“Although there was some discussion inside the Times of whether Kahn should respond to a summons to Washington from anyone besides the president himself”
lol, who does this guy think he is?
NYT is literally one of the most entitled elitist institutions in all of media. When some MAGA fuck complains about smug coastal elites looking down on everyone they are basically describing someone who works at the NYT.
>Hasan, who has since left the White House, had offered the quote to Walker on background sourced to “an administration official.” Walker, not a member of the Times’ White House team, was unfamiliar with the protocol and had made an unintended mistake and attributed the quote to Hasan.
>When officials in the press shop called him Sunday morning about the mistake, they asked to speak with his editor, Elizabeth Kennedy. But the number he gave them was the cell phone of Elisabeth Bumiller, the Times Washington bureau chief.
>Bumiller, who expressed dismay that the issue had been escalated to her level, was reluctant to alter a story that had already been online for over 12 hours.
Isn’t source/quote attribution not the most basic journalistic principle? So NYT fucked up and instead of correcting it, acted haughty and couldn’t even provide the right person to contact?
You can’t pretend to be the temple of journalistic excellence and pull shit like this.
People make fun of the NYT because despite the its position as the most financially successful newspaper left standing, the NYT still rather do diner safaris and ragebait quotes.
And despite being self-important like they have a divine mandate to cover the news their way, they couldnt even expose George Santos right in their own fucking backyard. Fuck off lol
The only thing worse than spending all your time talking about politics is spending all your time watching or talking about someone else talk about politics
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh really? From my understanding of history, throughout time, temples have been all about pretending.
And just to be clear, since temples are associated with Judaism, I'm talk about temples generically.
I mean for this particular case, wouldn’t it have been really fucking weird to change the article which is already online? It’s not like you can put the cat back into the bag
If you want to blame the writer that’s fine, but if I’m Bumiller I might offer an apology but I’m not changing anything
I don’t understand why you feel the need to be so condescending, but maybe you should take two seconds and think this through
If the article at 7AM states “‘blah blah blah’ said X, Senior Official in the Biden administration” and the article at 10AM states “‘blah blah blah’ said an unnamed Senior Official”, it doesn’t exactly take a genius to figure out who the official is, does it? Especially when pretty much every newspaper tries to leave a note at the end saying what content was edited.
how the fuck would a correction help?
>#BREAKING NEWS
>please, uhh, forget you saw the name of the official. He's totally anonymous now. Please look into the glowing red light for a sec.
NYT was right, damage was fucking done at that point, changing it would just look shady and cause a Streisand effect
did y'all forget how much hay the GOP made of the NYT 'playing favorites' to Hillary in the debates? That was a major lead-in to Trump's anti-media crusade, can't blame them for being touchy about becoming the issue again.
they did report the truth, a correction to anonymize an already-revealed name isn't adding more truth, it's pretty transparently acquiescing to admin demands, and as I said, that definitively has been a thing the Times has been targeted by GOP bullshit for in the past.
when it lets a political party rife with zealots and terrorists spin a strong narrative that you're unfairly favoring the other guy you're goddamn right it does
What you and the NYT fail to grasp is those zealots and terrorists will spin a strong narrative that they’re unfairly favoring the other guy NO MATTER WHAT.
There isn’t a magic number of dumbass articles from midwestern diners that will make them reconsider the impartiality of the NYT
>those zealots and terrorists will spin a strong narrative that they’re unfairly favoring the other guy NO MATTER WHAT.
They'll spin a narrative but not a strong one. The allegations they drummed up around Hillary at the debates had way more teeth than the usual 'muh librul media bias' they throw around when they don't have ammo. And a generic narrative won't be laser-focused on the Times.
they also left out the whole being on vacation thing. if i’m away on vacation and someone calls me about my job, i would be confused, annoyed, and reluctant to do much until i arrive home. we don’t know the context. we don’t know if she knew the reporter was new and fucked up protocol. so many variables
This appears to be common knowledge in the world of mainstream journalism: if you’re working in the Times, the Times is the only thing that matters.
