The Grey Lady's Big Plans
August 17, 2016 9:03 PM Subscribe
Can Anyone Save the New York Times from Itself? "In 2014 the New York Times Media Group generated just over half the advertising revenue it did in 2002. The organization now generates more revenue from its subscribers than its advertisers. And while the Times now has more than 1 million paid digital-only subscribers, an estimated 70 percent of the company revenue still comes from print subscriptions and advertising. (... the Times’s individually paid weekday print circulation as of September 2015 was 528,000, compared to over 1 million for The Wall Street Journal and 330,000 for The Washington Post. Its Sunday circulation is more than 1.1 million...) In other words: digital revenue is nowhere near enough to support a 1,300-person newsroom—a number that even [executive editor] Dean Baquet has acknowledged must shrink."
See also: The New York Times of the future is beginning to take shape.
The bottom line: "The task laid out in the company’s Path Forward vision for the future is huge — we aim to double our digital revenue and more than double our number of committed digital readers by 2020. No other news organization has the confidence in its journalistic power to set such an aggressive agenda, and no other has proven that it can grow and sustain a paid audience."
See also: The New York Times of the future is beginning to take shape.
The bottom line: "The task laid out in the company’s Path Forward vision for the future is huge — we aim to double our digital revenue and more than double our number of committed digital readers by 2020. No other news organization has the confidence in its journalistic power to set such an aggressive agenda, and no other has proven that it can grow and sustain a paid audience."
Wow -- I can't see how they're unable to leverage their standing and readership into something greater. University settings, highly educated readership, professionals, the NYC metro area they dominate -- and they still can't make it work?
They own much of that market.
At any rate, I blame Ross Douthat.
posted by skepticallypleased at 9:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [30 favorites]
They own much of that market.
At any rate, I blame Ross Douthat.
posted by skepticallypleased at 9:46 PM on August 17, 2016 [30 favorites]
the NYC metro area they dominate
Didn't they recently announce that they're cutting back on their metro coverage?
posted by Automocar at 9:49 PM on August 17, 2016
Didn't they recently announce that they're cutting back on their metro coverage?
posted by Automocar at 9:49 PM on August 17, 2016
Metafilter's birthday: The entire NYTimes Style Section gets laid off.
posted by fatbird at 9:54 PM on August 17, 2016 [28 favorites]
posted by fatbird at 9:54 PM on August 17, 2016 [28 favorites]
Most of it is behind a paywall now, so this isn't that surprising. There was a time when it wasn't, no? Or was it just much easier to get around the paywall for a bit? I can't remember anymore.
posted by needs more cowbell at 10:13 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by needs more cowbell at 10:13 PM on August 17, 2016
I stopped getting the print New York Times almost 15 years ago. It just seemed like a dead model. News was on the internet! Whenever I wanted it! Why get a lump of paper dropped outside my door?
This year I started getting it again. What a fool I was. The print edition crushes the online version like a grape. There's a reason hundreds of thousands of people do this, and it's not because they forgot to cancel their subscription.
posted by escabeche at 10:16 PM on August 17, 2016 [45 favorites]
This year I started getting it again. What a fool I was. The print edition crushes the online version like a grape. There's a reason hundreds of thousands of people do this, and it's not because they forgot to cancel their subscription.
posted by escabeche at 10:16 PM on August 17, 2016 [45 favorites]
You can get around the paywall easily by Googling any NYT article by title and then using the google link to go to the NYT website.
posted by storybored at 10:16 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by storybored at 10:16 PM on August 17, 2016 [5 favorites]
It used to be much easier than that--I remember being able to just chop off part of the URL that it would redirect to with the paywall. And there was a browser extension that eliminated the need for even doing that.
posted by needs more cowbell at 10:19 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by needs more cowbell at 10:19 PM on August 17, 2016
Every time I think of re-subscribing to the Times, I take about a minute to understand all the options (iPad! Desktop! Print! Crossword?) and then go back to my flat rate Netflix (I exaggerate a little).
I wonder what their revenue would be with an $8/mo flat rate for everything.
posted by zippy at 10:34 PM on August 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
I wonder what their revenue would be with an $8/mo flat rate for everything.
posted by zippy at 10:34 PM on August 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
With some NYT URIs linked to from MeFi, I find that simply changing the "www." to "mobile." will allow me to view them, but if that doesn't work then allowing 1st-party cookies temporarily for one single page load will bring it up. I don't think I've actually encountered a link I haven't been able to read that way in a while, just ones that were too mystery-meat or didn't sound interesting enough to be worth the effort of clicking a few things to enable cookies.
posted by XMLicious at 10:41 PM on August 17, 2016
posted by XMLicious at 10:41 PM on August 17, 2016
and then go back to my flat rate Netflix
Unlike Netflix, they do give away a lot of their video content. Every video they make is put on YouTube, including fairly good short documentaries, cooking videos, and travelogues. They do the same with their podcasts, which isn't as unusual, but again that's something else that's producing no revenue at all. I have no idea why they would do this.
posted by FJT at 10:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unlike Netflix, they do give away a lot of their video content. Every video they make is put on YouTube, including fairly good short documentaries, cooking videos, and travelogues. They do the same with their podcasts, which isn't as unusual, but again that's something else that's producing no revenue at all. I have no idea why they would do this.
posted by FJT at 10:42 PM on August 17, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'm surprised the article didn't mention aging, specifically if each year the average age of their readership increases. That's a tough problem for any business to solve. To do so they have to risk losing their current loyal customers while making new, younger, ones.
>Implicit in the diagnosis was that the Times, while still the most respected news organization in the land,
Given repeated polls that show the public has less trust in news media than they do in Congress, isn't such a statement like saying a car for sale on Craigslist is the best 10 year old car with multiple previous owners? No doubt loyal readers will find such polls and comparison to be total nonsense. But it's the new readers, and yet to be loyal readers that matter.
posted by Homer42 at 10:51 PM on August 17, 2016
>Implicit in the diagnosis was that the Times, while still the most respected news organization in the land,
Given repeated polls that show the public has less trust in news media than they do in Congress, isn't such a statement like saying a car for sale on Craigslist is the best 10 year old car with multiple previous owners? No doubt loyal readers will find such polls and comparison to be total nonsense. But it's the new readers, and yet to be loyal readers that matter.
posted by Homer42 at 10:51 PM on August 17, 2016
I have no idea why they would do this.
Add VR (Oculus) content to that, which must be quite expensive to produce and serve. Perhaps the audience is small enough that giving out a taste gets enough "early adopters" hooked in, such that the NYT can monetize it when there's sufficient interest.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:56 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Add VR (Oculus) content to that, which must be quite expensive to produce and serve. Perhaps the audience is small enough that giving out a taste gets enough "early adopters" hooked in, such that the NYT can monetize it when there's sufficient interest.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:56 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Maybe I am old fashioned - but I want to pay for good content. To that end I subscribe to the Sunday NYT (and I live in Vancouver for goodness sake) - and get access to digital content online. And what amazing content it is - the Sunday print edition is a complete and utter joy to read. Who else is throwing resources at good solid content like they do (and if you say the Guardian - well I subscribe to them too).
I get it - they are going through a process of figuring out a business model that can support what they do. But in the meantime - they are one of the very few media outlets that deserve support - especially in this day of Fox and Breitbart whose naked political agendas are beyond frightening.
I mean - half the free news crap on the internet is based upon discussing, debating, or quoting NYT produced content (I'm looking at you Huffington Post).
posted by helmutdog at 10:56 PM on August 17, 2016 [36 favorites]
I get it - they are going through a process of figuring out a business model that can support what they do. But in the meantime - they are one of the very few media outlets that deserve support - especially in this day of Fox and Breitbart whose naked political agendas are beyond frightening.
I mean - half the free news crap on the internet is based upon discussing, debating, or quoting NYT produced content (I'm looking at you Huffington Post).
posted by helmutdog at 10:56 PM on August 17, 2016 [36 favorites]
I've been a digital subscriber for a number of years. there are things I like about it, though I'm not so excited by their editorial philosophy. Center right to right doesn't seem like my idea of liberal media. This last year, however, ive started to pick up the Sunday print edition. Though, I could read it at work (I'm weekend supervisor at an academic library) I find that it doesn't fill a basic need I have. I can't put either the digital edition, or the library's print edition under my cat box. And it's much cheaper than the Denver Post, which is a truly terrible newspaper and deserves a spot under my cat box but won't get one at the rate difference.
posted by evilDoug at 11:06 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by evilDoug at 11:06 PM on August 17, 2016 [1 favorite]
Unlike Netflix, they do give away a lot of their video content
While it's invariably going to be top-notch content, was anybody really asking them to get into video and podcast production? Sure, YouTube and whatever mean video is the coolest money of the now, and because you can't speed-watch it's a unit of time that can be sold to an advertiser, but it's not necessary for news on the internet. Every podunk newspaper gets segments from their local news slapped on the top of news stories that I'm there to read, and it's just an annoying distraction. This isn't how the NYT does it, but producing (and productizing) that stuff is really expensive. And now VR!
How was it that the NYT didn't make TV shows in the 50s? This whole branch of non-print content just seems like well there's your problem.
posted by rhizome at 11:06 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
While it's invariably going to be top-notch content, was anybody really asking them to get into video and podcast production? Sure, YouTube and whatever mean video is the coolest money of the now, and because you can't speed-watch it's a unit of time that can be sold to an advertiser, but it's not necessary for news on the internet. Every podunk newspaper gets segments from their local news slapped on the top of news stories that I'm there to read, and it's just an annoying distraction. This isn't how the NYT does it, but producing (and productizing) that stuff is really expensive. And now VR!
How was it that the NYT didn't make TV shows in the 50s? This whole branch of non-print content just seems like well there's your problem.
posted by rhizome at 11:06 PM on August 17, 2016 [7 favorites]
worth watching...
John Oliver on Journalism - "The newspaper industry is suffering. That's bad news for journalists — both real and fictional." [fanfare]
also btw...
"Oliver humbly and openly acknowledged how much his show depends on newspapers for its material — thank you very much on behalf of my hard-working colleagues. But at the same time, the breadth of the impact of his piece, which contained no new information for anyone who follows the woes of the profession and yet clearly represented new news to so many of its consumers, was a perfect, highly frustrating example of how others reap the economic benefits of those newspapers. Not just of the reporting of newspapers, but even their existential problems. In this case, specifically, the beneficiaries were John Oliver and HBO."
posted by kliuless at 11:16 PM on August 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
John Oliver on Journalism - "The newspaper industry is suffering. That's bad news for journalists — both real and fictional." [fanfare]
also btw...
"Oliver humbly and openly acknowledged how much his show depends on newspapers for its material — thank you very much on behalf of my hard-working colleagues. But at the same time, the breadth of the impact of his piece, which contained no new information for anyone who follows the woes of the profession and yet clearly represented new news to so many of its consumers, was a perfect, highly frustrating example of how others reap the economic benefits of those newspapers. Not just of the reporting of newspapers, but even their existential problems. In this case, specifically, the beneficiaries were John Oliver and HBO."
posted by kliuless at 11:16 PM on August 17, 2016 [9 favorites]
And now VR!
I'm not trying to plug VR, and it's a bit of a derail maybe, but I will say that seeing a NYT VR newscast about ISIS in Iraq was a different and surprisingly more uncomfortable experience than I expected. It was immersive in a manner that made me seriously anxious about the violence I was viewing. I can't think of many newscasts onscreen or via print that have had a similar effect on me. (Maybe "Collateral Murder"?)
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a team at the NYT (and at other media outlets) still trying to figure out how to edit footage to make a product that is actually sellable, for lack of better language to describe what I saw.
I imagine that they are figuring things out, just as much as their audience. I just hope they learned from hiring liars like Judith Miller and aren't going to make the same mistakes. Hiring people who fake narratives about war and other serious real-world situations would close them off from a younger audience, without a doubt. (And, for various reasons, I know NYT staffers read this site, so I hope you're reading now.)
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:27 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
I'm not trying to plug VR, and it's a bit of a derail maybe, but I will say that seeing a NYT VR newscast about ISIS in Iraq was a different and surprisingly more uncomfortable experience than I expected. It was immersive in a manner that made me seriously anxious about the violence I was viewing. I can't think of many newscasts onscreen or via print that have had a similar effect on me. (Maybe "Collateral Murder"?)
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a team at the NYT (and at other media outlets) still trying to figure out how to edit footage to make a product that is actually sellable, for lack of better language to describe what I saw.
I imagine that they are figuring things out, just as much as their audience. I just hope they learned from hiring liars like Judith Miller and aren't going to make the same mistakes. Hiring people who fake narratives about war and other serious real-world situations would close them off from a younger audience, without a doubt. (And, for various reasons, I know NYT staffers read this site, so I hope you're reading now.)
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:27 PM on August 17, 2016 [8 favorites]
The organization now generates more revenue from its subscribers than its advertisers. And while the Times now has more than 1 million paid digital-only subscribers, an estimated 70 percent of the company revenue still comes from print subscriptions and advertising.
Hmm. Let's solve for x, shall we?
One million paid digital-only subscribers, at a minimum of $3.75/wk apiece. That's an easy $195 million right there. That's less than or equal to 30% of the revenue, which then totals at least $650 million.
*googles*
I'll say! It's about $1.5 billion per year they're raking in. If they can't make that work, maybe they need to find some expenses to cut?
Oh, I see NYT CEO Mark Thompson has recently been duly punished for his mismanagement with a terribly hide-tanning 93% raise to an $8.7 million salary. How about that.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:51 PM on August 17, 2016 [42 favorites]
Hmm. Let's solve for x, shall we?
One million paid digital-only subscribers, at a minimum of $3.75/wk apiece. That's an easy $195 million right there. That's less than or equal to 30% of the revenue, which then totals at least $650 million.
*googles*
I'll say! It's about $1.5 billion per year they're raking in. If they can't make that work, maybe they need to find some expenses to cut?
Oh, I see NYT CEO Mark Thompson has recently been duly punished for his mismanagement with a terribly hide-tanning 93% raise to an $8.7 million salary. How about that.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:51 PM on August 17, 2016 [42 favorites]
Maybe I am old fashioned - but I want to pay for good content. To that end I subscribe to the Sunday NYT...and get access to digital content online.
Same here. I don't always get around to reading the print edition, but I too was surprised at how much better an experience it is after not reading the paper for so long.
posted by bongo_x at 12:03 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Same here. I don't always get around to reading the print edition, but I too was surprised at how much better an experience it is after not reading the paper for so long.
posted by bongo_x at 12:03 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Every six months or so I send them a note saying I'll subscribe if they fire Michael Gordon; otherwise not.
posted by jamjam at 12:05 AM on August 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
Michael R. Gordon is the chief military correspondent for The New York Times.[1] During the first phase of the Iraq war, he was the only newspaper reporter embedded with the allied land command under General Tommy Franks, a position that "granted him unique access to cover the invasion strategy and its enactment".[2] He and General Bernard E. Trainor have written two books together, including the best-selling Cobra II. As a journalist for the New York Times he was the first to report Saddam Hussein's alleged nuclear weapons program in September 2002 with the article "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts.".[3]If they allow him to retire without firing him, I'll never subscribe.
. . .
In 2002, reporting by Michael Gordon and Judith Miller played a key role in raising public support for the Iraq War.[11] Their article, "THREATS AND RESPONSES: THE IRAQIS; U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS", claimed, "Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb."[12] Anonymous "American officials" and "intelligence experts" are the only sources.[12] Following Miller's later refusal to reveal her source in the "outing" of C.I.A. officer Valerie Plame, the Times reporter spent 85 days in jail and was later released from the newspaper. The decision to release Miller also involved the controversy over the bias of her joint reporting with Gordon regarding Iraq's nuclear intentions and the Bush administration.[13] Despite his joint involvement in the controversy, Michael Gordon remains the Chief Military Correspondent for the New York Times.[14]
posted by jamjam at 12:05 AM on August 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
I feel like it's another sign of the times; they're not perfect so we let them go, to be replaced by things much worse. I don't think the age of criticism is going to work out that well.
posted by bongo_x at 12:18 AM on August 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
posted by bongo_x at 12:18 AM on August 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
The subscription game NYT plays is bizarre, and must be meant to prop up print circulation numbers: Sunday-only delivery includes full digital access, but is cheaper than the digital only subscription.
The "International NYT" used to be known as the International Herald Tribune (IHT).
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:53 AM on August 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
The "International NYT" used to be known as the International Herald Tribune (IHT).
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:53 AM on August 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Print circulation provides plausible deniability about ad impressions since nothing is tracked. You get the print paper, they can count you as a paid subscriber and sell your eyeballs to advertisers whether you open the thing or not. Online, there are actual metrics and advertisers aren't willing to pay for ads you didn't see.
I've seen the same pattern with magazines. Discount subscriptions for something like Wired are available for a few bucks a year, which includes the digital version, but they want substantially more for digital-only.
posted by zachlipton at 1:04 AM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I've seen the same pattern with magazines. Discount subscriptions for something like Wired are available for a few bucks a year, which includes the digital version, but they want substantially more for digital-only.
posted by zachlipton at 1:04 AM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Didn't they recently announce that they're cutting back on their metro coverage?
They said they would in the sense of ditching covering individual fires etc in favor of bigger picture stuff. But I don't think most New Yorkers read the Times for local news anyway and they haven't really been doing it thoroughly for ages. I do cover that kind of news here and it's pretty rare to see a Times reporter on the ground at public hearings or community board meetings or protests or what have you unless there's something really big going on, and their coverage of city politics is generally lackluster. The running joke in my newsroom is that you open the Metro page to see a story you wrote two weeks ago but now with a flowery, five-paragraph anecdotal lede written by someone who makes 10 times your salary.
But I like said bigger picture stuff and the deeply reported features about the city that the rest of us don't have the time, budget, or support to do. I subscribe to the weekend papers and read online the rest of the week.
posted by retrograde at 1:05 AM on August 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
They said they would in the sense of ditching covering individual fires etc in favor of bigger picture stuff. But I don't think most New Yorkers read the Times for local news anyway and they haven't really been doing it thoroughly for ages. I do cover that kind of news here and it's pretty rare to see a Times reporter on the ground at public hearings or community board meetings or protests or what have you unless there's something really big going on, and their coverage of city politics is generally lackluster. The running joke in my newsroom is that you open the Metro page to see a story you wrote two weeks ago but now with a flowery, five-paragraph anecdotal lede written by someone who makes 10 times your salary.
