Can we remove the NYT from being a valid source to link to?

Edited

Not everything (I don't like painting with that broad a brush), but NYT is very sketchy and suspect, apart from their bias for left-leaning thought.

An excerpt from this article, which explains basically everything wrong with the NYT.

Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: “What are you hearing? What have you got?”

It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.

Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: “My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?”

The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: “We set the agenda for the country in that room.”

I'd wager it's not just a problem with them alone, but this is the only relatively clear-cut case I know about.

EDIT: But I agree with the gist of your post at the end - I firmly believe in their right to say and print what they like. But don't except me or others to just swallow it wholesale without having some skepticism of our own.

EDIT2: Clarified a sentence.

[–] jobes [OP] 2 points (+2|-0)

Thanks for that post. They're narrative, not news. That's why I brought it up.

[–] TheRedArmy 2 points (+2|-0)

Yeah, I agree, in general. I generally need outside evidence to corroborate stuff from the NYT to believe it at face value these days. But I don't even know if the article shown in the OP is the best thing to show that.

I haven't read all of it, I only have time to skim right now, but the second-to-last line was not what you would expect from the title.

She still seems to think that the new market economy — with its meritocracy and freedom of choice — will finally allow women to be masters of their minds and actions.

It may be that the main thrust is fine, but I'd need to read it closely to know for sure. And it's fine to take their stuff with skepticism, but it's important to me not to call something fake or misleading if it really isn't.

It's hard with news organizations in particular because they have so many staffers, writers, editors, columnists, etc. It may be that one writer is extremely ethical and does his research thoroughly and tries to give an objective opinion, and another staffer will write what he can to further their own viewpoint, facts and reality be damned. So, like I said originally, I don't like painting with that broad a brush, and maintaining skepticism in general is probably still healthy.

[–] jobes [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

That's a good point. I shouldn't judge a news corp solely because I think some articles are bad. I'd generally expect the editors to stall any sketchy articles, but with an org that has thousands of journalists you can't associate the organization with certain articles that get published.

Load more (1 comment)

Can we remove the NYT from being a valid source to link to?

13 comments

/s/News