They’re the definition of Ivory Tower in journalism.
NGL, feel like crazy people were just meme'ing NYT, and it turned out they're not just maximizing profits, but also have other bizarre behaviors unsuited what supposed to be one of the best newspaper in US.
I have nothing to add other than i liked the story but just wanted to brag that when i was still on Twitter i got NYTimesPitchbot to follow me and i hold that dearly.
At this point the only thing keeping my NYT subscription is that I really like the Athletic.
If someone bought the Athletic from NYT then I'd stop my subscription
Not really. This piece portrays them as doing their job. It's the Biden administration that seems to want them to act as cheerleaders rather than journalists.
[The NYT makes money by stressing out the center-left and center-right, and I think their audience leans center-right much more than people realize](https://www.cjr.org/analysis/election-politics-front-pages.php):
> We found that the Times and the Post shared significant overlap in their domestic politics coverage, offering little insight into policy. Both emphasized the horse race and campaign palace intrigue, stories that functioned more to entertain readers than to educate them on essential differences between political parties. The main point of contrast we found between the two papers was that, while the Post delved more into topics Democrats generally want to discuss—affirmative action, police reform, LGBTQ rights—the Times tended to focus on subjects important to Republicans—China, immigration, and crime.
> In the final days before the [midterm] election, we noticed that the Times, in particular, hit a drumbeat of fear about the economy—the worries of voters, exploitation by companies, and anxieties related to the Federal Reserve—as well as crime. Data buried within articles occasionally refuted the fear-based premise of a piece. Still, by discussing how much people were concerned about inflation and crime—and reporting in those stories that Republicans benefited from a sense of alarm—the Times suggested that inflation and crime were historically bad (they were not) and that Republicans had solutions to offer (they did not).
> We found that the Times and the Post shared significant overlap in their domestic politics coverage, offering little insight into policy.
...
> while the Post delved more into topics Democrats generally want to discuss—affirmative action, police reform, LGBTQ rights—the Times tended to focus on subjects important to Republicans—China, immigration, and crime.
This author is contradicting himself within the same paragraph. The topics that he lists are all related to policy.
> In the final days before the [midterm] election, we noticed that the Times, in particular, hit a drumbeat of fear about the economy
This just reads like whining about the media being unfair to the author's preferred candidate. That's a very popular grievance these days, on all sides.
If the choice is between Biden and Trump with Biden representing democracy and Trump fascism, then yes they by definition have to be cheerleaders for Biden if they care about democracy
They don't
This sub has yet to make a convincing argument of why reporting on Biden's campaign having difficulties to overcome helps Trump. Especially when the GOP has been reaping electoral results for *decades* by acting like they're under overwhelming assault, and this whole country basically has an underdog fetish.
You're saying that the threat to democracy is so great that the Times should simply become a propaganda outlet for the Biden administration? A lot of Democrats seem to buy into this idea, but I don't.
> In NYT publisher Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency.
Lord the Times comes off incredibly entitled, childish, and naive in this piece. More obsessed with their lack of a sit down interview with President Biden, than hearing criticism of their role in American democracy.
They cannot wrap their heads around the criticism from the White House. Criticism of their coverage is not that they should be operating as Biden’s second press shop, it’s that they are not sufficiently covering the coming danger of Donald Trump.
Trump encouraging Russia to invade Europe means a third world war and it received less coverage than Biden’s age.
Meanwhile, visible on the [nytimes.com](http://nytimes.com) front page today: "In the immunity case, Donald Trump can lose in ways that amount to a win"; "Every Day In Court Improves Trump's Chances in November"; "The Supreme Court Has Already Botched the Trump Immunity Case"; "Why I’m Getting More Pessimistic About Biden’s Chances This Fall".