But I like said bigger picture stuff and the deeply reported features about the city that the rest of us don't have the time, budget, or support to do. I subscribe to the weekend papers and read online the rest of the week.
posted by retrograde at 1:05 AM on August 18, 2016 [13 favorites]
nytco is saddled with $433 million in corporate debt. they've done some financial engineering recently to make it seem like less of a millstone and taken outside equity from Carlos Slim but the story for the nytimes is remarkably like the rest of the print media business: corporate ownership using debt and financial games as a means to loot the core business while blaming the internet for the inevitable downsizing.
print media spent the last two, three decades playing mergers and acquisitions, real estate gambles, and loading up on debt to pay for it, instead of investing in their core business. the business consequences of this are inevitable at this point.
posted by ennui.bz at 2:19 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
print media spent the last two, three decades playing mergers and acquisitions, real estate gambles, and loading up on debt to pay for it, instead of investing in their core business. the business consequences of this are inevitable at this point.
posted by ennui.bz at 2:19 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
also, LOL:
posted by ennui.bz at 2:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Rosenthal loved the paper so much, he once wrote, that he didn’t take a job there until his father stepped down, so as not to suggest any impropriety.this line encapsulates everything that is loathsome about nytimes reporting: mindless and staggering self regard combined with a bland indifference to the plain facts of the matter.
posted by ennui.bz at 2:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
I used to buy the Times at Chicago newsstands, and dreamed of subscribing, but when they started printing "regional" editions I lost interest. I liked to see New York ads and New York rents and loopy New York content.
posted by Chitownfats at 4:28 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Chitownfats at 4:28 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just hope they learned from hiring liars like Judith Miller and aren't going to make the same mistakes. Hiring people who fake narratives about war and other serious real-world situations would close them off from a younger audience, without a doubt.
They still employ Maureen Dowd. And that Michael Gordon fellow that jamjam talks about.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:31 AM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
They still employ Maureen Dowd. And that Michael Gordon fellow that jamjam talks about.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:31 AM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
ennui.bz: Do you have any links on the "newspapers are just being looted via debt" story? I've heard that idea before but I would be interested in reading about it more in depth.
posted by ropeladder at 4:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ropeladder at 4:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I read a fact the other day that blew my mind:
The Washington Post currently has a newsroom of 700 journalists, and they generate 500 stories a day.
The NY Times has a newsroom of 1300 journalists, but generates only 230 stories a day.
Quality is more important than quantity in this business, but quantity still matters a lot.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 5:00 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Washington Post currently has a newsroom of 700 journalists, and they generate 500 stories a day.
The NY Times has a newsroom of 1300 journalists, but generates only 230 stories a day.
Quality is more important than quantity in this business, but quantity still matters a lot.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 5:00 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Those of you who prefer the print layout may be pleased to know that any print subscription gives you access to the Replica Edition, a perfect digital rendition of every day's printed daily paper delivered through the PressReader app. (You can also subscribe to the Replica Edition separately for $5 per week but that's only $1.50 less than getting Sunday-only delivery of the print edition!) They don't make it easy to find though! Start here.
posted by nicwolff at 5:17 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by nicwolff at 5:17 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
> Bizarrely, I found a print copy of the NYT for sale in the Asda supermarket in Huddersfield the other week. It seemed to be an "international" version and it cost about £2 so I left it on the newsstand next to the equally incongruous Frankfurter Allgemeine. I've never seen it before or since.
> The "International NYT" used to be known as the International Herald Tribune (IHT).
For UK readers, an eight-page selection of content from the International NYT is also (IIRC) included free with The Observer each Sunday.
Personally, I've been heartened to see the print run extended for The New European, a "pop-up" pro-EU paper following the Brexit referendum result. To me it feels more like a magazine printed on newsprint rather than a newspaper, but it's still nice to see paid-journalism-on-dead-trees succeeding.
posted by A Robot Ninja at 5:29 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
> The "International NYT" used to be known as the International Herald Tribune (IHT).
For UK readers, an eight-page selection of content from the International NYT is also (IIRC) included free with The Observer each Sunday.
Personally, I've been heartened to see the print run extended for The New European, a "pop-up" pro-EU paper following the Brexit referendum result. To me it feels more like a magazine printed on newsprint rather than a newspaper, but it's still nice to see paid-journalism-on-dead-trees succeeding.
posted by A Robot Ninja at 5:29 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Last I looked it was 15$ a month for digital access. That's just a bit more than I can go. If they could get it down to 9.95 I'd probably subscribe. There are so few decent news organizations left in the world. They really are an important resource.
posted by DarkForest at 5:47 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by DarkForest at 5:47 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I subscribe for the electronic version. I would actually prefer the print version but I travel too much for that to make sense right now. I probably read it most in waiting rooms and other moments of down time during the day. I do hope they can get their internal financial weirdness sorted out and become more sustainable, because it is a great resource.
Politically I often disagree with the editorial stance, and there are a few writers there I would happily fire (Dowd among them), but overall the coverage is broad and interesting, and certainly better than other US options.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:59 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Politically I often disagree with the editorial stance, and there are a few writers there I would happily fire (Dowd among them), but overall the coverage is broad and interesting, and certainly better than other US options.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:59 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Sunday-only delivery includes full digital access, but is cheaper than the digital only subscription.
Is this true? I've seen this stated before but the math doesn't seem to work out for me.
The cheapest digital-only subscription (website+phone apps, but not including tablets) is $15/4 weeks. (It's significantly more for the tablet or tablet+phone subscriptions.)
When I put in my NYC ZIP code on the home delivery website, it says that the Saturday/Sunday option is $4.20/week, but this is apparently a 50% off promotional rate, so that would actually be $8.40/week or $33.60/4 weeks. Even if you stayed at the $4.20/week option forever that would still be $16.80/4 weeks.
I feel like newspaper and magazine subscriptions are in that category of lots of weird promotional deals all the time, but I've never been able to make this one work. (But if someone knows how to please do let me know, as I would love to receive the print Sunday paper!)
posted by andrewesque at 5:59 AM on August 18, 2016
Is this true? I've seen this stated before but the math doesn't seem to work out for me.
The cheapest digital-only subscription (website+phone apps, but not including tablets) is $15/4 weeks. (It's significantly more for the tablet or tablet+phone subscriptions.)
When I put in my NYC ZIP code on the home delivery website, it says that the Saturday/Sunday option is $4.20/week, but this is apparently a 50% off promotional rate, so that would actually be $8.40/week or $33.60/4 weeks. Even if you stayed at the $4.20/week option forever that would still be $16.80/4 weeks.
I feel like newspaper and magazine subscriptions are in that category of lots of weird promotional deals all the time, but I've never been able to make this one work. (But if someone knows how to please do let me know, as I would love to receive the print Sunday paper!)
posted by andrewesque at 5:59 AM on August 18, 2016
Metafilter's birthday: The entire NYTimes Style Section gets laid off.
Unlikely that one of the most-read and highest revenue-producing sections of the paper would lose staffers, sorrrrr-eeeeeeeeeeeeee
posted by listen, lady at 6:07 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Unlikely that one of the most-read and highest revenue-producing sections of the paper would lose staffers, sorrrrr-eeeeeeeeeeeeee
posted by listen, lady at 6:07 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Most of it is behind a paywall now, so this isn't that surprising.
I think you mean, "Subscribers don't want to actually pay for the content they read, so this isn't that surprising."
posted by listen, lady at 6:13 AM on August 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
I think you mean, "Subscribers don't want to actually pay for the content they read, so this isn't that surprising."
posted by listen, lady at 6:13 AM on August 18, 2016 [6 favorites]
Metafilter's nightmare: everyone but the entire NYTimes Style Section gets laid off.
posted by fatbird at 6:14 AM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by fatbird at 6:14 AM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Paywall? Right-click, open in private/incognito window.
posted by General Malaise at 6:21 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
posted by General Malaise at 6:21 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Quality is more important than quantity in this business, but quantity still matters a lot.
As an increasingly disgusted WaPo reader of almost 30 years, they'd do well to cut their firehose of clickbait. A lot of their output now, especially the execrable tabloid Express, is just crapped out garbage.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:22 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
As an increasingly disgusted WaPo reader of almost 30 years, they'd do well to cut their firehose of clickbait. A lot of their output now, especially the execrable tabloid Express, is just crapped out garbage.
posted by ryanshepard at 6:22 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I currently pay £20 a month for NYT All Digital Access, which is quite a lot (up from my previous £8/month special deal). I wouldn't have been able to afford that in the past, but I can now, and I think it's well worth the cost given that I read it every day. I'm pretty fucked off that £20 is - I think - more expensive than the Sunday option in the US though.
I run a free-to-access, subscription-driven product and I know just how valuable every single subscriber is compared to, say, ad revenue.
posted by adrianhon at 6:30 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I run a free-to-access, subscription-driven product and I know just how valuable every single subscriber is compared to, say, ad revenue.
posted by adrianhon at 6:30 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I run a free-to-access, subscription-driven product and I know just how valuable every single subscriber is compared to, say, ad revenue.
Well then stop fucking killing me halfway through my goddamn run.
I kid, I kid.
posted by Etrigan at 6:37 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well then stop fucking killing me halfway through my goddamn run.
I kid, I kid.
posted by Etrigan at 6:37 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
print media spent the last two, three decades playing mergers and acquisitions, real estate gambles, and loading up on debt to pay for it, instead of investing in their core business. the business consequences of this are inevitable at this point.
I don't think this is correct. The business model just imploded on them. Newspapers were never about selling journalism, they were about getting people to look at ads because of the quality of the journalism. During the glory years newspapers made their money on ads not circulation. If you invested in the core business - selling print ads - twenty years ago you basically lit money on fire.
The problem today is that people's mental model for what quality journalism should cost them is linked to an old subsidy model that no longer exists. People just aren't willing to carry the fully burdened cost of the newsroom.
posted by JPD at 6:38 AM on August 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
I don't think this is correct. The business model just imploded on them. Newspapers were never about selling journalism, they were about getting people to look at ads because of the quality of the journalism. During the glory years newspapers made their money on ads not circulation. If you invested in the core business - selling print ads - twenty years ago you basically lit money on fire.
The problem today is that people's mental model for what quality journalism should cost them is linked to an old subsidy model that no longer exists. People just aren't willing to carry the fully burdened cost of the newsroom.
posted by JPD at 6:38 AM on August 18, 2016 [15 favorites]
My first sentence as a child was "Where is my New York Times?" so to say I have a long history with reading this paper is perhaps a bit of an understatement. My grandfather once rescued a heap of library bound copies from the 30s and 40s from a library dumpster and stacked them in his attic. Each issue is nearly three feet tall and holds two weeks of the paper. They were so heavy that they made the floor of the attic sag in places, and one of the bedrooms underneath had a noticibly sloped ceiling as a result. I took one after he died, an issue from July 1934. That was not a good time in history, and it's pretty wild to read (and difficult to display; there are articles about Hitler on nearly every page).
I used to get the print edition, but stopped when I realized I just read it online. I have a digital subscription, but I miss the Sunday Times. Last time I looked it was more expensive and I don't remember it coming with the digital package; their subscription options are quite confusing.
I have also been unhappy with them lately for their coverage, or lack thereof, of important events. Like most of the media they have latched onto Trump, favoring articles about him over the flooding in Louisiana for far too long last week. But I have a great affinity for the Grey Lady, and I'll stick around for awhile longer. Might even check out the subscription to get it on Sunday again. One of the best things in the world is reading the Sunday Times in bed.
posted by sockermom at 6:46 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
I used to get the print edition, but stopped when I realized I just read it online. I have a digital subscription, but I miss the Sunday Times. Last time I looked it was more expensive and I don't remember it coming with the digital package; their subscription options are quite confusing.
I have also been unhappy with them lately for their coverage, or lack thereof, of important events. Like most of the media they have latched onto Trump, favoring articles about him over the flooding in Louisiana for far too long last week. But I have a great affinity for the Grey Lady, and I'll stick around for awhile longer. Might even check out the subscription to get it on Sunday again. One of the best things in the world is reading the Sunday Times in bed.
posted by sockermom at 6:46 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Sometimes I'll notice a rash of news reports about something and think, "Nothing in this story is hooked to a recent development, why are we hearing about it now?" And very often the answer is, the NYTimes ran a story on it. Which conjures a mental image of workers throughout the news industry rummaging through the Times, looking for ideas. What would they all do without it?
posted by Flexagon at 6:51 AM on August 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by Flexagon at 6:51 AM on August 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
in the meantime - they are one of the very few media outlets that deserve support -
Amen to that.
I read a fact the other day that blew my mind
Where did you read this?
Sunday-only delivery includes full digital access, but is cheaper than the digital only subscription
It's not cheaper. We get Sunday only with digital access, and it's $36/month. We are not in the NYC metro area, so there is a surcharge.
Like most of the media they have latched onto Trump, favoring articles about him over the flooding in Louisiana for far too long last week.
I think this is partly a digital effect. If you read the print edition, it's a lot easier to see that there are major articles on things like that that simply don't "trend," or get shared and posted as much online. There's just plain more physical space available to the eye in the print edition, and that at least registers at a level that a web front page can't that there is a story happening - making chance discovery of news far likelier. I just went and searched "Louisiana flood," and there are more than two dozen stories, the earliest starting to appear by the 12th. The public editor critiqued their coverage, too, but aside from serious coverage starting late, they have been very thorough. In a bigger-picture sense, they have been among few papers nationally covering the general issues of infrastructure decay and climate change, which contribute directly to situations like this, but as "slow emergencies" rarely get the coverage they deserve.
posted by Miko at 6:53 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Amen to that.
I read a fact the other day that blew my mind
Where did you read this?
Sunday-only delivery includes full digital access, but is cheaper than the digital only subscription
It's not cheaper. We get Sunday only with digital access, and it's $36/month. We are not in the NYC metro area, so there is a surcharge.
Like most of the media they have latched onto Trump, favoring articles about him over the flooding in Louisiana for far too long last week.
I think this is partly a digital effect. If you read the print edition, it's a lot easier to see that there are major articles on things like that that simply don't "trend," or get shared and posted as much online. There's just plain more physical space available to the eye in the print edition, and that at least registers at a level that a web front page can't that there is a story happening - making chance discovery of news far likelier. I just went and searched "Louisiana flood," and there are more than two dozen stories, the earliest starting to appear by the 12th. The public editor critiqued their coverage, too, but aside from serious coverage starting late, they have been very thorough. In a bigger-picture sense, they have been among few papers nationally covering the general issues of infrastructure decay and climate change, which contribute directly to situations like this, but as "slow emergencies" rarely get the coverage they deserve.
posted by Miko at 6:53 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
There's also the perception issue that comes from the fact that breaking news (like a flood) appears in mainly one section, news, while election coverage appears in news, Opinion, Week in Review, business, and even features, because it influences discourse across a lot of domains.
posted by Miko at 6:55 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 6:55 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think this is correct. The business model just imploded on them. Newspapers were never about selling journalism, they were about getting people to look at ads because of the quality of the journalism. During the glory years newspapers made their money on ads not circulation. If you invested in the core business - selling print ads - twenty years ago you basically lit money on fire.
I'm sure that's what Kodak said about the photography business...
the trend should have been obvious 20 years ago when craigslist killed the down market newspaper classifieds business. But if you look at the way the business of newspapers has been managed in the US, it's a case study in how American MBAs are past masters in extracting cash from fully amortized businesses.
the problem and blessing for the Sulzbergers is that it is tied so closely to the federal government, it's essentially the US "ministry department of information". this is a problem because the times can't be sold to a billionaire, like Slim. there's only so much equity that can be sold before control becomes an issue, and who controls the US ministry of information is obviously a political decision not a financial one. the blessing is that, one way or another, as long as having an official source for government communications is necessary, the times will have to be bailed out. considered purely as a business, it's clear the nytimes is done.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:03 AM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
I'm sure that's what Kodak said about the photography business...
the trend should have been obvious 20 years ago when craigslist killed the down market newspaper classifieds business. But if you look at the way the business of newspapers has been managed in the US, it's a case study in how American MBAs are past masters in extracting cash from fully amortized businesses.
the problem and blessing for the Sulzbergers is that it is tied so closely to the federal government, it's essentially the US "
posted by ennui.bz at 7:03 AM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
They said it because it was true. If you have a massive fixed cost apparatus (selling ads and printing newspapers or making silver halide film) the cost of abandoning said apparatus is untenable. Newspapers were doubly screwed because the consumer has no idea what the thing really cost that they were buying. Kodak at least might have had a chance if they moved into digital aggressively, but that wouldn't have helped newspapers.
It literally didn't matter how much you reinvested in the business - because all of that investment would have been worth zero. If the Sulzburgers didn't take a dime out of the business it would still be screwed, it would just take longer for them to lose control of it.
The idea the times is failing because its sucks at journalism doesn't make any sense, because literally no one is making real journalism for a broad audience that works economically right now. The model that is closest to working is sadly the Daily Mail.
posted by JPD at 7:11 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
It literally didn't matter how much you reinvested in the business - because all of that investment would have been worth zero. If the Sulzburgers didn't take a dime out of the business it would still be screwed, it would just take longer for them to lose control of it.
The idea the times is failing because its sucks at journalism doesn't make any sense, because literally no one is making real journalism for a broad audience that works economically right now. The model that is closest to working is sadly the Daily Mail.
posted by JPD at 7:11 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
it's essentially the US "ministry department of information"
an official source for government communications
Where are you getting this idea?
posted by Miko at 7:11 AM on August 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
an official source for government communications
Where are you getting this idea?
posted by Miko at 7:11 AM on August 18, 2016 [7 favorites]
Google eviscerated the internet ad model as being profitable long-term for anyone except Google, and Craigslist nuked the extremely profitable classified section nationwide. It has nothing to do with their relevance as a newspaper, it has everything to do with technical "disruption" that undermines and upends longstanding institutions, and not for the better.
