All the good work the Times does is contained in one-day “you can’t say we didn’t cover it” stories that they never refer to again and never allow to inform their coverage going forward.
They found out that Donald Trump inherited a tremendous amount of money, blew it almost immediately and has been dancing as fast as he can to appear rich ever since: one-day story that I bet you forgot about.
The president of Harvard is being pressured to resign: seven front pages in a month.
Joe Biden continues to be old: More than a dozen stories in one weekend.
Exactly, very slanted coverage, everything is a horse race and seemingly morally neutral by the time they get through with it. I have a good rate for some of their features like Games that I love, but I'm getting closer to the edge with them all the time.
The NYT has been neutral on democracy at least since they equated the swiftboating of John Kerry with George W Bush’s draft dodging. That’s when I canceled my subscription. You could also do a whole piece on their terrible coverage of trans issues.
No, Mark, the NYT does NOT care if democracy lives or dies.
They have removed all the mirrors in the building & really believe their heads won't be the first on the pikes when Trumpov regains power. They disgust me.
Thank you for calling out the NY Times house of mirrors. I consider myself a dem centrist but I finally cancelled my subscription for all the reasons you cite and more, after a LIFETIME of being a staunch subscriber. I don’t need the bizarre journalistic detachment from reality in my face every day. Cold, hard reality is crucial right now. It should not be so hard to do.
You’ve accurately captured my concern about how the NYT is not fully playing the “watchdog on government” role that’s critical to the survival of democracy. It’s so important that “freedom of the press” is protected in our first amendment, allowing criticism of government without punishment.
To add slightly to your excellent critique of their headlines: this is not trivial, as the habit of news consumers is to skim headlines and pick and choose articles. For many, the headline is the story. This is intensified on social
Media where non-subscribers follow news outlets and only have limited access to what lies behind the link in their feed. For them, most headlines really are the ONLY story. Bad headlines can amplify propaganda (directly quoting an outrageous lie, for example).
I used to think the NYT was a reliable news source. I stopped my digital subscription 5 years ago. Now I read Reuters, NPR, The Guardian, and Substack.
I still receive weekly emails from the NYT encouraging me to subscribe. No, I will not.
Inviting a military attack by Russia against a NATO ally violates a Senate ratified treaty, and in the view of legal scholars and former military leaders, tantamount to treason.
The Times appears to be actively pushing for Trump's reelection and is not reporting in good faith. I canceled my subscription after reading Rebecca Davis O'Brien's article that described Trump as "tan". Enough is enough.
I have written several times to the NYT about mostly their misleading headlines. Crickets for response. I sometimes wonder, when the headline completely misrepresents the gist of the story itself, whether one should write to the actual author and ask why the hell they are allowing the paper to do such a thing. Haven't had time.
A typical (hypothetical) instance might be a story about Biden achieving or proposing something controversial, say new rules regarding forgiveness of student loans. The NEWS is "Biden proposes new rules on student loans." The headline is likely to be "Republicans oppose Biden's new rules..." Reality alert, folks. "Republicans oppose Biden" is about the opposite of news.
I do still read the NYT. I agree they have some very good investigative journalism, worth reading. And I don't really mind stupid op-eds. The folks who actually READ a NYT op-ed (as opposed to browsing the headlines) I suspect have the smarts to know BS when they see it. The problem is the news aggregators, which tend not to tell you when a story is news or opinion.
Susan, it's interesting that you cited student debt relief as an example. You wrote this *before* the NYT wrote a headline about Biden's student debt efforts that called him "beleaguered." Wildly slanted and inappropriately negative. "Determined" would've been a better adjective.
Yeah, I was surprised that my example suddenly HIT the headlines. I must have read somewhere earlier that he was considering it, and out popped my unconscious.
I just searched the NYT. They must have changed the headline. Perhaps readers said they were pissed, as I would have had I found the headline. Yep--a post of the original on Xitter shows it used the word.
Thanks for writing this. I am a looong time subscriber to NYT, and am greatly appreciative of its presence as a bulwark of journalism. There ain't many left. But it has to be read critically, with the understanding, IMHO, that it caters to the corporate oligarchy and rarely sees a war it doesn't like. I've mostly given up on the comment sections that accompany articles. I used to enjoy getting my opinion in there, but a few years ago it seemed they were brigaded by right wing commenters. It's no fun anymore, and most of my submissions are not accepted anyway!
The Times can, and should, play an important role in guiding public understanding of events that shape our world. In a straightforward and unbiased manner. It's a crying shame they don't rise to this call.
I typically see way fewer right wing comments on NYT than WaPo, though it seems like the comments are moving further left on both lately- guess we aren't as dumb as the papers think.
MSM has slowly sold its journalistic integrity as the Fourth Estate. Not much to like—and even less to admire—about the NYT these days if one remains passionate about clearheaded reporting that upholds that vital mission as a pillar of democracy.
I cancelled my subscription a couple of months ago. It was like a divorce after a lifetime believing in the NYT as the bastion of solid journalism. I tired of the absurd corporate notion of fair and balanced reporting which is annoying and deceptive. I look to The Guardian, The Week, Substack, The Daily Beast and several podcasts for independent and solid journalism. It’s time consuming but mostly bullshit free.
All the good work the Times does is contained in one-day “you can’t say we didn’t cover it” stories that they never refer to again and never allow to inform their coverage going forward.
They found out that Donald Trump inherited a tremendous amount of money, blew it almost immediately and has been dancing as fast as he can to appear rich ever since: one-day story that I bet you forgot about.
The president of Harvard is being pressured to resign: seven front pages in a month.