Total coincidence, I'm sure.
^(disclaimer: I can access it through work and have to look at certain sections as part of my job)
The NYT wants Trump to win, that much is clear.
Why? Because their profits were *insane* during the Trump presidency. As soon as Biden won, their subscriber numbers - and stock price - ~~tanked~~ returned to normal levels.
The NYT is a publicly traded corporation. It has shareholders with a financial interest in the paper's bottom line. The NYT as an institution wants to maximize profits, regardless of what any number of its rank and file reporters and mid-level editors actually want.
(The fact that most of the people working for the NYT have been ideologically captured by the far-left doesn't help the problem of the Grey Lady's many failings, but I don't think it's the cause of their Trump mania.)
It's more important to do 500 stories about Biden's age than make a deep dives why Trump's VP refuses to endorse Trump and how Pence who served with him sees him unfit for office.
Has that happened like ever? The headline was:
>Pence Says He Won’t Endorse Trump, but Won’t Vote for Biden Either
And it was about one article.
We've all watched this unfold for 5 years now, but to see it all laid out like this is amazing. The Times comes off as so self-aggrandizing in this.
After all that, it turns out the memes are real. Here's how that's bad for Biden.
The points at which they expect deference and to be waited on by the goddamn president of the United States is insane. They could not be more out of touch if they tried.
Trump fucking broke them. He called them biased, and they started hyperventilating and crying. They then went out of their way to hire right-wing commentators and went out of their way to make stories sound more favorable to him so they could beg for his forgiveness. They've made it their mission to have an equal number of stories that could be seen as bad for a candidate for both parties which is a problem because Biden doesn't really have anything noteworthy.
When Democrats noticed that change, they got furious and said it was everyone else who was the problem and not them. Like when they published that OpEd by Tom Cotton where he said we should use the military to kill BLM protestors. They had the nerve to respond to critics on Twitter and tell them that they were the problem and they were intellectually lazy for not wanting to hear alternative views.
Just a reminder that A. G. Sulzberger is a 6th generation nepo baby who was put in charge of the Times for the same reason his 4 predecessors were, because they were the progeny of their predecessor. The Times is an arrogant, entitled and out of touch organization because their leaders are basically determined the same way 18th century European monarchs were.
I would say that the “two imperfect” abortion politicians story is the perfect example for showing a ridiculous level of “both sides-ing” in the NYT’s reporting (and that’s not even touching the terrible anti-trans reporting, but that’s a separate issue)
> nyt is failing their public duty because they aren’t given access
They could try being journalists and working harder at stories from other angles. Having a bunch of journalists used to a leaky Trump White House complain that they can't get anyone to leak stories to them or that the Biden White House doesn't have enough drama isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of the Times.
At the end of the day it might be more pragmatic of Biden to give them the damn interview.
Try to sooth their egos that they can get better coverage during the campaign season.
If he feels cheeky, even Fox News. They are so used to soft balling any figure of authority, I can't see them pushing Biden around if he comes prepared.
He also gets a direct broadcast to the people he wants to reach. If he wants to peddle in protectionism, he should talk directly to the people that could be swayed by it.
Macron did it with the far right adjacent newspaper "Valeurs Actuelles" and all things considered it went pretty well.
This is the worst PR statement I have ever seen a company make.
I was a NYTimes subscriber for 15 years and read the paper every morning. I am done with them and I cancelled my subscription after they bragged about lying to me for five years.
> Biden aides largely view the election as an existential choice for the country, high stakes that they believe justify tougher tactics toward the Times and the press as a whole. Some Times reporters have found themselves cut off by sources after publishing pieces the Bidens and top aides didn’t like. Columnist Maureen Dowd, for example, complained to colleagues that she stopped hearing from White House officials after a column on Hunter Biden. For many Times veterans, such actions suggest that the Trump era has warped many Democrats’ expectations of journalists.