Bezos has gotten into the newspaper game recently, and he is a stone cold killer that knows how to move with the times and exploit opportunity, so it will be interesting to see where he goes with his papers and whether it can be a model for others to follow.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:27 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Bezos has gotten into the newspaper game recently, and he is a stone cold killer that knows how to move with the times and exploit opportunity, so it will be interesting to see where he goes with his papers and whether it can be a model for others to follow.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:27 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
I tried subscribing to the Sunday edition but they kept charging me and no actual paper ever showed up on my doorstep. I'm a dumb millenial, but isn't this what newspapers are supposed to do?
Now I just read it in a private browser like everyone else.
posted by bradbane at 7:29 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Now I just read it in a private browser like everyone else.
posted by bradbane at 7:29 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
print media spent the last two, three decades playing mergers and acquisitions, real estate gambles, and loading up on debt to pay for it, instead of investing in their core business. the business consequences of this are inevitable at this point.
I don't think this is correct. The business model just imploded on them. ...
They're both correct. The NYT, as a business, was always looking to get bigger and better. They bought the Boston Globe, and got fat on that for a while. There was a 60 Minutes episode many years ago exposing how they were using eminent domain practices (I forget the details) to push out small businesses to get valuable Manhattan real estate. They were never a noble enterprise.
But yeah, Craigslist.
posted by Melismata at 7:30 AM on August 18, 2016
I don't think this is correct. The business model just imploded on them. ...
They're both correct. The NYT, as a business, was always looking to get bigger and better. They bought the Boston Globe, and got fat on that for a while. There was a 60 Minutes episode many years ago exposing how they were using eminent domain practices (I forget the details) to push out small businesses to get valuable Manhattan real estate. They were never a noble enterprise.
But yeah, Craigslist.
posted by Melismata at 7:30 AM on August 18, 2016
it's essentially the US "ministry department of information"Where are you getting this idea?
an official source for government communications
i don't think this is a particularly controversial opinion. it's what people really mean when they say the Times is the "paper of record". And the sort of people who classically had careers at the Times have pedigrees very close to the sort of people who end up in the elite ranks of government; they are all classmates.
It literally didn't matter how much you reinvested in the business - because all of that investment would have been worth zero.
well, the question is whether the business was selling ads, because clearly a lot of money has and is being invested in selling ads right now (eg. Google)... or something else. it's arguable whether there has been a business model for "Times journalism" since the great "softening" of the late sixties when they added the "womens" sections. or you can think of all of that lifestyle ad revenue as a sort of political brokers fee as part the consolidation of "big advertising" in midtown ie. a bailout of the Times, which was seen as a crucial institution. you could still see something similar for the internet age...
posted by ennui.bz at 7:30 AM on August 18, 2016
there are articles about Hitler on nearly every page
I wonder if Hitler ever threatened to revoke their access if they stopped writing about him.
posted by briank at 7:34 AM on August 18, 2016
I wonder if Hitler ever threatened to revoke their access if they stopped writing about him.
posted by briank at 7:34 AM on August 18, 2016
So the times failed because the Sulzbergers didn't invest in VCs and find Page and Brin as undergrads? Is that really what you are saying?
Because Google has basically destroyed ad pricing but profited from infinite inventory. A print newspaper can't have infinite inventory.
The NYT, as a business, was always looking to get bigger and better. They bought the Boston Globe, and got fat on that for a while. Sure, but in the old model this was the right decision. You manage to make the non-newsroom side of the business much more efficient by getting more economies of scale. Again - its not like the choice was "Buy the globe or invent google" - it was " buy the globe or give money back to shareholders."
posted by JPD at 7:35 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Because Google has basically destroyed ad pricing but profited from infinite inventory. A print newspaper can't have infinite inventory.
The NYT, as a business, was always looking to get bigger and better. They bought the Boston Globe, and got fat on that for a while. Sure, but in the old model this was the right decision. You manage to make the non-newsroom side of the business much more efficient by getting more economies of scale. Again - its not like the choice was "Buy the globe or invent google" - it was " buy the globe or give money back to shareholders."
posted by JPD at 7:35 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
if the Styles section has taught us anything, it's that the nytimes is the community newspaper for midtown Manhattan. and, like other community newsletters, all the local businesses chip in to buy "ads" in the local rag. it's just the "local businesses" are all of the major ad companies plus blue chip corporate America...
posted by ennui.bz at 7:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by ennui.bz at 7:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Will Shortz turned down the crossword puzzle I sent in last month so they can all rot as far as I'm concerned
posted by theodolite at 7:39 AM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by theodolite at 7:39 AM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
the question is whether the business was selling ads
in 1999 - 72% of the NYT revenue came from selling ads. today its more like 40%
posted by JPD at 7:42 AM on August 18, 2016
in 1999 - 72% of the NYT revenue came from selling ads. today its more like 40%
posted by JPD at 7:42 AM on August 18, 2016
So the times failed because the Sulzbergers didn't invest in VCs and find Page and Brin as undergrads? Is that really what you are saying?
the alternative is to argue that Google really is a natural monopoly, it was just a matter of time before one search engine came to rule it all.
if the US were run like Japan or S. Korea. I'm sure Brin and Page would be VPs somewhere. I don't think there is anything natural about the way the "internet" has "disrupted the economy". I think it's all been a "business" decision...
posted by ennui.bz at 7:43 AM on August 18, 2016
Paywall? Right-click, open in private/incognito window.
Every time this works it amazes me. (That and pasting the headline into Google News and opening it there, though they have a tendency to revise headlines during the course of a day.)
Since the private browser thing does not work at a lot of other pay-walled news sites, I can only assume that it's a deliberate decision by the Times to leave that means of access open. (It helps that the Times does not paywall the main pages, making right-clicking on the article titles trivial.)
For NYT crosswords... it doesn't take a lot of digging to find a couple places that archive PDFs of every single puzzle.
posted by aught at 7:46 AM on August 18, 2016
Every time this works it amazes me. (That and pasting the headline into Google News and opening it there, though they have a tendency to revise headlines during the course of a day.)
Since the private browser thing does not work at a lot of other pay-walled news sites, I can only assume that it's a deliberate decision by the Times to leave that means of access open. (It helps that the Times does not paywall the main pages, making right-clicking on the article titles trivial.)
For NYT crosswords... it doesn't take a lot of digging to find a couple places that archive PDFs of every single puzzle.
posted by aught at 7:46 AM on August 18, 2016
I'm often confused and disappointed (and sometimes disgusted) when media outlets run stories about other media outlets or the media in general. There's often an exaggeration of the topic's importance and interest because of course everyone involved in writing, editing, and publishing the stories are deeply interested and invested in the topic. That means that I as a reader am left unable to discern which stories about the media are genuinely important and which ones are merely interesting only to those in the media. Is this story truly about the potential demise of an important U.S. institution, is it the gloating of a competitor, or is it just a bunch of inside baseball important or interesting only to those who work in the media? The more often I have to ask that question, the less I want to answer it and the less I care about stories about the media.
posted by ElKevbo at 7:46 AM on August 18, 2016
posted by ElKevbo at 7:46 AM on August 18, 2016
. it's what people really mean when they say the Times is the "paper of record".
Mm, but that is only because people are generally mistaken about what "paper of record" means. It has become a colloquialism for something like "important paper that can be counted upon to cover major news," but it has a narrower professional meaning, which is that certain specific municipalities are often required to nominate a newspaper to serve as their "paper of record," meaning that that paper fulfills their obligation to publicly post notice of real estate transactions and the like. The Times has absolutely no such relationship with any US governmental body, and actively rejects the appellation. So it's really inaccurate, and a little conspiracy-theorist, to insist that it acts in some formal capacity as "The U.S. Ministry of Information."
they are all classmates
This truism applies to any major industry that requires higher education.
posted by Miko at 7:48 AM on August 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
Mm, but that is only because people are generally mistaken about what "paper of record" means. It has become a colloquialism for something like "important paper that can be counted upon to cover major news," but it has a narrower professional meaning, which is that certain specific municipalities are often required to nominate a newspaper to serve as their "paper of record," meaning that that paper fulfills their obligation to publicly post notice of real estate transactions and the like. The Times has absolutely no such relationship with any US governmental body, and actively rejects the appellation. So it's really inaccurate, and a little conspiracy-theorist, to insist that it acts in some formal capacity as "The U.S. Ministry of Information."
they are all classmates
This truism applies to any major industry that requires higher education.
posted by Miko at 7:48 AM on August 18, 2016 [12 favorites]
Man, it's so frustrating to see people saying things like "I won't support journalism because this outlet prints something/employs someone I disagree with". Of course they do! That's their job. If you need to agree with everything you read in the paper, you probably should just be reading your Facebook feed instead. or the NY Post, but only if you're a complete asshole
But yeah, your paper shouldn't be making you yell "rah rah" all day long. It should make you angry, delighted, confused, pissed off. You should write angry letters to the editor. When you talk to your friends and acquaintances about the issues of the day the conversation should be longer than "I know, right???"
Read something that angers you once in a while. It's good for the soul.
posted by phooky at 7:53 AM on August 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
But yeah, your paper shouldn't be making you yell "rah rah" all day long. It should make you angry, delighted, confused, pissed off. You should write angry letters to the editor. When you talk to your friends and acquaintances about the issues of the day the conversation should be longer than "I know, right???"
Read something that angers you once in a while. It's good for the soul.
posted by phooky at 7:53 AM on August 18, 2016 [21 favorites]
the alternative is to argue that Google really is a natural monopoly, it was just a matter of time before one search engine came to rule it all.
There is a fundamental difference in the economic power of someone selling digital ad space (where the average cost is near zero, the marginal cost is near zero, and the supply is nearly infinite) as compared to selling print ads (where the cost of incremental add space is high and supply is by definition limited)
The NYT in 1980 worked by selling 1000 ads at 1000 bucks an ad. And there wasn't much competition, so pricing was firm.
Google in 2016 works by selling 10,000,000 ads at ten cents an ad. So now the NYT's pricing has to work in that construct. Also selling ads is a real cost for these guys.
posted by JPD at 8:11 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
There is a fundamental difference in the economic power of someone selling digital ad space (where the average cost is near zero, the marginal cost is near zero, and the supply is nearly infinite) as compared to selling print ads (where the cost of incremental add space is high and supply is by definition limited)
The NYT in 1980 worked by selling 1000 ads at 1000 bucks an ad. And there wasn't much competition, so pricing was firm.
Google in 2016 works by selling 10,000,000 ads at ten cents an ad. So now the NYT's pricing has to work in that construct. Also selling ads is a real cost for these guys.
posted by JPD at 8:11 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
So many comments here tell us how to steal, beat, grab, the NY Times without paying and then we wonder why the paper is in trouble. Guess? Perhaps because your are finding ways to beat them out of their money
posted by Postroad at 8:13 AM on August 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
posted by Postroad at 8:13 AM on August 18, 2016 [23 favorites]
How hard would it be to officially wall off NYT content though? Why don't they go the route that most subscription services do: People can either read nothing, or read the tip of the iceberg without doing anything. If they want, they can participate in a trial period that requires inputting a credit card number. Then, they can choose to cancel it at the end of the trial or they'll just be charged for the next period.
And maybe they can push it as a "premium" or "elite" product. I mean, it's already how people look at them, might as well own it. The model works for Monocle magazine, which puts everything behind a wall, has no ala carte digital edition, charges 6 pounds an issue (and more for older issues), and an annual subscription actually costs more at 100 pounds a year.
posted by FJT at 8:24 AM on August 18, 2016
And maybe they can push it as a "premium" or "elite" product. I mean, it's already how people look at them, might as well own it. The model works for Monocle magazine, which puts everything behind a wall, has no ala carte digital edition, charges 6 pounds an issue (and more for older issues), and an annual subscription actually costs more at 100 pounds a year.
posted by FJT at 8:24 AM on August 18, 2016
But yeah, your paper shouldn't be making you yell "rah rah" all day long. It should make you angry, delighted, confused, pissed off. You should write angry letters to the editor.
The article that made me send a very angry "cancel my subscription" letter was one in the Sunday Business section. It was an article about investment products / seminars aimed at women.
It was so drippingly, mindbendingly insulting and condescending -- focused on fashion, overspending, and there was one line in particular that paraphrased "because we all know women can't handle math". In the year of our lord 2013.
I was pretty skeptical after Judith Miller, Valerie Plame and Iraq, and that was the straw that broke it. Angry, confused, pissed off, yes. I'm not about to pay someone to put that drivel in front of my face.
The writing in the NYT was always stellar, and I miss that, for sure. But the WaPo has been doing some investigative reporting this year -- they are singlehandedly responsible for the Trump/veteran/$1M story -- that's truly impressed me. I seek out longform more now. And most stories are repeated broadly, so.
posted by Dashy at 8:27 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
The article that made me send a very angry "cancel my subscription" letter was one in the Sunday Business section. It was an article about investment products / seminars aimed at women.
It was so drippingly, mindbendingly insulting and condescending -- focused on fashion, overspending, and there was one line in particular that paraphrased "because we all know women can't handle math". In the year of our lord 2013.
I was pretty skeptical after Judith Miller, Valerie Plame and Iraq, and that was the straw that broke it. Angry, confused, pissed off, yes. I'm not about to pay someone to put that drivel in front of my face.
The writing in the NYT was always stellar, and I miss that, for sure. But the WaPo has been doing some investigative reporting this year -- they are singlehandedly responsible for the Trump/veteran/$1M story -- that's truly impressed me. I seek out longform more now. And most stories are repeated broadly, so.
posted by Dashy at 8:27 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
> The Washington Post currently has a newsroom of 700 journalists, and they generate 500 stories a day.
I live in Washington, DC and have never set out to check the Washington Post. It reads like the Huffington Post playing dress up as the New York Times.
Doesn't look like anyone has mentioned that NYT just today announced they are discontinuing their NYT Now app, which provided a selection of daily stories for $8/month.
posted by cichlid ceilidh at 8:33 AM on August 18, 2016
I live in Washington, DC and have never set out to check the Washington Post. It reads like the Huffington Post playing dress up as the New York Times.
Doesn't look like anyone has mentioned that NYT just today announced they are discontinuing their NYT Now app, which provided a selection of daily stories for $8/month.
posted by cichlid ceilidh at 8:33 AM on August 18, 2016
There was a time when the only reason to install Adobe Acrobat Reader was to be able to download and read the "ships at sea" edition of the NY Times, which was a PDF conversion of the daily fax that was sent out to ocean liners with a text-only version of the major stories.
posted by lagomorphius at 8:34 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by lagomorphius at 8:34 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
I gotta say, the NYT's graphics department has been nothing but amazing recently:
@NYTGraphics
posted by ethansr at 8:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
@NYTGraphics
posted by ethansr at 8:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
And when exactly was that time, lagomorphius?
posted by wenestvedt at 8:37 AM on August 18, 2016
posted by wenestvedt at 8:37 AM on August 18, 2016
And maybe they can push it as a "premium" or "elite" product. I mean, it's already how people look at them, might as well own it. The model works for Monocle magazine, which puts everything behind a wall, has no ala carte digital edition, charges 6 pounds an issue (and more for older issues), and an annual subscription actually costs more at 100 pounds a year.
Isn't Monocle really driven by advertorial + the related branding consultancy?
Regardless - Brule....
posted by JPD at 8:39 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Isn't Monocle really driven by advertorial + the related branding consultancy?
Regardless - Brule....
posted by JPD at 8:39 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Uh oh, is there something bad about Brule? I can't afford Monocle, but I've bought a couple of issues because I liked the photography and I do listen to their podcasts too.
posted by FJT at 8:42 AM on August 18, 2016
posted by FJT at 8:42 AM on August 18, 2016
Paying the New York Times for information is the same to me now as tipping the clerk at Starbucks. Sure a bunch of people do it. I am absolutely without a clue why they do so.
(From age 21-26 I bought a hardcopy New York Times almost every day and devoured the sucker and looking back it was money and time well spent. When I found out William Safire fed us a line of bullshit about Mohammed Atta and Iraq and the Czech secret service it sort of broke my heart a little.)
posted by bukvich at 8:49 AM on August 18, 2016
(From age 21-26 I bought a hardcopy New York Times almost every day and devoured the sucker and looking back it was money and time well spent. When I found out William Safire fed us a line of bullshit about Mohammed Atta and Iraq and the Czech secret service it sort of broke my heart a little.)
posted by bukvich at 8:49 AM on August 18, 2016
Paying the New York Times for information is the same to me now as tipping the clerk at Starbucks. Sure a bunch of people do it. I am absolutely without a clue why they do so.
I think the better analogy is showing up to Starbucks and expecting to get a coffee gratis. Eventually you are not going to get any coffee, even if you want to pay for it.
posted by helmutdog at 8:54 AM on August 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
I think the better analogy is showing up to Starbucks and expecting to get a coffee gratis. Eventually you are not going to get any coffee, even if you want to pay for it.
posted by helmutdog at 8:54 AM on August 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
Or even better: the coffee is now $25 dollars a cup, because in the past we were able to find (not always ethical) ways of making it cheap for you, but now we can't, and we don't know yet how to get back to that.
posted by Melismata at 8:59 AM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by Melismata at 8:59 AM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
So many comments here tell us how to steal, beat, grab, the NY Times without paying and then we wonder why the paper is in trouble. Guess? Perhaps because your are finding ways to beat them out of their money
Relax - I don't think any secrets have been shared in this thread that are not already commonly known. Also, many of us who can't quite justify ponying up the current fee for regular digital access have spent plenty over the years on paper subscriptions of the Sunday edition, or individual copies of the Times from newsstands.
I will add that if I still lived in the metropolitan area, no question I would have daily delivery, and my assumption is that as the digital media marketplace evolves, it's very likely they will sooner or later come up with a model that works for out of towners like me who still have an interest in both their feature journalism and NYC news.
posted by aught at 9:00 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Relax - I don't think any secrets have been shared in this thread that are not already commonly known. Also, many of us who can't quite justify ponying up the current fee for regular digital access have spent plenty over the years on paper subscriptions of the Sunday edition, or individual copies of the Times from newsstands.
