult where none exists. I linked to a story about a notable African American being honored by our first African American president and the story behind it as covered in the Times
4 Likes
I used to think there were rules in journalism and editors existed to insure mistakes such as were made by the NYT in the Clinton story didn’t happen, but I guess all of those rules have been abandoned. In the old days the reporters and editor would be looking for new jobs. At the Times they just blame their unnamed but protected sources. Given the nature of this epic fail we all have to wonder if the sources actually exist or if they do if they ever used the word “criminal” when talking to the reporters. Both the reporters and the editor should be fired.
1 Like
Your last comment is very different from your original comment, which was: “They have become a worthless and pathetic rag.” I don’t have any objection to you calling that particular article and the Times dragging its feet on the correction “pathetic.”
I brought up Hillary’s Iraq vote simple to place overly harsh institutional judgments of the Times on this thread in better perspective. The second comment mentions the Times’ warmongering on Iraq as evidence of its supposed bankruptcy as an organization. It’s fair and relevant to ask how people who 11 years later render a sweeping judgment on the entire NYT shouldn’t render a similar judgment on Hillary. I just see that as inconsistent, @chammy. Do you not?
The truth is that both the Times and H. Clinton made terrible mistakes – the Times mainly out of poor management of an unethical reporter, and Clinton out of political ambition. But because Hillary is our candidate, is better than any GOP alternative and is competent in many other ways, and because the Times is an institution that does good and bad (mostly good), I support Hillary and consider the Times an indispensable vanguard of progressive democracy.
I gave up on Portland’s daily fishwrap, The Oregonian, about six months ago. Our venerable daily was sold to a libertarian outfit from Tennessee a few years back. Our award winning cartoonist, Jack Ohman departed for the Sacramento Bee soon after the new publishers announced sweeping changes to a tabloid format, diminished reporting and wide-scale lay-offs. It became a tabloid not only in it’s format and espoused libertarian viewpoints.
As revenue from subscriptions declined they did really innovative initiatives like increase the price from $.50 to $1.50 daily and further eliminated content. Oftentimes the paper is all of eight pages.
Like most "news"papers of our day The Oregonian relies on “sensational” reporting as much as possible. But this is Orygun and there really is not much really earth shaking news to sensationalize.
It is pretty much as depicted in one of my favorite news reels from the Onion
.
Nope, I do not agree. The NY Times is worthless and pathetic.
“Liberal” media, indeed. They’re the corporate media.
The grey lady is the GOP’s slut.
1 Like
Sorry if my tone is a bit aggressive, but the defense of the Times you offered up is just not acceptable in my opinion. You are quite literally blaming the victim in this case. A woman doesn’t deserved to be raped because she smiled at a stranger and a politician doesn’t deserved to be smeared because they didn’t shower the news media with flowers and candy enough.
And that is what you are saying. “Hillary still sucks at public relations”…like that is a justification for a news organization like the Times to make up damaging stuff and toss it out on their on the front page. I personally think JEB has done a lousy job of handling the media, too (4 different answers over a week to a question that he knew was coming for 8 years??). But that doesn’t mean the NYT should be publishing articles that JEB routinely kills babies by twisting their necks off. Because you know, he sucks at PR so its totally justifiable.
Hillary has spoken about her vote on the Iraq war…she has said it was a mistake numerous times, written about it in her book and its been covered in numerous papers.
(for some odd reason, I am not able to post a link…its coming up with a screen shot of THIS page instead…but google Hillary Iraq Vote)
Now, let’s keep it in perspective, too. Hillary was NOT the only person in the Senate voting to go to war, nor was she the deciding vote. It’s a long reach to even say she was a major influencer in others voting to go to war.
Its NOT a big reach to say the NYT’s coverage was a major influencer in that decision. Miller was literally planting propaganda so Cheney could refer to them on the Sunday talk shows. And the NYT’s apology? Came way after the horse have left the barn. There were multiple times they could have…and should have…questioned her reporting and sourcing and refused to publish. But they didn’t. Instead they cashed in on THEM being the next story…a very disturbing trend in the media over all (reporters are supposed to stay outside of the news story, not become the story. It destroys any suggestion of objectivity.)
My attacks are not on the press in very general terms. I am aiming my attacks at the NYT’s very specific reasons…they blew this “story” in a monumental way. It reads like a hit piece from the get go, because it was a hit piece. The imply criminal investigation without ever mentioning what crimes may have been committed. They imply that the “investigations” are aimed at Hillary, when they clearly are not. Its beyond shoddy reporting, it truly is manufacturing a story out of thin air. The actual story is that the IGs are looking into how the State Dept goes about classifying information released to FOIA requests…TODAY. Nothing about years ago when Hillary was SoS…its about the current State Department. And its something that is sooo far down the food chain in the bureaucracy, that it belongs on maybe page 27, not page 1.