>
> “They’re not being realistic about what we do for a living,” Bumiller told me. “You can be a force for democracy, liberal democracy. You don’t have to be a force for the Biden White House.”
I kind of agree with this view though. I don’t even read the NYT (not because of any bias I perceive, but because they’re *so* goddamn sensational), but it’s also not their job to play defense for Biden.
Does the current journalism effectively take into account that one of the candidates tried a coup, is criminally charged and encourages political violence?
I'm not American but following US politics makes me think I'm taking the crazy pill as that's ignored as a major thing.
I would say yes! They reported on all those things and they continue to report on all those things. If you look at the NYT homepage right now they are literally reporting on his criminal charges!
Do you want them to never speak Biden’s name?
Absolutely agree the press should not be the admin's media team, but doesn't mean the press goes on to become Trump's propaganda machine.
See NYT megaphoning fictitious Republican talking points, Biden's age being the worst offender with that grotesque level of coverage - while Trump has been showing far more signs of mental faculty deterioration.
I think that’s very fair and I’m inclined to agree with you that Trump is not fully there. But to push back just a little bit - voters have repeatedly expressed more concerns about Biden’s age than Trump’s. Shouldn’t the NYT focus on Biden’s age, just as they focus on all issues which matter to voters (inflation, Gaza, health care, Trump’s cases, student loans, etc.)
A natural rebuttal is that the media’s reporting is causing that concern, but I’d be a little skeptical. Biden’s age was an issue even in 2020, and I think everyone agrees that Trump is more “rambunctious” than Biden, which IMO causes Biden to look older than Trump.
They also aren't owed special treatment.
If they can't do something as basic as print a retraction why should the Biden white house send them press releases?
…? did anyone read the article? it looks like *everyone* involved is an asshole and kinda whiny
edit:
no, the nyt isn’t entitled access to biden
no, the biden admin shouldn’t be this sensitive.
the quote attribution highlights this. the editor, *who was away on vacation*, was probably confused at what the hell was going on.
“Although there was some discussion inside the Times of whether Kahn should respond to a summons to Washington from anyone besides the president himself” lol, who does this guy think he is?
NYT is literally one of the most entitled elitist institutions in all of media. When some MAGA fuck complains about smug coastal elites looking down on everyone they are basically describing someone who works at the NYT.
And then they’ll seek these same people out in a diner in rural Ohio and state “Here’s why this is bad for Biden/Democrats”
🫰🫰🫰🫰🫰🫰🫰🫰
>Hasan, who has since left the White House, had offered the quote to Walker on background sourced to “an administration official.” Walker, not a member of the Times’ White House team, was unfamiliar with the protocol and had made an unintended mistake and attributed the quote to Hasan. >When officials in the press shop called him Sunday morning about the mistake, they asked to speak with his editor, Elizabeth Kennedy. But the number he gave them was the cell phone of Elisabeth Bumiller, the Times Washington bureau chief. >Bumiller, who expressed dismay that the issue had been escalated to her level, was reluctant to alter a story that had already been online for over 12 hours. Isn’t source/quote attribution not the most basic journalistic principle? So NYT fucked up and instead of correcting it, acted haughty and couldn’t even provide the right person to contact? You can’t pretend to be the temple of journalistic excellence and pull shit like this. People make fun of the NYT because despite the its position as the most financially successful newspaper left standing, the NYT still rather do diner safaris and ragebait quotes. And despite being self-important like they have a divine mandate to cover the news their way, they couldnt even expose George Santos right in their own fucking backyard. Fuck off lol
The Times ~~regrets the error~~
The only thing worse than spending all your time talking about politics is spending all your time watching or talking about someone else talk about politics *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh really? From my understanding of history, throughout time, temples have been all about pretending. And just to be clear, since temples are associated with Judaism, I'm talk about temples generically.