I will add that if I still lived in the metropolitan area, no question I would have daily delivery, and my assumption is that as the digital media marketplace evolves, it's very likely they will sooner or later come up with a model that works for out of towners like me who still have an interest in both their feature journalism and NYC news.
posted by aught at 9:00 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
have they thought about rebranding as nyonc, Inc
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:05 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:05 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
Uh oh, is there something bad about Brule?
Only if there is something wrong with being a golden god
posted by JPD at 9:06 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
Only if there is something wrong with being a golden god
posted by JPD at 9:06 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
the times failed because the Sulzbergers didn't invest in VCs and find Page and Brin as undergrads? Is that really what you are saying?
I'll say it. The Wall Street Journal was an early customer of research lab search technology in the early 1990s, as a customer of WAIS, a (for the time) massively parallel search engine. The WSJ was also one of the major digital bodies of text accessible to search researchers of the era.
While WAIS went away (along with many other search engines), WSJ had it right: being aware of and engaged with new developments in search and digital text was crucial. They were there early. The New York Times meanwhile was probably optimizing their print plant.
posted by zippy at 9:14 AM on August 18, 2016
I'll say it. The Wall Street Journal was an early customer of research lab search technology in the early 1990s, as a customer of WAIS, a (for the time) massively parallel search engine. The WSJ was also one of the major digital bodies of text accessible to search researchers of the era.
While WAIS went away (along with many other search engines), WSJ had it right: being aware of and engaged with new developments in search and digital text was crucial. They were there early. The New York Times meanwhile was probably optimizing their print plant.
posted by zippy at 9:14 AM on August 18, 2016
No the WSJ f'up is not being Bloomberg, not not being Google.
I know its the capitalist classes fault for constantly telling people how much smarter they are than the untermenschen but sometimes shit just happens. Newspapers are like the Baltimore Opera Hat Company and Amalgamated Spats.
posted by JPD at 9:57 AM on August 18, 2016
I know its the capitalist classes fault for constantly telling people how much smarter they are than the untermenschen but sometimes shit just happens. Newspapers are like the Baltimore Opera Hat Company and Amalgamated Spats.
posted by JPD at 9:57 AM on August 18, 2016
...many of us who can't quite justify ponying up the current fee for regular digital access have spent plenty over the years on paper subscriptions of the Sunday edition, or individual copies of the Times from newsstands.
Funny how easy it is to justify theft. Or blame the victim.
posted by sixpack at 9:58 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
Funny how easy it is to justify theft. Or blame the victim.
posted by sixpack at 9:58 AM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I’m always surprised at the widespread schadenfreude people display in any story about a traditional media business struggling to transition to a digital business model. Book publishers, movie studios, journalism, record labels — there’s always a healthy population anticipating their demises with glee. People in media businesses also get a lot of blame for not being smart enough to figure it out, as if somehow this is a super easy problem to solve (and you see lots of armchair solutions from people with zero understanding or experience of the business models) and somehow it’s just that literally everybody in these businesses is a total moron.
And yes I’m biased because I’ve worked in both traditional and digital media, so I know the kinds of people involved. They’re generally smart, and 85% of them are in it because they sincerely love the medium. And no, no model is perfect, and record labels in particular can draw up really shitty contracts with artists. But these are not people figuring out new financial instruments to earn exorbitant fees for zero work off the backs of the unsuspecting or disadvantaged. So the delight people take is weird to me, and the blame reminds me that there are no circumstances under which we are not happy to blame people for financial forces beyond their control.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:01 AM on August 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
And yes I’m biased because I’ve worked in both traditional and digital media, so I know the kinds of people involved. They’re generally smart, and 85% of them are in it because they sincerely love the medium. And no, no model is perfect, and record labels in particular can draw up really shitty contracts with artists. But these are not people figuring out new financial instruments to earn exorbitant fees for zero work off the backs of the unsuspecting or disadvantaged. So the delight people take is weird to me, and the blame reminds me that there are no circumstances under which we are not happy to blame people for financial forces beyond their control.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:01 AM on August 18, 2016 [20 favorites]
phooky Man, it's so frustrating to see people saying things like "I won't support journalism because this outlet prints something/employs someone I disagree with". Of course they do! That's their job. If you need to agree with everything you read in the paper, you probably should just be reading your Facebook feed instead. or the NY Post, but only if you're a complete asshole
But yeah, your paper shouldn't be making you yell "rah rah" all day long. It should make you angry, delighted, confused, pissed off. You should write angry letters to the editor. When you talk to your friends and acquaintances about the issues of the day the conversation should be longer than "I know, right???"
I think there's an essential difference between a good newspaper that includes people or opinions you object to, and a newspaper that proudly continues to employ known liars who deliberately fabricated stories to help a conservative government sell a war.
There's a difference between saying "well, this paper includes an editorialist I hate so fuck 'em", and saying "the entire editorial department of the paper is composed of nothing but far right to center right douchebags each with an amazing track record of being totally and completely wrong, if they don't they hire some liberals to balance things out I don't see any point in subscribing"
Seriously, David Brooks, wrong about everything. Thomas Friedman, wrong about everything and unrepentant asshole hawk who said, and I quote:
Likewise I think supporting a paper that has never even tried to apologize or make right their empowering of people like Judith Miller and their lies on behalf of Buh's war is a bridge too far in the field of appreciating alternative viewpoints.
Alternative reality based viewpoints are great. Lying liars who just love war for its own sake not so much.
Likewise, I'd like to support a news organization that has actual liberals around, not just far right and center right commentators.
posted by sotonohito at 10:02 AM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
But yeah, your paper shouldn't be making you yell "rah rah" all day long. It should make you angry, delighted, confused, pissed off. You should write angry letters to the editor. When you talk to your friends and acquaintances about the issues of the day the conversation should be longer than "I know, right???"
I think there's an essential difference between a good newspaper that includes people or opinions you object to, and a newspaper that proudly continues to employ known liars who deliberately fabricated stories to help a conservative government sell a war.
There's a difference between saying "well, this paper includes an editorialist I hate so fuck 'em", and saying "the entire editorial department of the paper is composed of nothing but far right to center right douchebags each with an amazing track record of being totally and completely wrong, if they don't they hire some liberals to balance things out I don't see any point in subscribing"
Seriously, David Brooks, wrong about everything. Thomas Friedman, wrong about everything and unrepentant asshole hawk who said, and I quote:
We needed to go over there, basically, and take out a very big stick right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble.… What they [Muslims] needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house from Basra to Baghdad and basically saying "Which part of this sentence don't you understand? You don't think we care about our open society? You think this bubble fantasy, we're just going to let it grow? Well, suck on this!" That, Charlie, is what this war was about. We could have hit Saudi Arabia! It was part of that bubble. We could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.So yeah, I'm down with papers having diverse views up to a point. I'm not at all in favor of supporting a paper that keeps paying far right choads who are objectively wrong most of the time to spew bullshit. There's conservative commentary that isn't of the Brooks erudite but objectively false variety, or the Friedman rampaging asshole and objectively false variety.
Likewise I think supporting a paper that has never even tried to apologize or make right their empowering of people like Judith Miller and their lies on behalf of Buh's war is a bridge too far in the field of appreciating alternative viewpoints.
Alternative reality based viewpoints are great. Lying liars who just love war for its own sake not so much.
Likewise, I'd like to support a news organization that has actual liberals around, not just far right and center right commentators.
posted by sotonohito at 10:02 AM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
Chasing the conservative reader is an exercise in futility, they don't read much and they get all their news from FOX or various right wing fever swamps online (Worldnet Daily, or Breitbart or whatever). So their long running policy of running as far from liberals as possible in pursuit of those conservative readers might be in need of reversal if they'd like to stay in business.
They fire the known liars, they dump the fringe right choads who do opinion pieces and in their place they hire a few actual liberal or lefty commentators and some real reporters instead of just right wing liars and I'll consider buying their paper.
posted by sotonohito at 10:05 AM on August 18, 2016
They fire the known liars, they dump the fringe right choads who do opinion pieces and in their place they hire a few actual liberal or lefty commentators and some real reporters instead of just right wing liars and I'll consider buying their paper.
posted by sotonohito at 10:05 AM on August 18, 2016
Oo oo time for one of my favorite Onion articles!
"It's almost as if The New York Times is equating itself with a business trying to function in a capitalistic society."
I'm an impoverished millennial or whatever, and I've done my share of mooching off of people's HBOGo passwords at times, etc. I do not particularly enjoy, y'know, paying for things. But I pay for the goddamned New York Times. Because I want it to stay in business. I think our world would be infinitely worse off without it. I am not exaggerating.
So, I pay for it. Obviously, that's my decision - not everyone needs to make the same choice I do. But even when I've been eating ramen in between jobs, I'm still paying for the NYT. (And giving to Planned Parenthood, which is another story.) Even though I know how easy it is to get around the paywall. I'm okay with paying so that it can stay operational and pay for its employees and figure out how to stay afloat. I hope some other people make that choice too, or we're truly fucked.
posted by bookgirl18 at 10:13 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
"It's almost as if The New York Times is equating itself with a business trying to function in a capitalistic society."
I'm an impoverished millennial or whatever, and I've done my share of mooching off of people's HBOGo passwords at times, etc. I do not particularly enjoy, y'know, paying for things. But I pay for the goddamned New York Times. Because I want it to stay in business. I think our world would be infinitely worse off without it. I am not exaggerating.
So, I pay for it. Obviously, that's my decision - not everyone needs to make the same choice I do. But even when I've been eating ramen in between jobs, I'm still paying for the NYT. (And giving to Planned Parenthood, which is another story.) Even though I know how easy it is to get around the paywall. I'm okay with paying so that it can stay operational and pay for its employees and figure out how to stay afloat. I hope some other people make that choice too, or we're truly fucked.
posted by bookgirl18 at 10:13 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Is Maureen O'dowd still there? Because she is reason enough to avoid the Times
posted by Dashy at 10:23 AM on August 18, 2016
posted by Dashy at 10:23 AM on August 18, 2016
Also I love how this thread about the NY Times mirrors the conversation we have about Democrats in every election post
-- They suck, they’re basically Republicans, they deserve to die, they’re the tool of sinister government forces
-- Well it’s a tough environment, they do some good
-- They're stupid and I won’t support them until they more closely adhere to my desires
-- Yes but the perfect is the enemy of the good, and really they’re better than you’re giving them credit for. Would you rather live in a world that's ONLY Fox and Brietbart?
ad inf.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:29 AM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
-- They suck, they’re basically Republicans, they deserve to die, they’re the tool of sinister government forces
-- Well it’s a tough environment, they do some good
-- They're stupid and I won’t support them until they more closely adhere to my desires
-- Yes but the perfect is the enemy of the good, and really they’re better than you’re giving them credit for. Would you rather live in a world that's ONLY Fox and Brietbart?
ad inf.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 10:29 AM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
Also I love how this thread about the NY Times mirrors the conversation we have about Democrats in every election post
That's why I say it's a sign of the times, and why I think the whole attitude is a symptom of a deeper sickness.
Man, it's so frustrating to see people saying things like "I won't support journalism because this outlet prints something/employs someone I disagree with". Of course they do! That's their job. If you need to agree with everything you read in the paper, you probably should just be reading your Facebook feed instead.
But everything is supposed to be exactly how you want it, businesses have relentlessly taught us that. If it's not 100% the way you want it then something is wrong and you throw the whole thing out. Not to mention the additional message of the last couple of decades of "everything should be free". Like Trump is to the Republicans, I feel like this shallow 'every customer a petty dictator' message is the monster Capitalism built and comes back to destroy the master.
I’m always surprised at the widespread schadenfreude people display in any story about a traditional media business struggling to transition to a digital business model. Book publishers, movie studios, journalism, record labels — there’s always a healthy population anticipating their demises with glee. People in media businesses also get a lot of blame for not being smart enough to figure it out, as if somehow this is a super easy problem to solve (and you see lots of armchair solutions from people with zero understanding or experience of the business models) and somehow it’s just that literally everybody in these businesses is a total moron.
I have a hard time with those that make those kind of flippant arguments, because it so much falls under the category of having no understanding of how little you understand something. I don't know what they think is going to replace all these business models, mostly it's a weird combination of wishful thinking and rose colored glasses mixed with ignorance.
posted by bongo_x at 10:55 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
That's why I say it's a sign of the times, and why I think the whole attitude is a symptom of a deeper sickness.
Man, it's so frustrating to see people saying things like "I won't support journalism because this outlet prints something/employs someone I disagree with". Of course they do! That's their job. If you need to agree with everything you read in the paper, you probably should just be reading your Facebook feed instead.
But everything is supposed to be exactly how you want it, businesses have relentlessly taught us that. If it's not 100% the way you want it then something is wrong and you throw the whole thing out. Not to mention the additional message of the last couple of decades of "everything should be free". Like Trump is to the Republicans, I feel like this shallow 'every customer a petty dictator' message is the monster Capitalism built and comes back to destroy the master.
I’m always surprised at the widespread schadenfreude people display in any story about a traditional media business struggling to transition to a digital business model. Book publishers, movie studios, journalism, record labels — there’s always a healthy population anticipating their demises with glee. People in media businesses also get a lot of blame for not being smart enough to figure it out, as if somehow this is a super easy problem to solve (and you see lots of armchair solutions from people with zero understanding or experience of the business models) and somehow it’s just that literally everybody in these businesses is a total moron.
I have a hard time with those that make those kind of flippant arguments, because it so much falls under the category of having no understanding of how little you understand something. I don't know what they think is going to replace all these business models, mostly it's a weird combination of wishful thinking and rose colored glasses mixed with ignorance.
posted by bongo_x at 10:55 AM on August 18, 2016 [4 favorites]
You... you all know that you don't actually have to read the op-ed page, right? That the bulk of the paper is actual solid reporting?
posted by phooky at 11:07 AM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by phooky at 11:07 AM on August 18, 2016 [9 favorites]
I'm honestly not even sure some people understand what the op-ed is, or what the difference between that and reporting is anymore.
posted by bongo_x at 11:14 AM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by bongo_x at 11:14 AM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
You... you all know that you don't actually have to read the op-ed page, right? That the bulk of the paper is actual solid reporting?
You know that Judith Miller wasn't writing op-eds, right?
posted by Etrigan at 11:16 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
You know that Judith Miller wasn't writing op-eds, right?
posted by Etrigan at 11:16 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
In the word association game, when I hear "NY Times", the first association in my mind is "that organization that convinced the USA to go to war". I was mostly unfamiliar with US news media at the time and was shocked to the core by the journalistic abomination that was the NY Times.
Today I am horrified to learn that the people who lead that charge into abandoning all journalistic principles continue to enjoy creating the NY Times. (I had assumed some serious soul-searching and reorganization would have taken place. I guess they did some bullshit PR damage control instead?)
So I am additionally horrified to learn today that the NY Times is considered some of the best journalism remaining in the US and is being seen as the US fourth estate's last best hope.
It's like watching a movie where the abused spouse is trying to cover up swelling and bruises while saying to the shocked onlooker "you don't understand - he might not be perfect, but it's best for me if I stay with him", but the movie is a period piece set in unforgiving times for a divorced women (the media world of Fox News), so you're really not sure if she's saying that because of the syndrome, or if she's actually correct that she can't do any better and is better off staying with him.
This thread is absolutely depressing.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Today I am horrified to learn that the people who lead that charge into abandoning all journalistic principles continue to enjoy creating the NY Times. (I had assumed some serious soul-searching and reorganization would have taken place. I guess they did some bullshit PR damage control instead?)
So I am additionally horrified to learn today that the NY Times is considered some of the best journalism remaining in the US and is being seen as the US fourth estate's last best hope.
It's like watching a movie where the abused spouse is trying to cover up swelling and bruises while saying to the shocked onlooker "you don't understand - he might not be perfect, but it's best for me if I stay with him", but the movie is a period piece set in unforgiving times for a divorced women (the media world of Fox News), so you're really not sure if she's saying that because of the syndrome, or if she's actually correct that she can't do any better and is better off staying with him.
This thread is absolutely depressing.
posted by -harlequin- at 11:36 AM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
Man, it's so frustrating to see people saying things like "I won't support journalism because this outlet prints something/employs someone I disagree with". Of course they do! That's their job. If you need to agree with everything you read in the paper, you probably should just be reading your Facebook feed instead. or the NY Post, but only if you're a complete asshole
But yeah, your paper shouldn't be making you yell "rah rah" all day long. It should make you angry, delighted, confused, pissed off. You should write angry letters to the editor. When you talk to your friends and acquaintances about the issues of the day the conversation should be longer than "I know, right???"
Read something that angers you once in a while. It's good for the soul.
There's a lot here I personally disagree with, but in some ways the weirdest is the idea that the New York Times is engaging in daring provocation by employing Thomas Friedman.
posted by Copronymus at 11:40 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
But yeah, your paper shouldn't be making you yell "rah rah" all day long. It should make you angry, delighted, confused, pissed off. You should write angry letters to the editor. When you talk to your friends and acquaintances about the issues of the day the conversation should be longer than "I know, right???"
Read something that angers you once in a while. It's good for the soul.
There's a lot here I personally disagree with, but in some ways the weirdest is the idea that the New York Times is engaging in daring provocation by employing Thomas Friedman.
posted by Copronymus at 11:40 AM on August 18, 2016 [2 favorites]
So I am additionally horrified to learn today that the NY Times is considered some of the best journalism remaining in the US and is being seen as the US fourth estate's last best hope
Have you see what else we have?
posted by larthegreat at 11:46 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Have you see what else we have?
posted by larthegreat at 11:46 AM on August 18, 2016 [11 favorites]
Today I am horrified to learn that the people who lead that charge into abandoning all journalistic principles continue to enjoy creating the NY Times. (I had assumed some serious soul-searching and reorganization would have taken place. I guess they did some bullshit PR damage control instead?)
Wait, how exactly did the Times lead the charge into abandoning all journalistic principles to bring the country into war?
My understanding of the matter was that Judith Miller, who had a track record otherwise unremarkable for any particular agenda or shoddiness, reported information (either out of an excess of credulity or driven by a weird, twisted, personal warmongering agenda) that was wrong and helped create a climate that allowed Bush to star the war with Iraq. And that when that came to light, the Times fired her.