Now, I never called the Times worthless and pathetic, so I am not sure why you are putting that in quotes to me. But those adjectives certainly apply to this story, and the handling of it since it was first posted.
The real problem is this isn’t an isolated event; the NYT has a long history of printing anti-Clinton stories that are long on innuendo and quite short of actual facts. And that should be very troubling to any consumer of American news…or at least something that they should be aware.
Judith Miller wasn’t misled. She was a willful participant in an large campaign to misinform Congress and the American people. Indeed, to misinform the entire world. She was part of the process, and she knew it. And you know full well that the Administration was using her articles in the Times as further justifications with Congress (look, even the Times knows about this and agrees with us!! And we hate liberal newspapers like the Times <wink, wink>) Hell, Cheney even took that tact on the Sunday talk shows.
It would be the height of naivety to think that the media doesn’t have a direct impact upon forming politicians opinions. I mean, on 9/11 while in the bunker, the Cheney’s were getting their information from CNN!! (Liz repeatedly hung up on Bush because she found the phone calls were interrupting her watching of CNN…thats been documented by several sources). So of course the Senator from New York is going to be getting information, and be influenced, from the leading newspaper in the state…and the nation.
Was that her only source of information? No, of course not. She also had the Bushies telling the same lies to her via Congressional Committees. Did the fact that what she was hearing in those Committees matched up exactly with what the Times was reporting cross her mind? Without a doubt.
7 Likes
The list of reporting problems at NYT is long, especially when it comes to use of anonymous sources.
As for other outlets quoting the NYT, in many cases they probably shouldn’t. And, being rhetorical, just because they do, are we readers supposed to believe it?
2 Likes
Is the Times in the business of having cat fights? They should report and report only, honestly and fairly and leave the duel with the Clinton’s out of it.
I fail to see how lying the country into war and this type of mudslinging journalism is looked past because they do the good reporting that they are capable of when they ‘choose’ to. Being discredited is being discredited and they deserve the lack of faith that is directed at them.
It’s like being set up in a long, slow, plot. They write great articles and do all the other things that they do and then, WHAM, Iraq war lies and SLAM, Hillary and Bill bullshit. IMO, the good doesn’t justify the bad and the bad outweighs the good.
How can reporting anything after the Iraq falsehoods that caused so much death, pain and financial damage ever make things right? And now, the attack on Hillary surely intended to derail her campaign, which if successful, slides another neo-con into the White House, which means more war. And that scenario is the most likely and the affects of that drastically outweigh good stories that occur in the meantime.
Look at it this way, could you do without the other reporting if the Times never would’ve successfully aided in the build up and ultimate Iraq war?
4 Likes
And who would this be good for? The GOP. And how good would it be…fantastic. And the error was framed from within the GOP’ers number one talking point / attack angle on Clinton. It was of course all an unfortunate mistake.
1 Like
I have to laugh when some people then say, “But their arts and science reporting is very good.”
Aside from good people being overly forgiving judges of really horrible people, the one thing I know for certain in out post modern mediascape, when even arts reporting at those few institutions that still do original arts reporting intrudes into the dark penumbra of real American power and wealth, coverage becomes less fact-based and more hyperbolic.
5 Likes
If these journalists are doing their job in a professional manner why should it matter if Hillary is warm to them or not? Isn’t the basic problem that these journalist are allowing their personal feelings to shape their stories to begin with?
4 Likes
I’m not sure it was intentional. I’m a believer in Hanlon’s razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” And in this case, it’s probably stupidity and the desire to scoop the competition.
Either way, there is journalistic malpractice present. The NYT didn’t allow the campaign adequate time to respond. From the campaign’s perspective, it sounds like the campaign couldn’t reach anyone even to respond. Plus the delay in issuing a correction which allowed the story to take on a life of its own through other media outlets.
2 Likes
Where have I seen something like this before? Oh yeah…
Colonel Korn laughed curtly. ‘Like us.’
Yossarian blinked. ‘Like you?’
‘Like us.’
‘Like you?’
‘That’s right,’ said Colonel Korn, nodding, gratified immeasurably by Yossarian’s guileless surprise and bewilderment. ‘Like us. Join us. Be our pal. Say nice things about us here and back in the States. Become one of the boys. Now, that isn’t asking too much, is it?’
Herd mentality means following blindly along, over a cliff, to a slaughterhouse, whatever.
It is not heard mentality because many agree on a subject based on credible evidence.
If, by that standard, it is herd mentality to disagree with you or the NYT, then it is also herd mentality to go along with you or the NYT.
1 Like
Arts, science, sports, food and restaurants, Paul Krugman, Charles Bow, Tim Egan, all worthless, and the obituaries? People are dying to get mentioned. Not to mention the weather reports. They change from day to day.
There is very little if any room for dissent on many threads, and to try to state a contrary viewpoint is to invite the herd to pile on in a way which can only be called newspaper shaming.
He He.