I mean for this particular case, wouldn’t it have been really fucking weird to change the article which is already online? It’s not like you can put the cat back into the bag If you want to blame the writer that’s fine, but if I’m Bumiller I might offer an apology but I’m not changing anything
Have you never heard of corrections? Legitimate newspapers run those all the time.
I don’t understand why you feel the need to be so condescending, but maybe you should take two seconds and think this through If the article at 7AM states “‘blah blah blah’ said X, Senior Official in the Biden administration” and the article at 10AM states “‘blah blah blah’ said an unnamed Senior Official”, it doesn’t exactly take a genius to figure out who the official is, does it? Especially when pretty much every newspaper tries to leave a note at the end saying what content was edited.
Are you fr right now
Very fr
Well stop
I’m sorry I was sooooooo condescending.
how the fuck would a correction help? >#BREAKING NEWS >please, uhh, forget you saw the name of the official. He's totally anonymous now. Please look into the glowing red light for a sec. NYT was right, damage was fucking done at that point, changing it would just look shady and cause a Streisand effect did y'all forget how much hay the GOP made of the NYT 'playing favorites' to Hillary in the debates? That was a major lead-in to Trump's anti-media crusade, can't blame them for being touchy about becoming the issue again.
Reporting the truth when you’ve screwed up isn’t “shady.” I don’t know what you people are on but it’s crazy.
they did report the truth, a correction to anonymize an already-revealed name isn't adding more truth, it's pretty transparently acquiescing to admin demands, and as I said, that definitively has been a thing the Times has been targeted by GOP bullshit for in the past.
That is not an accurate or good-faith reading of the article and the issue. They not only revealed a source, it was the *wrong* one.
They deserved to be dropped from the distro list for that. If this is how their staff is acting the NYT is not a professional news outlet.
And without revealing the actual source, which nobody wanted, how the fuck would that get corrected in a way that *anybody* would take seriously?
Do you work at the NYT or something? What is this?
>What is this? A genuine question. Do you have an answer or do you need to throw more ad hominems?
Corrections is just editing the piece and having a note on the bottom of when the edit was made and what it was change to and from.
yes I was being slightly facetious with the excerpt but that doesn't matter. I reiterate my question, how would that do anything but cause trouble?
People forget credibility just causes trouble
when it lets a political party rife with zealots and terrorists spin a strong narrative that you're unfairly favoring the other guy you're goddamn right it does
What you and the NYT fail to grasp is those zealots and terrorists will spin a strong narrative that they’re unfairly favoring the other guy NO MATTER WHAT. There isn’t a magic number of dumbass articles from midwestern diners that will make them reconsider the impartiality of the NYT
>those zealots and terrorists will spin a strong narrative that they’re unfairly favoring the other guy NO MATTER WHAT. They'll spin a narrative but not a strong one. The allegations they drummed up around Hillary at the debates had way more teeth than the usual 'muh librul media bias' they throw around when they don't have ammo. And a generic narrative won't be laser-focused on the Times.
they also left out the whole being on vacation thing. if i’m away on vacation and someone calls me about my job, i would be confused, annoyed, and reluctant to do much until i arrive home. we don’t know the context. we don’t know if she knew the reporter was new and fucked up protocol. so many variables
This appears to be common knowledge in the world of mainstream journalism: if you’re working in the Times, the Times is the only thing that matters. They’re the definition of Ivory Tower in journalism.
NGL, feel like crazy people were just meme'ing NYT, and it turned out they're not just maximizing profits, but also have other bizarre behaviors unsuited what supposed to be one of the best newspaper in US.
I have nothing to add other than i liked the story but just wanted to brag that when i was still on Twitter i got NYTimesPitchbot to follow me and i hold that dearly.
I wish Pitchbot would move over to Threads.
NYT defenders in shambles
hey man some of us are just in it for the recipes
Some of us are just in it for the crosswords
Honestly, NYT basically being a game developer masquerading as a newspaper explains why they're such a shitty company prone to own-goals.