I'm not saying there isn't more to this story I don't know, just curious to know what it is.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:47 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Wait, how exactly did the Times lead the charge into abandoning all journalistic principles to bring the country into war?
My understanding of the matter was that Judith Miller, who had a track record otherwise unremarkable for any particular agenda or shoddiness, reported information (either out of an excess of credulity or driven by a weird, twisted, personal warmongering agenda) that was wrong and helped create a climate that allowed Bush to star the war with Iraq. And that when that came to light, the Times fired her.
I'm not saying there isn't more to this story I don't know, just curious to know what it is.
posted by pocketfullofrye at 11:47 AM on August 18, 2016 [5 favorites]
Some of us were of the opinion at the time that it was bogus, and so obviously bogus, that the New York Times ownership and management were war criminals. The absolute best that could be said about them is that they were useful idiots.
posted by bukvich at 12:10 PM on August 18, 2016
posted by bukvich at 12:10 PM on August 18, 2016
Wait, how exactly did the Times lead the charge into abandoning all journalistic principles to bring the country into war?
I was used to newspapers treating political leaders as the agenda-pushing politicians they are, and applying scrutiny to their claims. The Times seemed to me to be running as hard as possible in the opposite direction - it covered the president moving towards war as a leader to be followed, not as a politician pushing a war agenda that should be examined. When the administration imagined some crazy new threat-de-jour to link to Iraq, the Times seemed more fascinated by the potential ramifications of the new threat, as if the source was not political, rather than in seriously and skeptically doing their job.
It acted as an megaphone instead of a brake on the political spin-doctoring coming out of the administration, and gave the banner of legitimacy and respectability to ideas that were flaky from the beginning. Results of that included the Overton window shifting to a place where a journalist actually doing their job was operating outside the window of respectability, and where our only genuine source of intel on Iraq WMD could be successfully denounced as "Inspector Clouseau" because boots on the ground with unlimited access were finding comprehensive facts in clear conflict with the (now-respectable) war agenda.
That said, I was fairly new to US media at the time, so I may be misjudging and/or conflating some of the blame, but it did seem to me that the NY Times was pivotal in how an ungrounded political war-agenda became an intellectually respectable position in the eyes of the nation.
They championed a political war instead of investigating it. That is the absolute antithesis of journalistic principles.
posted by -harlequin- at 12:43 PM on August 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
I was used to newspapers treating political leaders as the agenda-pushing politicians they are, and applying scrutiny to their claims. The Times seemed to me to be running as hard as possible in the opposite direction - it covered the president moving towards war as a leader to be followed, not as a politician pushing a war agenda that should be examined. When the administration imagined some crazy new threat-de-jour to link to Iraq, the Times seemed more fascinated by the potential ramifications of the new threat, as if the source was not political, rather than in seriously and skeptically doing their job.
It acted as an megaphone instead of a brake on the political spin-doctoring coming out of the administration, and gave the banner of legitimacy and respectability to ideas that were flaky from the beginning. Results of that included the Overton window shifting to a place where a journalist actually doing their job was operating outside the window of respectability, and where our only genuine source of intel on Iraq WMD could be successfully denounced as "Inspector Clouseau" because boots on the ground with unlimited access were finding comprehensive facts in clear conflict with the (now-respectable) war agenda.
That said, I was fairly new to US media at the time, so I may be misjudging and/or conflating some of the blame, but it did seem to me that the NY Times was pivotal in how an ungrounded political war-agenda became an intellectually respectable position in the eyes of the nation.
They championed a political war instead of investigating it. That is the absolute antithesis of journalistic principles.
posted by -harlequin- at 12:43 PM on August 18, 2016 [10 favorites]
The Washington Post currently has a newsroom of 700 journalists, and they generate 500 stories a day.
This explains why every time I follow a link to the Washington Post these days I'm amazed by how it's become a clickbait factory. And every article has the 22-year-old author's photo and blog credits like it helps their credibility. (Not 22-year-old-ist; it's just clear this isn't high quality reportage from seasoned veterans.)
posted by stopgap at 2:57 PM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
This explains why every time I follow a link to the Washington Post these days I'm amazed by how it's become a clickbait factory. And every article has the 22-year-old author's photo and blog credits like it helps their credibility. (Not 22-year-old-ist; it's just clear this isn't high quality reportage from seasoned veterans.)
posted by stopgap at 2:57 PM on August 18, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Times is subject to the same laws of gravity as all other news media in the US. They depend on access to government press briefings and unofficial official leaks because they don't have the funds to develop every story from first principles, and the Bush administration was entirely ok with icing out a major newspaper while letting Joe's Desert Eagle Gun Blog in. So you see things like uncritical reporting of the Iraq war because access!
I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that it is something that affects all but the purest of publishers.
posted by zippy at 3:49 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not saying this is a good thing, just that it is something that affects all but the purest of publishers.
posted by zippy at 3:49 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
You... you all know that you don't actually have to read the op-ed page, right? That the bulk of the paper is actual solid reporting?Unfortunately, the former can bleed over and corrupt the latter.
I cancelled my subscription to the NY Times this week because they self-sabotaged the core reason I subscribed to them: having a trustworthy news source for politics that I could share with my progressive friends.
Unfortunately, during the 2016 election the NY Times became the butt of jokes among many of my friends. The perceived bias in coverage didn't help, but it wasn't a deal breaker; the NY Times was hardly unique in that regard. But there were a few incidents where their editorial board overplayed its bias in public, then seemed to lie about it.
Here's one example. In March, the NY Times published a (rare) positive piece about Sanders. It was positive enough that the Sanders campaign shared it with supporters. I forwarded the link to my friends, along with my positive summary of the article and a few excerpts.
I received confused replies from my friends: the article was clearly negative, not positive as I claimed. I had misrepresented elements of the story. Had I even read it?
So I re-read the article and was stunned. It wasn't positive like I thought it was. I honestly couldn't explain how I had gotten things so mixed up. I was embarrassed and felt stupid and - even a bit crazy.
Only much later did I learn the NY Times had made significant edits to the article that night. The edits were enough to shift a net positive article on Sanders to a negative one. They changed the headline several times, cut positive quotes, and added clearly negative editorial commentary to minimize positive elements in the story.
Here's Matt Taibbi's take: How the 'New York Times' Sandbagged Bernie Sanders. (It was also a bit of shallow knock-off a much more in-depth expose Taibbi had done on Sanders years earlier).
And here are the editing changes between the first published version and the second of a handful of subsequent edits.
Initially the editors sidestepped the issue by lumping it in with other small and routine post-publication edits (like correcting spelling, punctuation, or editing for clarity). But if you look at the differences, their explanation would suggest they routinely flip the editorial tone and content of articles. Later they said the changes were added for "nuance and depth." Even other NY Times writers didn't fully buy it.
I don't like being played for a fool, but I moved on. However, not all of my friends did. I'd send them political articles for discussion, they'd reply by aping the NY Times editorial bias for laughs, e.g. re-writing headlines, editing quotes, using "nuance and depth" as a liberal corollary to Fox News, requesting the 'NewsDiffs' link to insure product integrity, etc. I enjoyed the laughs, but after a while it became clear most of them were just done with it.
And so I had to look to other sources if I wanted to share political news stories. It may sound trivial, and perhaps it was, but things like this (it wasn't the only thing) contributed significantly to burning and losing a handful of fairly regular readers.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by Davenhill at 3:54 PM on August 18, 2016 [14 favorites]
It would take a lot more than a handful of stories or staff I didn't like for me to stop using the Times as one of my three or four most significant news sources. I mean, there is no source that anyone has the luxury of being able to read uncritically and treat like gospel truth, never biased in any way and never prone to errors in news judgment. But there is also no source doing daily work this good in the US. There just isn't.
I just can't imagine where you'd go to find the perfectly pure and unsullied source of shining and perfectly calibrated truth that some people seem to feel is their due. Most journalists and editors - and sophisticated readers - recognize that an ideal that can never be fully attained, and accept that the overall effort over time needs to be to get as close as you can while still allowing the messy business of journalism on developing ideas and sensitive issues and diverging opinions to be a messy business, and do so as accountably as possible - which is why, in the Times' case, they have a public editor and go on record about their response, and did in fact take responsibility for their poor handling of the entry into the Iraq war). I mean, I don't know what we're comparing the Times to that doesn't equate to "hypothetical standard of perfection."
posted by Miko at 5:08 PM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
I just can't imagine where you'd go to find the perfectly pure and unsullied source of shining and perfectly calibrated truth that some people seem to feel is their due. Most journalists and editors - and sophisticated readers - recognize that an ideal that can never be fully attained, and accept that the overall effort over time needs to be to get as close as you can while still allowing the messy business of journalism on developing ideas and sensitive issues and diverging opinions to be a messy business, and do so as accountably as possible - which is why, in the Times' case, they have a public editor and go on record about their response, and did in fact take responsibility for their poor handling of the entry into the Iraq war). I mean, I don't know what we're comparing the Times to that doesn't equate to "hypothetical standard of perfection."
posted by Miko at 5:08 PM on August 18, 2016 [8 favorites]
This explains why every time I follow a link to the Washington Post these days I'm amazed by how it's become a clickbait factory.
This is really true - it's also why they've been leaning on Trump so directly, it gets clicks. I did find the source of this factoid, and it comes in this article which also says:
posted by Miko at 5:22 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is really true - it's also why they've been leaning on Trump so directly, it gets clicks. I did find the source of this factoid, and it comes in this article which also says:
The Post newsroom now talks unabashedly about journalism as a consumer product. “[Jeff] constantly tells us, ‘Don’t focus on the competition, focus on the reader,’ ” says Shailesh Prakash, the Post’s chief technology officer. It’s easy to see parallels between Bezos’s philosophy of growth as developed at Amazon — essentially, give the people what they want, as fast as possible — and the changes at the Post. : The Post has ramped up the number of first-person essays, along with health and lifestyle coverage (recent stories: “As a Trans Muslim, I Used to Feel Vulnerable All the Time”; “Low Testosterone Makes You a Better Dad”). Headlines, in particular, have gotten webbier and more sensational (“This Is What Happened When I Drove My Mercedes to Pick Up Food Stamps”)...I don't think they've got it figured out, either. It looks like Bezos' ideas so far are generating faster content to an audience-driven (lower?) standard, leveraging big data, trying to move to mobile, and picking up new clickbait-friendly readers, but continuing to work within the existing system of advertising support. Like most other longtime observers, I just don't think that's going to work, or at least not go anywhere we'd call valuable journalism. Maybe the only viable model, sadly, is the one that's sort of developing where the Post subsidizes a few really good pieces of work with a ton of junk food journalism. I suppose maybe we'll see some media conglomerates start, where things that make money but are crap subsidize serious but costly and money-losing journalism. In fact, that wouldn't be so different from the way a 'newspaper' was initially constructed - editors and publishers have always known that - the sports section, the food section, coupons, TV listings, stock prices and Sunday comics sold the subscriptions, and they ran that kind of particular-audience stuff to support the news operation.
....In early meetings, Bezos suggested things that baffled and worried senior executives: Once, he floated the idea of creating a game that would allow readers to erase vowels from articles they didn’t like; another time, he asked why Post reporters needed editors at all....
...Indeed, for all the talk of innovation at the Post, the paper is succeeding in large part because of a very old-media tradition: the support of a wealthy owner.
...Some Post journalists worry that the Amazonian values of growing an audience by giving the customers what they want could conflict with journalism’s civic mission to report on unpleasant truths. “There’s gallows humor: Are we selling our soul for traffic?” says one longtime Post staffer. Veteran Post journalists have been spared traffic quotas, but junior employees who blog for the website feel the pressure to produce with great frequency. Baron disputes the criticism that the Post has employed so-called clickbait to juice readership. “The way I would define it is, it has a headline that tries to trick you to read the story and when you get to the story there’s nothing of any substance. I don’t think we have any of that,” he says. “I know what’s generated the traffic here. And it isn’t clickbait.”
...Bezos is also committed to keeping the print edition going for a long while. But inside the paper, there are concerns that the cash spigot won’t run freely forever. “We are his second or third or fourth hobby,” one Post staffer says.
According to sources, the Post’s digital revenue is around $60 million, far below what the newsroom needs to function. The last time total operating revenue for the paper was published, in 2012, it was $580 million; one former executive estimates today it’s probably closer to $350 million. Another Post veteran told me that Bezos said in a meeting that the company’s annual budget, currently around $500 million, will have to be cut by 50 percent over the next three years. The newspaper denies this, and so does Prakash, who does, however, confirm that Bezos told him, “We can’t be an organization that loses gobs and gobs of money.”
posted by Miko at 5:22 PM on August 18, 2016 [1 favorite]
I mean, I don't know what we're comparing the Times to that doesn't equate to "hypothetical standard of perfection."
I can't speak for the strawpersons who feel that a "perfectly pure and unsullied source of shining and perfectly calibrated truth" is their due, but the NYT sitting on the wiretap story for a year, until after a Presidential election it might have affected, is always and forever going to be a huge stain on their credibility.
All the news that's fit to print, unless it's inconvenient for the powerful.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:11 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
I can't speak for the strawpersons who feel that a "perfectly pure and unsullied source of shining and perfectly calibrated truth" is their due, but the NYT sitting on the wiretap story for a year, until after a Presidential election it might have affected, is always and forever going to be a huge stain on their credibility.
All the news that's fit to print, unless it's inconvenient for the powerful.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 2:11 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Miko I dunno if I'd really classify the page you linked as the Times taking responsibility or apologizing. They blamed it all on the close circle of Iraqi defectors, not on themselves being eager to sell the war and an apparent desire on the part of their reporters to be all buddy buddy with the Bush administration.
And I'm not after some perfect shining beacon of truth, I'm just after a paper that does a bit more than act as a megaphone for those in power. People who do journalism rather than stenography.
Seriously, if I need to know what the powerful have to say their press releases are on their websites these days, I don't need to read them in the Times. What is needed are not transcriptionists who see their job to be uncritically passing along "leaked" information, but journalists who actually try to find the truth even if it is truth uncomfortable to the ruling elites. Or who, at best, present outright lies from one side as "side A says X, but a spokesman from side B disagrees".
The NYT was unabashedly pro-war when Bush was busy trying to drum up support for his adventure in Iraq. I don't argue that they singlehandedly steered the nation into agreement, but they did give his efforts cover in the sense that Republicans could say "see, even the liberal NYT agrees that something must be done about Saddam!"
And they've never apologized for that, never fired senior editors who made that decision, never did anything but blame the Iraqi exiles and a mysterious process whereby "mistakes were made", but not by anyone.
posted by sotonohito at 4:07 AM on August 19, 2016
And I'm not after some perfect shining beacon of truth, I'm just after a paper that does a bit more than act as a megaphone for those in power. People who do journalism rather than stenography.
Seriously, if I need to know what the powerful have to say their press releases are on their websites these days, I don't need to read them in the Times. What is needed are not transcriptionists who see their job to be uncritically passing along "leaked" information, but journalists who actually try to find the truth even if it is truth uncomfortable to the ruling elites. Or who, at best, present outright lies from one side as "side A says X, but a spokesman from side B disagrees".
The NYT was unabashedly pro-war when Bush was busy trying to drum up support for his adventure in Iraq. I don't argue that they singlehandedly steered the nation into agreement, but they did give his efforts cover in the sense that Republicans could say "see, even the liberal NYT agrees that something must be done about Saddam!"
And they've never apologized for that, never fired senior editors who made that decision, never did anything but blame the Iraqi exiles and a mysterious process whereby "mistakes were made", but not by anyone.
posted by sotonohito at 4:07 AM on August 19, 2016
And the sort of people who classically had careers at the Times have pedigrees very close to the sort of people who end up in the elite ranks of government; they are all classmates.
You know this veers pretty close to tinfoil hat, right? Those pedigrees are everywhere at the top of government, politics, business, and law.
. it's arguable whether there has been a business model for "Times journalism" since the great "softening" of the late sixties when they added the "womens" sections.
Uhh, the Times, like virtually every American newspaper, added women's sections in the first quarter of the 20th century. (They were originally called "home economics" sections in some papers.) The first was the New York Daily World women's page, which began in 1891. (I know the Times had a women's desk in 1940, but I'm pretty sure that's not when it began.)
When the Times did away with the women's pages--a desk, I might add, where some of the most renowned Times journalists did stints--and added daily lifestyle sections, an internal traffic study in the early 1970s showed that they were THE most read sections of the paper. Advertising in women's pages, lifestyle pages, and style sections has absolutely been profitable and has carried other sections of the paper. This idea that such writing is "soft" is just wildly blatant misogyny that has dogged such writing for over a hundred years.
posted by listen, lady at 5:58 AM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
You know this veers pretty close to tinfoil hat, right? Those pedigrees are everywhere at the top of government, politics, business, and law.
. it's arguable whether there has been a business model for "Times journalism" since the great "softening" of the late sixties when they added the "womens" sections.
Uhh, the Times, like virtually every American newspaper, added women's sections in the first quarter of the 20th century. (They were originally called "home economics" sections in some papers.) The first was the New York Daily World women's page, which began in 1891. (I know the Times had a women's desk in 1940, but I'm pretty sure that's not when it began.)
When the Times did away with the women's pages--a desk, I might add, where some of the most renowned Times journalists did stints--and added daily lifestyle sections, an internal traffic study in the early 1970s showed that they were THE most read sections of the paper. Advertising in women's pages, lifestyle pages, and style sections has absolutely been profitable and has carried other sections of the paper. This idea that such writing is "soft" is just wildly blatant misogyny that has dogged such writing for over a hundred years.
posted by listen, lady at 5:58 AM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
Okay, the Times is not above criticism for its ethical lapses. I'm not trying to suggest that at ALL. I do want to say, in regard to this
Only much later did I learn the NY Times had made significant edits to the article that night. The edits were enough to shift a net positive article on Sanders to a negative one. They changed the headline several times, cut positive quotes, and added clearly negative editorial commentary to minimize positive elements in the story.
that it has been pretty common since the days when newspapers ran multiple editions. We've sort of lost that history because the final editions are the ones that get archived. What happened with this particular story sounds like a problem! But the fact of a story getting revised multiple times isn't necessarily so.
posted by listen, lady at 6:01 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Only much later did I learn the NY Times had made significant edits to the article that night. The edits were enough to shift a net positive article on Sanders to a negative one. They changed the headline several times, cut positive quotes, and added clearly negative editorial commentary to minimize positive elements in the story.
that it has been pretty common since the days when newspapers ran multiple editions. We've sort of lost that history because the final editions are the ones that get archived. What happened with this particular story sounds like a problem! But the fact of a story getting revised multiple times isn't necessarily so.
posted by listen, lady at 6:01 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
@Davinhill: You're not the only one. The debacle concerning the article you touched upon is exactly the same reason that I am no longer an avid reader of the NY Times.
posted by CottonCandyCapers at 6:41 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by CottonCandyCapers at 6:41 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm just after a paper that does a bit more than act as a megaphone for those in power. People who do journalism rather than stenography.