Joe Biden continues to be old: More than a dozen stories in one weekend.
Exactly, very slanted coverage, everything is a horse race and seemingly morally neutral by the time they get through with it. I have a good rate for some of their features like Games that I love, but I'm getting closer to the edge with them all the time.
The NYT has been neutral on democracy at least since they equated the swiftboating of John Kerry with George W Bush’s draft dodging. That’s when I canceled my subscription. You could also do a whole piece on their terrible coverage of trans issues.
No, Mark, the NYT does NOT care if democracy lives or dies.
They have removed all the mirrors in the building & really believe their heads won't be the first on the pikes when Trumpov regains power. They disgust me.
Thank you for calling out the NY Times house of mirrors. I consider myself a dem centrist but I finally cancelled my subscription for all the reasons you cite and more, after a LIFETIME of being a staunch subscriber. I don’t need the bizarre journalistic detachment from reality in my face every day. Cold, hard reality is crucial right now. It should not be so hard to do.
You’ve accurately captured my concern about how the NYT is not fully playing the “watchdog on government” role that’s critical to the survival of democracy. It’s so important that “freedom of the press” is protected in our first amendment, allowing criticism of government without punishment.
To add slightly to your excellent critique of their headlines: this is not trivial, as the habit of news consumers is to skim headlines and pick and choose articles. For many, the headline is the story. This is intensified on social
Media where non-subscribers follow news outlets and only have limited access to what lies behind the link in their feed. For them, most headlines really are the ONLY story. Bad headlines can amplify propaganda (directly quoting an outrageous lie, for example).
Kathy, you've very well stated my view on headlines. Some people dismiss them, but they are the ultimate high-traffic area for scanning readers.
Spot on, Mark.
Thanks as always for calling out the bs with clarity.
I used to think the NYT was a reliable news source. I stopped my digital subscription 5 years ago. Now I read Reuters, NPR, The Guardian, and Substack.
I still receive weekly emails from the NYT encouraging me to subscribe. No, I will not.
Inviting a military attack by Russia against a NATO ally violates a Senate ratified treaty, and in the view of legal scholars and former military leaders, tantamount to treason.
The Times appears to be actively pushing for Trump's reelection and is not reporting in good faith. I canceled my subscription after reading Rebecca Davis O'Brien's article that described Trump as "tan". Enough is enough.
Thank you. This says exactly what I think many are feeling. Our trusted “paper of record” is failing democracy.
Mark Thompson as CEO moved the NYT to the far right, did the same thing to the BBC and now CNN.
He hired Meredith Kopit Levien as the new CEO of the NYT and she’s as bad as he is.
Thompson is a menace and I wish that he stayed in the UK.
I have written several times to the NYT about mostly their misleading headlines. Crickets for response. I sometimes wonder, when the headline completely misrepresents the gist of the story itself, whether one should write to the actual author and ask why the hell they are allowing the paper to do such a thing. Haven't had time.
A typical (hypothetical) instance might be a story about Biden achieving or proposing something controversial, say new rules regarding forgiveness of student loans. The NEWS is "Biden proposes new rules on student loans." The headline is likely to be "Republicans oppose Biden's new rules..." Reality alert, folks. "Republicans oppose Biden" is about the opposite of news.
I do still read the NYT. I agree they have some very good investigative journalism, worth reading. And I don't really mind stupid op-eds. The folks who actually READ a NYT op-ed (as opposed to browsing the headlines) I suspect have the smarts to know BS when they see it. The problem is the news aggregators, which tend not to tell you when a story is news or opinion.
Susan, it's interesting that you cited student debt relief as an example. You wrote this *before* the NYT wrote a headline about Biden's student debt efforts that called him "beleaguered." Wildly slanted and inappropriately negative. "Determined" would've been a better adjective.
Yeah, I was surprised that my example suddenly HIT the headlines. I must have read somewhere earlier that he was considering it, and out popped my unconscious.
I just searched the NYT. They must have changed the headline. Perhaps readers said they were pissed, as I would have had I found the headline. Yep--a post of the original on Xitter shows it used the word.
https://twitter.com/MarkJacob16/status/1760502106551619920?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
I think that Biden could singlehandedly make world peace, and the headline would be "Peace approaches, but here's why its bad for Biden"
And that is why I no longer subscribe to the NYT. For years it was a joy to read, but no longer.
Thanks for writing this. I am a looong time subscriber to NYT, and am greatly appreciative of its presence as a bulwark of journalism. There ain't many left. But it has to be read critically, with the understanding, IMHO, that it caters to the corporate oligarchy and rarely sees a war it doesn't like. I've mostly given up on the comment sections that accompany articles. I used to enjoy getting my opinion in there, but a few years ago it seemed they were brigaded by right wing commenters. It's no fun anymore, and most of my submissions are not accepted anyway!
The Times can, and should, play an important role in guiding public understanding of events that shape our world. In a straightforward and unbiased manner. It's a crying shame they don't rise to this call.
I typically see way fewer right wing comments on NYT than WaPo, though it seems like the comments are moving further left on both lately- guess we aren't as dumb as the papers think.
MSM has slowly sold its journalistic integrity as the Fourth Estate. Not much to like—and even less to admire—about the NYT these days if one remains passionate about clearheaded reporting that upholds that vital mission as a pillar of democracy.
I cancelled my subscription a couple of months ago. It was like a divorce after a lifetime believing in the NYT as the bastion of solid journalism. I tired of the absurd corporate notion of fair and balanced reporting which is annoying and deceptive. I look to The Guardian, The Week, Substack, The Daily Beast and several podcasts for independent and solid journalism. It’s time consuming but mostly bullshit free.