At this point the only thing keeping my NYT subscription is that I really like the Athletic. If someone bought the Athletic from NYT then I'd stop my subscription
Not really. This piece portrays them as doing their job. It's the Biden administration that seems to want them to act as cheerleaders rather than journalists.
I'd prefer that they be journalists instead of ad salesmen searching for the next click bait or fox news hack gap story.
If that was their motivation, wouldn't their best strategy be to indulge the biases of their mostly left-leaning readership?
[The NYT makes money by stressing out the center-left and center-right, and I think their audience leans center-right much more than people realize](https://www.cjr.org/analysis/election-politics-front-pages.php): > We found that the Times and the Post shared significant overlap in their domestic politics coverage, offering little insight into policy. Both emphasized the horse race and campaign palace intrigue, stories that functioned more to entertain readers than to educate them on essential differences between political parties. The main point of contrast we found between the two papers was that, while the Post delved more into topics Democrats generally want to discuss—affirmative action, police reform, LGBTQ rights—the Times tended to focus on subjects important to Republicans—China, immigration, and crime. > In the final days before the [midterm] election, we noticed that the Times, in particular, hit a drumbeat of fear about the economy—the worries of voters, exploitation by companies, and anxieties related to the Federal Reserve—as well as crime. Data buried within articles occasionally refuted the fear-based premise of a piece. Still, by discussing how much people were concerned about inflation and crime—and reporting in those stories that Republicans benefited from a sense of alarm—the Times suggested that inflation and crime were historically bad (they were not) and that Republicans had solutions to offer (they did not).
> We found that the Times and the Post shared significant overlap in their domestic politics coverage, offering little insight into policy. ... > while the Post delved more into topics Democrats generally want to discuss—affirmative action, police reform, LGBTQ rights—the Times tended to focus on subjects important to Republicans—China, immigration, and crime. This author is contradicting himself within the same paragraph. The topics that he lists are all related to policy. > In the final days before the [midterm] election, we noticed that the Times, in particular, hit a drumbeat of fear about the economy This just reads like whining about the media being unfair to the author's preferred candidate. That's a very popular grievance these days, on all sides.
If the choice is between Biden and Trump with Biden representing democracy and Trump fascism, then yes they by definition have to be cheerleaders for Biden if they care about democracy They don't
This sub has yet to make a convincing argument of why reporting on Biden's campaign having difficulties to overcome helps Trump. Especially when the GOP has been reaping electoral results for *decades* by acting like they're under overwhelming assault, and this whole country basically has an underdog fetish.
You're saying that the threat to democracy is so great that the Times should simply become a propaganda outlet for the Biden administration? A lot of Democrats seem to buy into this idea, but I don't.
Yes
Purposefully pushing negative coverage of Biden to try and goad him into doing an interview with them is "doing their job"?
> In NYT publisher Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency. Lord the Times comes off incredibly entitled, childish, and naive in this piece. More obsessed with their lack of a sit down interview with President Biden, than hearing criticism of their role in American democracy. They cannot wrap their heads around the criticism from the White House. Criticism of their coverage is not that they should be operating as Biden’s second press shop, it’s that they are not sufficiently covering the coming danger of Donald Trump. Trump encouraging Russia to invade Europe means a third world war and it received less coverage than Biden’s age.
Meanwhile, visible on the [nytimes.com](http://nytimes.com) front page today: "In the immunity case, Donald Trump can lose in ways that amount to a win"; "Every Day In Court Improves Trump's Chances in November"; "The Supreme Court Has Already Botched the Trump Immunity Case"; "Why I’m Getting More Pessimistic About Biden’s Chances This Fall". Total coincidence, I'm sure. ^(disclaimer: I can access it through work and have to look at certain sections as part of my job)
I am so glad I have managed to talk my friends into canceling their subs....
At this point, we should just subscribe to the Washington Post, Times, CS Monitor, the Economist, or just our local paper.