A paper such as.....?
The NYT was unabashedly pro-war
It happens! Their home city had a horrific attack and this seemed to be connected, according the sources they were crediting. Newspaper editorial boards do have stances. That can affect the stories they choose to cover and the resources they put in place in the newsroom. It is possible to know this, keep it in mind as a critical frame, and still glean a great deal of value from the work the paper as a whole does. It's about being a mindful and critical consumer of news, not expecting a perfect reflection of reality which is beyond the power of humans to produce, even during very murky events (in the case of Iraq, surrounded by mystification and misinformation). You can love and value a paper and still critique what it does - in fact, regular readers do and should.
Or who, at best, present outright lies from one side as "side A says X, but a spokesman from side B disagrees".
TV news does that a lot, but the Times is pretty darn good at not doing it, or when it does, adding a gloss to contextualize it according to the current wider editorial view of what's going on. In fact, that's what they did in the Sanders story above, which people objected to. They pulled back on the "side B" quotes because, in fact, the "side B" quotes were supporting a portrait that did not seem to be really supportable given the wider context. I don't see it as sabotage but as shaping the story to reflect a news judgment that the initial piece was too uncritical and too uncontextualized.
I am just still scratching my head about what outlets people read/get news from that they believe are purer and have a better performance record than the New York Times, while also generating daily reporting that is as consistently good and which, in fact, forms the initial investigative basis for a hell of a lot of the work that other outlets end up doing.
posted by Miko at 6:45 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
A paper such as.....?
The NYT was unabashedly pro-war
It happens! Their home city had a horrific attack and this seemed to be connected, according the sources they were crediting. Newspaper editorial boards do have stances. That can affect the stories they choose to cover and the resources they put in place in the newsroom. It is possible to know this, keep it in mind as a critical frame, and still glean a great deal of value from the work the paper as a whole does. It's about being a mindful and critical consumer of news, not expecting a perfect reflection of reality which is beyond the power of humans to produce, even during very murky events (in the case of Iraq, surrounded by mystification and misinformation). You can love and value a paper and still critique what it does - in fact, regular readers do and should.
Or who, at best, present outright lies from one side as "side A says X, but a spokesman from side B disagrees".
TV news does that a lot, but the Times is pretty darn good at not doing it, or when it does, adding a gloss to contextualize it according to the current wider editorial view of what's going on. In fact, that's what they did in the Sanders story above, which people objected to. They pulled back on the "side B" quotes because, in fact, the "side B" quotes were supporting a portrait that did not seem to be really supportable given the wider context. I don't see it as sabotage but as shaping the story to reflect a news judgment that the initial piece was too uncritical and too uncontextualized.
I am just still scratching my head about what outlets people read/get news from that they believe are purer and have a better performance record than the New York Times, while also generating daily reporting that is as consistently good and which, in fact, forms the initial investigative basis for a hell of a lot of the work that other outlets end up doing.
posted by Miko at 6:45 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
better performance record than the New York Times
How many people died in the war that Mothrr Jones helped start?
posted by Etrigan at 6:51 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
How many people died in the war that Mothrr Jones helped start?
posted by Etrigan at 6:51 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Increasingly, I realize that a lot of people who badmouth the Times just don't read the Times. Not all of them, but it's clear that a whole lot of them don't, or you couldn't just write the whole thing off like that. I suppose there's a big difference between people who read a story online here or there, follow the thread of one major event through local media, click on the occasional 'look at these assholes' Styles story, or check the home page every day or so, and people who read the paper - meaning keep up with it daily and spend time consuming and evaluating its output as a fuller, coherent information package and a central news source on a wide variety of topics.
posted by Miko at 6:52 AM on August 19, 2016
posted by Miko at 6:52 AM on August 19, 2016
How many people died in the war that Mothrr Jones helped start?
I could snarkily ask "What is Mother Jones?" But what is the readership of Mother Jones? And how influential is Mother Jones? And what stories has Mother Jones broken? How come I have a hard time thinking of the names of any Mother Jones writers? What is Mother Jones' editorial stance - is it attempting to produce comprehensive daily reporting from a moderate perspective on national and international news? Or is it luxuriating in the ability to provide reactive commentary once every two months?
Apples and oranges. Mother Jones is a niche publication, which the Times doesn't aim to be.
posted by Miko at 6:54 AM on August 19, 2016
I could snarkily ask "What is Mother Jones?" But what is the readership of Mother Jones? And how influential is Mother Jones? And what stories has Mother Jones broken? How come I have a hard time thinking of the names of any Mother Jones writers? What is Mother Jones' editorial stance - is it attempting to produce comprehensive daily reporting from a moderate perspective on national and international news? Or is it luxuriating in the ability to provide reactive commentary once every two months?
Apples and oranges. Mother Jones is a niche publication, which the Times doesn't aim to be.
posted by Miko at 6:54 AM on August 19, 2016
Increasingly, I realize that a lot of people who badmouth the Times just don't read the Times.
This, and the comment following it, are verging on the "how can you criticize Christianity without studying theology?" line of argument. When an enterprise that boasts of its reputation for serving the truth is repeatedly shown to do the opposite, with demonstrably serious effects, why should we spend hours every day analyzing its output?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:05 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
This, and the comment following it, are verging on the "how can you criticize Christianity without studying theology?" line of argument. When an enterprise that boasts of its reputation for serving the truth is repeatedly shown to do the opposite, with demonstrably serious effects, why should we spend hours every day analyzing its output?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:05 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Miko The fact that a better alternative doesn't exist doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of a bad product.
posted by sotonohito at 7:19 AM on August 19, 2016
posted by sotonohito at 7:19 AM on August 19, 2016
That is exactly what I have been saying. I am also critical of the Times, as I am of every single news source I use. However, I read it, and have for more than 30 years, and so I feel I am in a good position to evaluate it holistically.
posted by Miko at 7:22 AM on August 19, 2016
posted by Miko at 7:22 AM on August 19, 2016
I think we've now fully recapitulated the standard MeFi Democratic politics thread.
Harsh criticism
Accusations that the critics are helping the enemy and that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good
Assertions that there's a difference between criticism and trying to destroy something
Demands for examples of the perfect
Repetition of the arguments from both sides with added calls for proof that the other people prove their right to complain/defend
Everyone is convinced that the other side is secret conservative sympathizers and/or anarchists hellbent on burning everything to the ground
posted by sotonohito at 7:26 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Harsh criticism
Accusations that the critics are helping the enemy and that the perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the good
Assertions that there's a difference between criticism and trying to destroy something
Demands for examples of the perfect
Repetition of the arguments from both sides with added calls for proof that the other people prove their right to complain/defend
Everyone is convinced that the other side is secret conservative sympathizers and/or anarchists hellbent on burning everything to the ground
posted by sotonohito at 7:26 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
And yet, it still sucks that we can't have a real liberal publication. Whether or not that absence is justified by journalistic standards, business reality, or whatever, it still sucks that the very best we can get is a far right to center right publication that does very little but act as a stenographer for the powerful.
Why is it that wanting such a thing makes me a bad person?
posted by sotonohito at 7:28 AM on August 19, 2016
Why is it that wanting such a thing makes me a bad person?
posted by sotonohito at 7:28 AM on August 19, 2016
It's just that this argument comes close to a nihilistic rejection of all information sources, one that is painfully close to the anti-intellectual and propagandistic tactics of the right to undermine the use of all news sources not favorable to its views. If the Times is unreadable because its politics or management are disagreeable to a given reader, then what is pure enough to be readable? And how useful is that pure outlet, when it is likely less frequent, less in-depth, has less longevity of coverage, less analysis and pushback, than the Times? What other news outlets could you turn to for daily, investigative, and breaking news presented comprehensively? If you're right that all news products are bad because all are biased, If everything else is equally bad or worse on one or more measures, what can you read that will offer you a wide and summative view of what is going on in the discourse about current events? Demanding ideological purity and management choices that agree with your recommendations exactly, in all outlets, while still holding them to an impossible standard of perfection is essentially asking to not have news, to not have to engage in evaluative and critical thinking and to not have to compare and cross-evaluate information for yourself. Sure, critique the Times. it needs it. But the idea that it's unreadable and useless because you dislike some of what it has done - that, to me, shows a concerning inability to understand what journalism is and how to use it. It's an imperfect science. You can choose not to take advantage of the best sources, despite their flaws, out of a devotion to an ideal of purity, but you will not in the end be taking in superior information - you'll simply be impoverishing the overall field of your knowledge.
posted by Miko at 7:28 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Miko at 7:28 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
The fact that a better alternative doesn't exist doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of a bad product.
That is exactly what I have been saying.
Your version of "exactly" seems to be different from the way anyone else uses it. The closest you've come to letting anyone criticize the NYT unchallenged was when you replied to "The NYT was unabashedly pro-war" with "It happens!"
posted by Etrigan at 7:28 AM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
That is exactly what I have been saying.
Your version of "exactly" seems to be different from the way anyone else uses it. The closest you've come to letting anyone criticize the NYT unchallenged was when you replied to "The NYT was unabashedly pro-war" with "It happens!"
posted by Etrigan at 7:28 AM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's incorrect. If you review, I've said twice, clearly, upthread that no one can ever expect to be uncritical of news sources, that to expect to read uncritically is naive. Critical news consumption is a vital skill for civic participation.
And it does happen. I am sorry that it does, but as history abundantly shows, it does happen. Organizations, and societies, delude themselves. That's why (as above) we need to always read critically.
posted by Miko at 7:32 AM on August 19, 2016
And it does happen. I am sorry that it does, but as history abundantly shows, it does happen. Organizations, and societies, delude themselves. That's why (as above) we need to always read critically.
posted by Miko at 7:32 AM on August 19, 2016
I could snarkily ask "What is Mother Jones?"
June 23rd: "My Four Months as a Private Prison Guard: A Mother Jones Investigation"
August 18th: "Justice Department says it will end use of private prisons"
posted by Celsius1414 at 7:41 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
June 23rd: "My Four Months as a Private Prison Guard: A Mother Jones Investigation"
August 18th: "Justice Department says it will end use of private prisons"
posted by Celsius1414 at 7:41 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Miko I think where we disagree is that you seem to view "I'd like a news outlet that doesn't lie" to be an unattainable ideal only pursued by those too foolish to understand how the real world works, while I think it's not merely possible but should be the **MINIMUM** standard for a news organization.
That the NYT also continues to employ vermin like Friedman, Brooks, and Dowd is simply the icing on the cake. I could tolerate a crappy op-ed page if the front page told the truth. But the front page lying, repeatedly and demonstrably, I view as a dealbreaker.
You seem to think that it's just part of life and something we should accept even if we don't like.
This isn't the perfect getting in the way of the good from my POV but recognizing that a news organization that not merely fails occasionally in its basic mission of telling the truth, but actively abandons the quest for truth and publishes known falsehoods is not a real news organization.
The fact that they seem mostly to be lying for the benefit of politics I despise and oppose while posing as if they were on my side adds some extra gall to my distaste for the NYT, but isn't my core problem.
Was Saddam Hussein actually an existential threat to the USA? Was there a risk of a "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud?" No, and no. And this was known at the time, but if you'd relied on the Times you'd have thought the answers were yes, and yes. That's a problem. To me it indicates that they aren't actually a news agency but a mere propaganda arm for the government.
I don't think it's foolishly seeking purity to ask that a theoretical news agency do the minimum job you expect from news: telling the truth.
posted by sotonohito at 7:54 AM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
That the NYT also continues to employ vermin like Friedman, Brooks, and Dowd is simply the icing on the cake. I could tolerate a crappy op-ed page if the front page told the truth. But the front page lying, repeatedly and demonstrably, I view as a dealbreaker.
You seem to think that it's just part of life and something we should accept even if we don't like.
This isn't the perfect getting in the way of the good from my POV but recognizing that a news organization that not merely fails occasionally in its basic mission of telling the truth, but actively abandons the quest for truth and publishes known falsehoods is not a real news organization.
The fact that they seem mostly to be lying for the benefit of politics I despise and oppose while posing as if they were on my side adds some extra gall to my distaste for the NYT, but isn't my core problem.
Was Saddam Hussein actually an existential threat to the USA? Was there a risk of a "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud?" No, and no. And this was known at the time, but if you'd relied on the Times you'd have thought the answers were yes, and yes. That's a problem. To me it indicates that they aren't actually a news agency but a mere propaganda arm for the government.
I don't think it's foolishly seeking purity to ask that a theoretical news agency do the minimum job you expect from news: telling the truth.
posted by sotonohito at 7:54 AM on August 19, 2016 [3 favorites]
TL;DR: Bias is one thing (but shit, is it really so bad to ask that just one news outlet be biased in my favor? Especially when it claims to be?), outright lying is something I see as a bridge too far.
posted by sotonohito at 7:57 AM on August 19, 2016
posted by sotonohito at 7:57 AM on August 19, 2016
Especially when it claims to be?
The Times doesn't claim an intentional bias. That's entirely a product of its observers, and of an American media environment which skews so largely rightward that a fairly moderate paper gets branded 'liberal' by people with a narrow frame of reference or an ideological axe to grind.
"Lying" is a pretty loaded word and it lacks a referent here. The Times has certainly published things that weren't true, as was later revealed, but which of those events constitute "lying," a wilful, intentional, knowing effort to deceive?
When you demand that a news outlet "tell the truth," I see a problem there. What's the truth? Whose truth? At what moment? How and where can this truth be found? What if the facts are incomplete and stories need to be speculative or require later correction, as happens all the time?
Cjelli articulated my position better than I can. Journalism is a really difficult enterprise. It's subject to every manner of human failing, and it's visible again and again across the industry - no outlet is perfect, no responsible outlet can perfectly represent either the ideal of objectivity or the ideal of perfect ideological compliance. The Times overall does a damn good job at it, better than most, maybe all, given the role they have laid out for themselves. It's no accident, too, that most leaders read a variety of sources, contrast them and think critically about all of them. It's a good idea to be critical and to ask for further evidence and accountability. But it would be a worse world without the Times in it, and not just because of one set of issues or stories, but because of the vast range of topics they cover, and their absolutely bedrock role in all other major media projects in the nation.
posted by Miko at 8:24 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Times doesn't claim an intentional bias. That's entirely a product of its observers, and of an American media environment which skews so largely rightward that a fairly moderate paper gets branded 'liberal' by people with a narrow frame of reference or an ideological axe to grind.
"Lying" is a pretty loaded word and it lacks a referent here. The Times has certainly published things that weren't true, as was later revealed, but which of those events constitute "lying," a wilful, intentional, knowing effort to deceive?
When you demand that a news outlet "tell the truth," I see a problem there. What's the truth? Whose truth? At what moment? How and where can this truth be found? What if the facts are incomplete and stories need to be speculative or require later correction, as happens all the time?
Cjelli articulated my position better than I can. Journalism is a really difficult enterprise. It's subject to every manner of human failing, and it's visible again and again across the industry - no outlet is perfect, no responsible outlet can perfectly represent either the ideal of objectivity or the ideal of perfect ideological compliance. The Times overall does a damn good job at it, better than most, maybe all, given the role they have laid out for themselves. It's no accident, too, that most leaders read a variety of sources, contrast them and think critically about all of them. It's a good idea to be critical and to ask for further evidence and accountability. But it would be a worse world without the Times in it, and not just because of one set of issues or stories, but because of the vast range of topics they cover, and their absolutely bedrock role in all other major media projects in the nation.
posted by Miko at 8:24 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Miko, I agree with almost everything you say. Journalism is hard, finding the truth is hard.
I disagree with "who's truth". There is no who's truth, reality is reality, opinions vary, facts don't. Truth is truth no matter what a person wants to believe.
But that's a side issue.
Where we disagree is that you seem to view the problems with the Times as unforced errors, just natural problems arising from the difficulty in finding the truth.
I see it as a deliberate effort to deceive. In the instance where the Times sat on the fact that Bush was conducting illegal wiretapping is one where they clearly lied by omission. They had essential data and, to advance the political agenda of one politician over another, they did not publish it.
I think the cheerleading for the Iraq war was another, if less clearcut, instance. Judith Miller was lying, she knew she was lying, and the Times published her lies uncritically.
There's making mistakes, and there's deliberately deceiving. And i think the Times stepped over the bounds into deliberate deception on many occasions.
To me that makes them not a news organization, but a propaganda machine. Not inherently different from FOX, but perhaps even more dangerous because they still manage to maintain an aura of respectability.
Mistakes I forgive, everyone screws up especially on hard stuff. Outright lying to promote an agenda I don't.
posted by sotonohito at 8:49 AM on August 19, 2016
I disagree with "who's truth". There is no who's truth, reality is reality, opinions vary, facts don't. Truth is truth no matter what a person wants to believe.
But that's a side issue.
Where we disagree is that you seem to view the problems with the Times as unforced errors, just natural problems arising from the difficulty in finding the truth.
I see it as a deliberate effort to deceive. In the instance where the Times sat on the fact that Bush was conducting illegal wiretapping is one where they clearly lied by omission. They had essential data and, to advance the political agenda of one politician over another, they did not publish it.
I think the cheerleading for the Iraq war was another, if less clearcut, instance. Judith Miller was lying, she knew she was lying, and the Times published her lies uncritically.
There's making mistakes, and there's deliberately deceiving. And i think the Times stepped over the bounds into deliberate deception on many occasions.
To me that makes them not a news organization, but a propaganda machine. Not inherently different from FOX, but perhaps even more dangerous because they still manage to maintain an aura of respectability.