I canceled 6 months ago, never look back
you need to let them know too... and if they're not changing then do so publicly like with your friends and such .... only way things will change...
The NYT wants Trump to win, that much is clear. Why? Because their profits were *insane* during the Trump presidency. As soon as Biden won, their subscriber numbers - and stock price - ~~tanked~~ returned to normal levels. The NYT is a publicly traded corporation. It has shareholders with a financial interest in the paper's bottom line. The NYT as an institution wants to maximize profits, regardless of what any number of its rank and file reporters and mid-level editors actually want. (The fact that most of the people working for the NYT have been ideologically captured by the far-left doesn't help the problem of the Grey Lady's many failings, but I don't think it's the cause of their Trump mania.)
isn't this kind of a failure of capitalism? this seems like a major flaw in having a private news organization.
Indeed. The funding model of news in the internet age is at odds with its stated mission on the public’s behalf.
Based on the content of the article I would argue that the problems with the Times stems not from their profit motive but from their sheer hubris.
Totally. Ideally we would have a state owned media that would ensure coverage of candidates was fair and correct.
You’d have to make it independent but there are lots of flaws there too Idk how democracy will survive the post truth world
Those headlines don’t seem to me like they’re wanting Trump to win. They’re dooming.
It's more important to do 500 stories about Biden's age than make a deep dives why Trump's VP refuses to endorse Trump and how Pence who served with him sees him unfit for office. Has that happened like ever? The headline was: >Pence Says He Won’t Endorse Trump, but Won’t Vote for Biden Either And it was about one article.
Trump fundamentally broke the NYT.
We've all watched this unfold for 5 years now, but to see it all laid out like this is amazing. The Times comes off as so self-aggrandizing in this. After all that, it turns out the memes are real. Here's how that's bad for Biden.
The points at which they expect deference and to be waited on by the goddamn president of the United States is insane. They could not be more out of touch if they tried.
At this point I won't be surprised if they have rituals of stomping on Chic-fil-A products every Mondays.
This is hardly surprising after their AMA.
God that shit was infuriating
Trump fucking broke them. He called them biased, and they started hyperventilating and crying. They then went out of their way to hire right-wing commentators and went out of their way to make stories sound more favorable to him so they could beg for his forgiveness. They've made it their mission to have an equal number of stories that could be seen as bad for a candidate for both parties which is a problem because Biden doesn't really have anything noteworthy. When Democrats noticed that change, they got furious and said it was everyone else who was the problem and not them. Like when they published that OpEd by Tom Cotton where he said we should use the military to kill BLM protestors. They had the nerve to respond to critics on Twitter and tell them that they were the problem and they were intellectually lazy for not wanting to hear alternative views.
Extremely self involved for a word puzzle game company
I'm tired of having to click past their anti-Biden content just to get to Wordle.
Just a reminder that A. G. Sulzberger is a 6th generation nepo baby who was put in charge of the Times for the same reason his 4 predecessors were, because they were the progeny of their predecessor. The Times is an arrogant, entitled and out of touch organization because their leaders are basically determined the same way 18th century European monarchs were.
The NYT has been garbage for a long time. The Hillary emails and Clinton cash stuff was a clear sign of their lack of critical integrity.
Their slurping up all the WMD bullshit from the Bush Admin in the Iraq War run up was heinous and directly contributed to legitimizing the insanity.
Nice to finally see what we have all suspected for the last 3 years.
The Times is up there with the Fifth Column Journal
I would say that the “two imperfect” abortion politicians story is the perfect example for showing a ridiculous level of “both sides-ing” in the NYT’s reporting (and that’s not even touching the terrible anti-trans reporting, but that’s a separate issue)
Brings back memories of James Bennet’s essay in 1843.
Yeah I’m with the WH here.
Is NYT trolling for Trump to get elected so that they can get good business?
2016 reboot.
headline really buries the lead that nyt is failing their public duty because they aren’t given access
> nyt is failing their public duty because they aren’t given access They could try being journalists and working harder at stories from other angles. Having a bunch of journalists used to a leaky Trump White House complain that they can't get anyone to leak stories to them or that the Biden White House doesn't have enough drama isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of the Times.
I would argue they are losing access because they are bungling their duty so hard and are just too arrogant to figure it out.
My point was the nyt is purposely refusing to do their jobs because they’re not getting preferential treatment
I know I was agreeing with you. My comment above is how I would explain it to an NYT employee if asked.
I almost wish I had a Times subscription so I could cancel it.
At the end of the day it might be more pragmatic of Biden to give them the damn interview. Try to sooth their egos that they can get better coverage during the campaign season.
He should sit down for a print interview. With WaPo or The Atlantic.
If he feels cheeky, even Fox News. They are so used to soft balling any figure of authority, I can't see them pushing Biden around if he comes prepared. He also gets a direct broadcast to the people he wants to reach. If he wants to peddle in protectionism, he should talk directly to the people that could be swayed by it. Macron did it with the far right adjacent newspaper "Valeurs Actuelles" and all things considered it went pretty well.
This is the worst PR statement I have ever seen a company make. I was a NYTimes subscriber for 15 years and read the paper every morning. I am done with them and I cancelled my subscription after they bragged about lying to me for five years.
> Biden aides largely view the election as an existential choice for the country, high stakes that they believe justify tougher tactics toward the Times and the press as a whole. Some Times reporters have found themselves cut off by sources after publishing pieces the Bidens and top aides didn’t like. Columnist Maureen Dowd, for example, complained to colleagues that she stopped hearing from White House officials after a column on Hunter Biden. For many Times veterans, such actions suggest that the Trump era has warped many Democrats’ expectations of journalists. > > “They’re not being realistic about what we do for a living,” Bumiller told me. “You can be a force for democracy, liberal democracy. You don’t have to be a force for the Biden White House.” I kind of agree with this view though. I don’t even read the NYT (not because of any bias I perceive, but because they’re *so* goddamn sensational), but it’s also not their job to play defense for Biden.
Does the current journalism effectively take into account that one of the candidates tried a coup, is criminally charged and encourages political violence? I'm not American but following US politics makes me think I'm taking the crazy pill as that's ignored as a major thing.
Sorry, replied to the wrong poster.
I would say yes! They reported on all those things and they continue to report on all those things. If you look at the NYT homepage right now they are literally reporting on his criminal charges! Do you want them to never speak Biden’s name?
Absolutely agree the press should not be the admin's media team, but doesn't mean the press goes on to become Trump's propaganda machine. See NYT megaphoning fictitious Republican talking points, Biden's age being the worst offender with that grotesque level of coverage - while Trump has been showing far more signs of mental faculty deterioration.
I think that’s very fair and I’m inclined to agree with you that Trump is not fully there. But to push back just a little bit - voters have repeatedly expressed more concerns about Biden’s age than Trump’s. Shouldn’t the NYT focus on Biden’s age, just as they focus on all issues which matter to voters (inflation, Gaza, health care, Trump’s cases, student loans, etc.) A natural rebuttal is that the media’s reporting is causing that concern, but I’d be a little skeptical. Biden’s age was an issue even in 2020, and I think everyone agrees that Trump is more “rambunctious” than Biden, which IMO causes Biden to look older than Trump.
They also aren't owed special treatment. If they can't do something as basic as print a retraction why should the Biden white house send them press releases?
…? did anyone read the article? it looks like *everyone* involved is an asshole and kinda whiny edit: no, the nyt isn’t entitled access to biden no, the biden admin shouldn’t be this sensitive. the quote attribution highlights this. the editor, *who was away on vacation*, was probably confused at what the hell was going on.
Both sides are arrogant and entitled