Mistakes I forgive, everyone screws up especially on hard stuff. Outright lying to promote an agenda I don't.
posted by sotonohito at 8:49 AM on August 19, 2016
There is no who's truth, reality is reality, opinions vary, facts don't.
It seems so easy, right? But facts necessarily have to pass through fields of human perception in order to be communicated, and that's where things get more difficult.
In the instance where the Times sat on the fact that Bush was conducting illegal wiretapping is one where they clearly lied by omission. They had essential data and, to advance the political agenda of one politician over another, they did not publish it.
They had been told by the highest officials that to reveal the tactic would put lives at risk and undermine the wider effort to surface terrorist networks. I'm sympathetic to the idea that they should have just blown it open, but imagine being the editor and facing this decision - realizing that you had to decide between total transparency of reported findings and what you're being told is a clear and direct risk to human life and potentially fostering conditions under which terrorist actors who might be planning further attacks could evade capture ("Although [Lichtblau] strongly believed, and still does, that the story should have run when it was first ready — the fall of 2004 — he sees the historical context as a major reason that it did not...."Three years after 9/11, we, as a country, were still under the influence of that trauma, and we, as a newspaper, were not immune,” Mr. Keller said."). I can understand editorial decisions that sometimes, when you accept the narrative that national security is at stake, you need to sit on a story. Imagine publishing plans for D-Day or Hiroshima before it happened, for instance. These are difficult decisions.
Also, it has always interested me that the Times took on the biggest burden of reporting and analyzing the DOJ's practices of expanded wiretapping and digital surveillance powers as early as the late 1990s, and that history of openly critiquing the DOJ's pushes under both Clinton and Bush had gone largely unremarked until the NSA/Bush/Cheney story. The NYT had the NSA story because it had been on the story for years. Who else was out there doing that work? Who had begun that conversation? Who was capable of doing the intensive follow-up reporting - reporting that set a new agenda for the wider national press based on greater challenge and skepticism for federal plans driven by a security rationale? It was a difficult passage for the Times, and they did a lot of things that are easy to critique in hindsight, particularly in being averse to acknowledging their own role in bowing to the NSA and Bush Administration. But they and their staff also did most of the good work on this topic - the work that means we know about it at all.
I'm not sure there's any way to persuade folks who are dead set against ever saying a good word about the NYT. I still believe a lot of it is rooted in a general misunderstanding of what a news outlet is, does, and can be expected to produce - or maybe in wishful thinking about that topic. What I do recommend, if you are interested in issues of journalistic management, decision-making, news judgment and critique, is spending some time with the Columbia Journalism Review, which is a great source for independent analysis on what newspapers do, and On the Media. I think sources like these provide an additional level of insight as to what producing news involves, including awful dilemmas, grievous errors, and the difficulty of presenting 'reality.'
posted by Miko at 9:30 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
It seems so easy, right? But facts necessarily have to pass through fields of human perception in order to be communicated, and that's where things get more difficult.
In the instance where the Times sat on the fact that Bush was conducting illegal wiretapping is one where they clearly lied by omission. They had essential data and, to advance the political agenda of one politician over another, they did not publish it.
They had been told by the highest officials that to reveal the tactic would put lives at risk and undermine the wider effort to surface terrorist networks. I'm sympathetic to the idea that they should have just blown it open, but imagine being the editor and facing this decision - realizing that you had to decide between total transparency of reported findings and what you're being told is a clear and direct risk to human life and potentially fostering conditions under which terrorist actors who might be planning further attacks could evade capture ("Although [Lichtblau] strongly believed, and still does, that the story should have run when it was first ready — the fall of 2004 — he sees the historical context as a major reason that it did not...."Three years after 9/11, we, as a country, were still under the influence of that trauma, and we, as a newspaper, were not immune,” Mr. Keller said."). I can understand editorial decisions that sometimes, when you accept the narrative that national security is at stake, you need to sit on a story. Imagine publishing plans for D-Day or Hiroshima before it happened, for instance. These are difficult decisions.
Also, it has always interested me that the Times took on the biggest burden of reporting and analyzing the DOJ's practices of expanded wiretapping and digital surveillance powers as early as the late 1990s, and that history of openly critiquing the DOJ's pushes under both Clinton and Bush had gone largely unremarked until the NSA/Bush/Cheney story. The NYT had the NSA story because it had been on the story for years. Who else was out there doing that work? Who had begun that conversation? Who was capable of doing the intensive follow-up reporting - reporting that set a new agenda for the wider national press based on greater challenge and skepticism for federal plans driven by a security rationale? It was a difficult passage for the Times, and they did a lot of things that are easy to critique in hindsight, particularly in being averse to acknowledging their own role in bowing to the NSA and Bush Administration. But they and their staff also did most of the good work on this topic - the work that means we know about it at all.
I'm not sure there's any way to persuade folks who are dead set against ever saying a good word about the NYT. I still believe a lot of it is rooted in a general misunderstanding of what a news outlet is, does, and can be expected to produce - or maybe in wishful thinking about that topic. What I do recommend, if you are interested in issues of journalistic management, decision-making, news judgment and critique, is spending some time with the Columbia Journalism Review, which is a great source for independent analysis on what newspapers do, and On the Media. I think sources like these provide an additional level of insight as to what producing news involves, including awful dilemmas, grievous errors, and the difficulty of presenting 'reality.'
posted by Miko at 9:30 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Imagine publishing plans for D-Day or Hiroshima before it happened, for instance.
Imagine if you had in 1943 published a series of uncritical stories parroting the Roosevelt administration's insistence that Higinio Moríñigo was the most dangerous man in the most dangerous region of the world, and he had several secret armor corps that could strike Los Angeles with scarcely a day's notice, and that the U.S. desperately needed to divert resources from the war in Europe to invade and occupy Paraguay as a result.
As long as we're imagining, let's imagine the proper context.
posted by Etrigan at 9:43 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Imagine if you had in 1943 published a series of uncritical stories parroting the Roosevelt administration's insistence that Higinio Moríñigo was the most dangerous man in the most dangerous region of the world, and he had several secret armor corps that could strike Los Angeles with scarcely a day's notice, and that the U.S. desperately needed to divert resources from the war in Europe to invade and occupy Paraguay as a result.
As long as we're imagining, let's imagine the proper context.
posted by Etrigan at 9:43 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
They had been told by the highest officials that to reveal the tactic would put lives at risk and undermine the wider effort to surface terrorist networks.
And I'm supposed to believe that they were such innocent babes in the woods that it never even occurred to them to think that the same Bush administration that lied to start a war might lie to them again? That it never once occurred to anyone at the NYT that Bush might be lying to help his political career and he was enlisting them as active soldiers in the Republican Party?
I don't think I'm overly cynical there. And, citing 9/11 and the paranoia felt by **SOME** people doesn't really help much except to convince me more than ever that the NYT decision makers were on the wrong side. There were plenty of people who took a skeptical view of Bush and didn't take everything he said at face value.
More to the point though, my question for you is how many wars the Republicans want does a newspaper have to lie to help start, how many elections does a newspaper have to lie to help tilt towards the Republicans, before you decide that it stops falling into the category "news organization" and starts falling into the category "Republican Party propaganda mill"?
I can't see those two categories as having overlap. To me they're mutually exclusive. You can't, in my mind, both spread Republican lies to benefit the Republican party **AND ALSO** be a real news organization no matter what the percentage of lies that help Republicans vs. truth is.
My answer is one. Lie to help the Republicans start one war, and I consider you mere propaganda and no longer news. Lie to help one Republican get elected and I consider you to be mere propaganda and no longer news.
To me it is mind boggling that you seem to consider it acceptable to read the Times, presumably wondering at each story "is this story true, or are they lying to promote the Republican agenda **AGAIN**" and think this is acceptable.
So what's your number? How many more wars will the NYT have to lie to help start before you think of them as Republican propaganda instead of news? Two? Five? A hundred? What's the number?
posted by sotonohito at 9:45 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
And I'm supposed to believe that they were such innocent babes in the woods that it never even occurred to them to think that the same Bush administration that lied to start a war might lie to them again? That it never once occurred to anyone at the NYT that Bush might be lying to help his political career and he was enlisting them as active soldiers in the Republican Party?
I don't think I'm overly cynical there. And, citing 9/11 and the paranoia felt by **SOME** people doesn't really help much except to convince me more than ever that the NYT decision makers were on the wrong side. There were plenty of people who took a skeptical view of Bush and didn't take everything he said at face value.
More to the point though, my question for you is how many wars the Republicans want does a newspaper have to lie to help start, how many elections does a newspaper have to lie to help tilt towards the Republicans, before you decide that it stops falling into the category "news organization" and starts falling into the category "Republican Party propaganda mill"?
I can't see those two categories as having overlap. To me they're mutually exclusive. You can't, in my mind, both spread Republican lies to benefit the Republican party **AND ALSO** be a real news organization no matter what the percentage of lies that help Republicans vs. truth is.
My answer is one. Lie to help the Republicans start one war, and I consider you mere propaganda and no longer news. Lie to help one Republican get elected and I consider you to be mere propaganda and no longer news.
To me it is mind boggling that you seem to consider it acceptable to read the Times, presumably wondering at each story "is this story true, or are they lying to promote the Republican agenda **AGAIN**" and think this is acceptable.
So what's your number? How many more wars will the NYT have to lie to help start before you think of them as Republican propaganda instead of news? Two? Five? A hundred? What's the number?
posted by sotonohito at 9:45 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think the NYT has some great stuff. I'm not going to claim that it's 100% propaganda. But for me the line is one war. They crossed it, so I don't support them.
If they'd fire every single person associated with Judith Miller, have a deep and through purge of all the Republican plants, and yes I'm going to count the op-ed people because at this point the presumption of good faith is gone and I think at this point it is reasonable to think they keep the liar Thomas Friedman around because they support his agenda, if they publish a deep expose of every single thing that went wrong, naming names and explaining how every single person named was fired, then and only then could I think of the Times as trying to win back trust and being a real news organization again.
Until then I see them as having abused my trust once and therefore no longer deserving of it. Maybe I'm oversensitive, maybe I'm taking it personally, but the political is personal. Bush hurt me and people I cared about and the NYT helped him do it. So I feel hurt by them too. I see them as his allies, people on his side, not people on mine.
Why would I give money to help my enemies? Let them beg the Koch brothers for support. They chose their side, they told me to fuck off, so I listened and I've fucked off.
posted by sotonohito at 9:51 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
If they'd fire every single person associated with Judith Miller, have a deep and through purge of all the Republican plants, and yes I'm going to count the op-ed people because at this point the presumption of good faith is gone and I think at this point it is reasonable to think they keep the liar Thomas Friedman around because they support his agenda, if they publish a deep expose of every single thing that went wrong, naming names and explaining how every single person named was fired, then and only then could I think of the Times as trying to win back trust and being a real news organization again.
Until then I see them as having abused my trust once and therefore no longer deserving of it. Maybe I'm oversensitive, maybe I'm taking it personally, but the political is personal. Bush hurt me and people I cared about and the NYT helped him do it. So I feel hurt by them too. I see them as his allies, people on his side, not people on mine.
Why would I give money to help my enemies? Let them beg the Koch brothers for support. They chose their side, they told me to fuck off, so I listened and I've fucked off.
posted by sotonohito at 9:51 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Oh, and where was the Time's supposed fear of hurting agents in the field when they helped Judith Miller out Valarie Plame in an act of political revenge? Again, they chose their side, and the supposed concern they had for the lives of US intelligence agents went right out the window. They saw an opportunity to collect a scalp for Carl Rove and they took it.
"Hey Ms. Plame? Fuck you, we're announcing to the world that you're a CIA agent because your husband didn't help Bush lie for a war, hope the enemy kills you! Sincerely the New York Times"
Their credibility about "lives lost" ended the moment they published Miller's hit piece against Plame.
Clearly they didn't care about lives lost, therefore clearly they didn't sit on the wiretapping story about concern for lives lost. QED.
posted by sotonohito at 9:56 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
"Hey Ms. Plame? Fuck you, we're announcing to the world that you're a CIA agent because your husband didn't help Bush lie for a war, hope the enemy kills you! Sincerely the New York Times"
Their credibility about "lives lost" ended the moment they published Miller's hit piece against Plame.
Clearly they didn't care about lives lost, therefore clearly they didn't sit on the wiretapping story about concern for lives lost. QED.
posted by sotonohito at 9:56 AM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
Sorry, too aggressive. I'm being an asshole again.
Leaving for a while. Didn't mean to jump at you Miko.
posted by sotonohito at 10:07 AM on August 19, 2016
Leaving for a while. Didn't mean to jump at you Miko.
posted by sotonohito at 10:07 AM on August 19, 2016
Demanding ideological purity and management choices that agree with your recommendations exactly, in all outlets, while still holding them to an impossible standard of perfection is essentially asking to not have news,
Which is what I think is going to happen. I guess I'm pessimistic, but I just see things more in terms of what is likely to happen.
It clear from talking to people and reading comments that people don't judge things based on "what's my best option" or "what's the best choice available", that way of thinking has been nearly driven out. "What matches my thinking and preferences 100% and is preferably free" is assumed to be the best choice and everything else is rejected. I don't know if this can be changed.
One of the biggest problems, as pointed out, is that you the consumer are never wrong. Everyone is becoming the spoiled rich kid, without the money.
posted by bongo_x at 11:45 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which is what I think is going to happen. I guess I'm pessimistic, but I just see things more in terms of what is likely to happen.
It clear from talking to people and reading comments that people don't judge things based on "what's my best option" or "what's the best choice available", that way of thinking has been nearly driven out. "What matches my thinking and preferences 100% and is preferably free" is assumed to be the best choice and everything else is rejected. I don't know if this can be changed.
One of the biggest problems, as pointed out, is that you the consumer are never wrong. Everyone is becoming the spoiled rich kid, without the money.
posted by bongo_x at 11:45 AM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Which is what I think is going to happen.
I'm kind of afraid that's where we're headed, too. I mean, the elite are always going to need good actionable information relevant to their interests and goals, and a market focused on them will provide ways they can get it. But for topics they don't care about, and for the rest of us, it doesn't look too good, unless some sort of deus ex machina emerges to really shift the information marketplace.
posted by Miko at 12:11 PM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm kind of afraid that's where we're headed, too. I mean, the elite are always going to need good actionable information relevant to their interests and goals, and a market focused on them will provide ways they can get it. But for topics they don't care about, and for the rest of us, it doesn't look too good, unless some sort of deus ex machina emerges to really shift the information marketplace.
posted by Miko at 12:11 PM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
Sunday-only delivery includes full digital access, but is cheaper than the digital only subscription.
Is this true? I've seen this stated before but the math doesn't seem to work out for me.
The cheapest digital-only subscription (website+phone apps, but not including tablets) is $15/4 weeks. (It's significantly more for the tablet or tablet+phone subscriptions.)
I was comparing the rate for tablet+phone+website to Sunday delivery (which includes "full digital access," i.e. all of the above).
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:22 PM on August 19, 2016
Is this true? I've seen this stated before but the math doesn't seem to work out for me.
The cheapest digital-only subscription (website+phone apps, but not including tablets) is $15/4 weeks. (It's significantly more for the tablet or tablet+phone subscriptions.)
I was comparing the rate for tablet+phone+website to Sunday delivery (which includes "full digital access," i.e. all of the above).
posted by snuffleupagus at 12:22 PM on August 19, 2016
Mother Jones is not the NYT. That's just a silly comparison. They do different jobs.
posted by bongo_x at 12:28 PM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by bongo_x at 12:28 PM on August 19, 2016 [2 favorites]
bongo_x Trying to tone it down and not be an asshole here. But don't you see a difference between "a news outlet that's not perfect" and "a news outlet that has on at least two provable occasions lied to benefit the Republican party"?
I mean, yeah, perfect isn't possible. But surely we can do better than getting our news from active Republican propaganda agents? If lies from Republican operatives really is our best option or the best choice available, then I think we might really be better off letting it burn and seeing what can be salvaged from the ashes.
And, not to sound like I'm whining, but sheesh, can't anything ever be biased my way? Why are us on the left always the people who have to settle instead of being catered to? The right has dozens of, well not news, but "media" outlets that specifically and deliberately pander to them. I can't help but think that if there was a FOX news equivalent for liberals it'd force the "center" that places like the Times claim to serve more towards the left.
But even not catering to the left, I'd pay good money for a news source that wasn't proven on more than one occasion to have lied for the benefit of Republicans. I'm just not seeing why I should pay good money for one that has. Is that really, truly, the "best available option"? If so, yeesh.
posted by sotonohito at 3:51 PM on August 19, 2016
I mean, yeah, perfect isn't possible. But surely we can do better than getting our news from active Republican propaganda agents? If lies from Republican operatives really is our best option or the best choice available, then I think we might really be better off letting it burn and seeing what can be salvaged from the ashes.
And, not to sound like I'm whining, but sheesh, can't anything ever be biased my way? Why are us on the left always the people who have to settle instead of being catered to? The right has dozens of, well not news, but "media" outlets that specifically and deliberately pander to them. I can't help but think that if there was a FOX news equivalent for liberals it'd force the "center" that places like the Times claim to serve more towards the left.
But even not catering to the left, I'd pay good money for a news source that wasn't proven on more than one occasion to have lied for the benefit of Republicans. I'm just not seeing why I should pay good money for one that has. Is that really, truly, the "best available option"? If so, yeesh.
posted by sotonohito at 3:51 PM on August 19, 2016
Your perceptions of the two instances in question are just really hyperbolic, from the imputed motives ("to benefit the Republican Party") to the characterizations ("Republican propaganda agents"). It's not really possible to engage your points when the perceptions are so out of proportion with the actual history of these events. The fact that you're able to boil the entire paper's history down to these soundbites is one of the main reasons why it seems kind of pointless to talk about it, because if that sums up your considered opinion of the work and history of this news outlet, there's no way to have a reasonable discussion about it. It ends up being the same discussion as we'd have with the extreme right-wing fantastist folks who also think the paper is an evil cartoon conspiracy, just from the other side, Jewish banking and all. When in boring old reality it's just a plenty flawed and imperfect but still vital, centra and important news organization.
can't anything ever be biased my way?
Well, there are plenty of lefty/liberal magazines.
posted by Miko at 5:33 PM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
can't anything ever be biased my way?
Well, there are plenty of lefty/liberal magazines.
posted by Miko at 5:33 PM on August 19, 2016 [1 favorite]
bongo_x Trying to tone it down and not be an asshole here.
Whoa. I have no idea what you're on about. You're apparently reading something that isn't there.
posted by bongo_x at 7:09 PM on August 19, 2016
Whoa. I have no idea what you're on about. You're apparently reading something that isn't there.
posted by bongo_x at 7:09 PM on August 19, 2016
"But I pay for the goddamned New York Times. Because I want it to stay in business. I think our world would be infinitely worse off without it."
This.
Pre-internet if you didn't want to pay for a newspaper you had to find a copy at a coffee shop or the library or a copy left behind in a public place.
I pay $3 a week for online access to my local newspaper because I hate the hardcopy being 80% ads and 10% international news I can find anywhere on the net. But for those of us in small population states, supporting our local newspapers keeps a source of current news alive that we would never get anywhere else.
And the New York Times has great information. After my WSJ hardcopy subscription runs out I will be going digital for the times.
posted by ITravelMontana at 7:41 PM on August 19, 2016
This.
Pre-internet if you didn't want to pay for a newspaper you had to find a copy at a coffee shop or the library or a copy left behind in a public place.
I pay $3 a week for online access to my local newspaper because I hate the hardcopy being 80% ads and 10% international news I can find anywhere on the net. But for those of us in small population states, supporting our local newspapers keeps a source of current news alive that we would never get anywhere else.
And the New York Times has great information. After my WSJ hardcopy subscription runs out I will be going digital for the times.
posted by ITravelMontana at 7:41 PM on August 19, 2016
bongo_x Oh, extremely sorry. I phrased that poorly. I meant **I** was trying to tone it down and not be an asshole. You're fine.
posted by sotonohito at 4:33 AM on August 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by sotonohito at 4:33 AM on August 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
Miko I'll admit that I have a tendency to see the world in black and white friend/enemy terms, and to take institutional acts personally. I also tend to assign motives when the expressed motive does not (from my POV) match observed actions.
Around the time of the Iraq War I was reading the Times regularly, free copies were available at my university so despite being broke I had access.
And I remember it seemed like much of America was going mad under the beat of the war drum. But at first it was a minority. That's not just my opinion, that's what polling shows. In January of 2003 barely 31% of Americans supported invading Iraq. By March it as 54%, and in April it was over 67%.
The coverage from the Times was continuously, unabashedly, and unreservedly pro-war from the very beginning.
I don't say they were the deciding factor, but they had a journalistic obligation to the truth, an obligation to live up to their reputation as the sober minded arbiters of facts, and that very reputation as a semi-liberal paper which favored cold blooded analysis and a conservative (in the not radical sense) approach to things made their beating of the war drum a much bigger and important event than it otherwise might have been.
It set the tone for discussion in that time. With the Times so stridently and clearly calling for the war, opposition to the war seemed nationally to become a fringe position and quickly became a fringe position as coverage everywhere followed the NYT and simply omitted any anti-war voice, or any inconvenient anti-war facts.
They had a duty. A duty to honesty, to truth, to the reality based community, and they failed. Badly. It wasn't just Judith Miller, though she stands out as an especially egregious example.
I find it difficult to believe that the massive, near total, failure to do even the minimum due diligence on pro-war claims, to exhibit necessary skepticism about George W. Bush (who once said of Saddam Hussein "he tried to kill my daddy" and who had packed his Cabinet with people who had been advocating a war with Iraq for literally over a decade) and the general Republican tendency to use foreign wars to influence domestic opinion towards their political benefit was the result of simple innocent ignorance or foolishness. They can't be that stupid, not and publish a newspaper with legible writing.
How can I not see that as malice? Sure, sure, never attribute to malice what can be better explained by stupidity, but when stupidity is an insufficient explanation what's left?
So yes, I'm bitter and angry. Over a decade later I'm still bitter and angry. It felt then, and feels today, like a personal betrayal.
And then, as if all that wasn't enough, they sat on a story to help Bush win his reelection. I don't know if revealing just how widespread Bush's illegal wiretapping was would really have shifted the election to Kerry, but 2004 was a very tight election. Once they finally broke the story and revealed that they'd suppressed it for Bush's political gain I found their limp excuse of protecting lives flatly unbelievable.
Whether or not they sat around and said "we should help Bush win reelection by suppressing this story", they had to have known that would be one of the major results of suppressing it. By then they, like the rest of the world, didn't have to suspect that Bush had lied to start his wars, they knew it for a stone cold certain fact. So I find it flatly unbelievable that they could take seriously his assertion that revealing his illegal, unconstitutional, wiretapping program would endanger lives.
I find it doubly unbelievable since the Times had published, with no reservations at all, Robert Novak's column outing Valarie Plame as a secret CIA agent, and thus directly endangering her life. That the same NYT who would publish a hit piece that served no purpose but revenge against someone who had embarrassed Bush, a hit piece that directly endangered the life of Plame, would then claim it had to suppress a story embarrassing to Bush to protect agents in the field seems unbelievable. I'm actually kind of insulted that the NYT decision makers seem to think I'm stupid enough to believe that.
You're right. I can't known for sure that they were actual Republicans working explicitly to promote a Republican agenda. But what other explanation covers the available facts and doesn't require me to believe that people smart enough to run a newspaper would be stupid (and inconsistent) enough to fall for Bush's lies a second time? And that's giving them tremendous (and undeserved) benefit of the doubt in assuming they had been genuinely duped the first time around.
If they'd published giant apologies, fired those responsible for the debacles, I could give them the benefit of the doubt, I could believe that perhaps the organization was worth salvaging even if it had badly [1] messed up. But they seemed to think, as you seem to think, that all that was just innocent mistakes, that there was no political agenda, no callous contempt for human life, just a little whoopsie that isn't such a big deal, and that no one needed to be fired, no heads needed to roll, to make up for their sins. That, in fact, the NYT hadn't sinned at all, that it had merely been mistaken.
I could support a repentant sinner NYT, at least if the repentance seemed genuine.
But an NYT that maintains it was innocent, an NYT that maintains it never sinned and therefore needs pay no penance?
Their insistence on their own innocence means that, given the opportunity, they'll do the exact same thing again. Why should I support them when it just means that the next time a politician wants their support for a war they'll cheerfully start beating the war drums again? Why should I support them when it means that the next time a politician finds a story embarrassing they'll sit on it until after the politician is safely reelected?
Why should I support a "news" organization that seems to view itself as a partner in Washington's agenda rather than a skeptical observer trying to dig up the truth?
If that truly, genuinely, is the very best that America can do right now I'm at a loss for words to even describe how fucked we are.
[1] In the "starting unnecessary wars that resulted in over a million people being killed" sense of the word badly.
posted by sotonohito at 5:24 AM on August 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
Around the time of the Iraq War I was reading the Times regularly, free copies were available at my university so despite being broke I had access.
And I remember it seemed like much of America was going mad under the beat of the war drum. But at first it was a minority. That's not just my opinion, that's what polling shows. In January of 2003 barely 31% of Americans supported invading Iraq. By March it as 54%, and in April it was over 67%.
The coverage from the Times was continuously, unabashedly, and unreservedly pro-war from the very beginning.
I don't say they were the deciding factor, but they had a journalistic obligation to the truth, an obligation to live up to their reputation as the sober minded arbiters of facts, and that very reputation as a semi-liberal paper which favored cold blooded analysis and a conservative (in the not radical sense) approach to things made their beating of the war drum a much bigger and important event than it otherwise might have been.
It set the tone for discussion in that time. With the Times so stridently and clearly calling for the war, opposition to the war seemed nationally to become a fringe position and quickly became a fringe position as coverage everywhere followed the NYT and simply omitted any anti-war voice, or any inconvenient anti-war facts.
They had a duty. A duty to honesty, to truth, to the reality based community, and they failed. Badly. It wasn't just Judith Miller, though she stands out as an especially egregious example.
I find it difficult to believe that the massive, near total, failure to do even the minimum due diligence on pro-war claims, to exhibit necessary skepticism about George W. Bush (who once said of Saddam Hussein "he tried to kill my daddy" and who had packed his Cabinet with people who had been advocating a war with Iraq for literally over a decade) and the general Republican tendency to use foreign wars to influence domestic opinion towards their political benefit was the result of simple innocent ignorance or foolishness. They can't be that stupid, not and publish a newspaper with legible writing.
How can I not see that as malice? Sure, sure, never attribute to malice what can be better explained by stupidity, but when stupidity is an insufficient explanation what's left?
So yes, I'm bitter and angry. Over a decade later I'm still bitter and angry. It felt then, and feels today, like a personal betrayal.
And then, as if all that wasn't enough, they sat on a story to help Bush win his reelection. I don't know if revealing just how widespread Bush's illegal wiretapping was would really have shifted the election to Kerry, but 2004 was a very tight election. Once they finally broke the story and revealed that they'd suppressed it for Bush's political gain I found their limp excuse of protecting lives flatly unbelievable.
Whether or not they sat around and said "we should help Bush win reelection by suppressing this story", they had to have known that would be one of the major results of suppressing it. By then they, like the rest of the world, didn't have to suspect that Bush had lied to start his wars, they knew it for a stone cold certain fact. So I find it flatly unbelievable that they could take seriously his assertion that revealing his illegal, unconstitutional, wiretapping program would endanger lives.
I find it doubly unbelievable since the Times had published, with no reservations at all, Robert Novak's column outing Valarie Plame as a secret CIA agent, and thus directly endangering her life. That the same NYT who would publish a hit piece that served no purpose but revenge against someone who had embarrassed Bush, a hit piece that directly endangered the life of Plame, would then claim it had to suppress a story embarrassing to Bush to protect agents in the field seems unbelievable. I'm actually kind of insulted that the NYT decision makers seem to think I'm stupid enough to believe that.
You're right. I can't known for sure that they were actual Republicans working explicitly to promote a Republican agenda. But what other explanation covers the available facts and doesn't require me to believe that people smart enough to run a newspaper would be stupid (and inconsistent) enough to fall for Bush's lies a second time? And that's giving them tremendous (and undeserved) benefit of the doubt in assuming they had been genuinely duped the first time around.
If they'd published giant apologies, fired those responsible for the debacles, I could give them the benefit of the doubt, I could believe that perhaps the organization was worth salvaging even if it had badly [1] messed up. But they seemed to think, as you seem to think, that all that was just innocent mistakes, that there was no political agenda, no callous contempt for human life, just a little whoopsie that isn't such a big deal, and that no one needed to be fired, no heads needed to roll, to make up for their sins. That, in fact, the NYT hadn't sinned at all, that it had merely been mistaken.
I could support a repentant sinner NYT, at least if the repentance seemed genuine.
But an NYT that maintains it was innocent, an NYT that maintains it never sinned and therefore needs pay no penance?
Their insistence on their own innocence means that, given the opportunity, they'll do the exact same thing again. Why should I support them when it just means that the next time a politician wants their support for a war they'll cheerfully start beating the war drums again? Why should I support them when it means that the next time a politician finds a story embarrassing they'll sit on it until after the politician is safely reelected?
Why should I support a "news" organization that seems to view itself as a partner in Washington's agenda rather than a skeptical observer trying to dig up the truth?
If that truly, genuinely, is the very best that America can do right now I'm at a loss for words to even describe how fucked we are.
[1] In the "starting unnecessary wars that resulted in over a million people being killed" sense of the word badly.
posted by sotonohito at 5:24 AM on August 20, 2016 [3 favorites]
never attribute to malice what can be better explained by stupidity fear.
they sat on a storyto help Bush win his reelection because they were told by the President and Secretary of State that to publish it would undermine efforts to cut off future terrorist attacks.
I would never argue these weren't failures. But they are the kind of thing that happens in extraordinary times to a 164-year history of a newspaper, and I do think they've done a lot of post-analysis about it, in the pages of the paper and elsewhere - the kind of open, McNamara-style apology you seem to want is probably not forthcoming because it's just not what journalists really do. Every day's edition is Monday-morning quarterbacked, and I do expect there will be further reflection in the future, but I think there is a clear understanding of the failures and that it is not that hard to account for them historically. And I just think you can't read many assumptions into the discussions that happened at the editorial and publisher level - I really don't think you need malice to account for it, because, observing somewhat closely, across the NY-area media there was a general lack of the critical thinking needed to counter the regional bias about something that frightened everyone personally and at a gut level (I don't know where you have lived, but if you lived anywhere near New York in the early oughts, and knew a lot of people whose lives ended or were irreparably altered by 9/11, it would be clearer how deeply the fear and trauma pervaded the culture throughout the region. It is not especially defensible but it was/is real; I know many people who are still not really over it and people who turned hawkish suddenly, and all the other papers took similar stances on reporting the run up to war). I think they, as were those others, were too blinded by their own closeness to events to realize they needed to listen to cooler heads.
One day, Bill Keller won't be there (he already stepped down from his executive editor role, so he no longer oversees newsroom decisions). But I sure hope the Times will.
I'm at a loss for words to even describe how fucked we are
Maybe we are, but we'd be more fucked without any journalists. The paper does a tremendous amount of good work. Always read critically, no matter what you read. Always be in conversation with what you read, and question stances that seem wrong by communicating directly with the media outlet itself. We need a lot of different and differently managed information sources to understand this imperfect world.
posted by Miko at 7:41 AM on August 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
they sat on a story
I would never argue these weren't failures. But they are the kind of thing that happens in extraordinary times to a 164-year history of a newspaper, and I do think they've done a lot of post-analysis about it, in the pages of the paper and elsewhere - the kind of open, McNamara-style apology you seem to want is probably not forthcoming because it's just not what journalists really do. Every day's edition is Monday-morning quarterbacked, and I do expect there will be further reflection in the future, but I think there is a clear understanding of the failures and that it is not that hard to account for them historically. And I just think you can't read many assumptions into the discussions that happened at the editorial and publisher level - I really don't think you need malice to account for it, because, observing somewhat closely, across the NY-area media there was a general lack of the critical thinking needed to counter the regional bias about something that frightened everyone personally and at a gut level (I don't know where you have lived, but if you lived anywhere near New York in the early oughts, and knew a lot of people whose lives ended or were irreparably altered by 9/11, it would be clearer how deeply the fear and trauma pervaded the culture throughout the region. It is not especially defensible but it was/is real; I know many people who are still not really over it and people who turned hawkish suddenly, and all the other papers took similar stances on reporting the run up to war). I think they, as were those others, were too blinded by their own closeness to events to realize they needed to listen to cooler heads.
One day, Bill Keller won't be there (he already stepped down from his executive editor role, so he no longer oversees newsroom decisions). But I sure hope the Times will.
I'm at a loss for words to even describe how fucked we are
Maybe we are, but we'd be more fucked without any journalists. The paper does a tremendous amount of good work. Always read critically, no matter what you read. Always be in conversation with what you read, and question stances that seem wrong by communicating directly with the media outlet itself. We need a lot of different and differently managed information sources to understand this imperfect world.
posted by Miko at 7:41 AM on August 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
we'd be more fucked without any journalists.
Nobody is advocating the elimination of journalists. The major disservices that the NYT did us were the results of executive decisions. Please stop trying to paint those of us who can't easily forgive those disservices as idealistic purists, and the NYT as the epitome of journalistic excellence.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:08 AM on August 20, 2016
Nobody is advocating the elimination of journalists. The major disservices that the NYT did us were the results of executive decisions. Please stop trying to paint those of us who can't easily forgive those disservices as idealistic purists, and the NYT as the epitome of journalistic excellence.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:08 AM on August 20, 2016
Nobody is advocating the elimination of journalists.
That is the natural endpoint of refusing to read journalists critically and refusing to pay for any journalism.
posted by Miko at 9:18 AM on August 20, 2016
That is the natural endpoint of refusing to read journalists critically and refusing to pay for any journalism.
posted by Miko at 9:18 AM on August 20, 2016
How about refusing to pay for journalism you've read critically and deemed untrustworthy?
What is the natural endpoint of that?
posted by Sys Rq at 9:54 AM on August 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
What is the natural endpoint of that?
posted by Sys Rq at 9:54 AM on August 20, 2016 [2 favorites]
That is the natural endpoint of refusing to read journalists critically and refusing to pay for any journalism.
But the people you're criticizing are not doing that, so your conclusion is question-begging.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:47 AM on August 20, 2016
But the people you're criticizing are not doing that, so your conclusion is question-begging.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:47 AM on August 20, 2016
bongo_x Oh, extremely sorry. I phrased that poorly. I meant **I** was trying to tone it down and not be an asshole. You're fine.
Well, I see that clearly now, I don't why I kept reading that as "Try toning it down...". So sorry, I was baffled as to what I said that was so assholish (there is often so much to choose from).
Miko I'll admit that I have a tendency to see the world in black and white friend/enemy terms, and to take institutional acts personally. I also tend to assign motives when the expressed motive does not (from my POV) match observed actions.
I really don't think there's anymore to the difference of opinion than that. I'm really glad you brought that up though, it reminds me that's a large part of arguments here.
The world I see has no black or white, just shades of grey, and I am often unsure of any particular shade of grey.
posted by bongo_x at 1:09 PM on August 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, I see that clearly now, I don't why I kept reading that as "Try toning it down...". So sorry, I was baffled as to what I said that was so assholish (there is often so much to choose from).
Miko I'll admit that I have a tendency to see the world in black and white friend/enemy terms, and to take institutional acts personally. I also tend to assign motives when the expressed motive does not (from my POV) match observed actions.
I really don't think there's anymore to the difference of opinion than that. I'm really glad you brought that up though, it reminds me that's a large part of arguments here.
The world I see has no black or white, just shades of grey, and I am often unsure of any particular shade of grey.
posted by bongo_x at 1:09 PM on August 20, 2016 [1 favorite]
I really don't think there's anymore to the difference of opinion than that
This is true. There really isn't much more. The world appears mostly grey to me to me as well, with few islands of black and white to retreat to.
posted by Miko at 7:06 PM on August 20, 2016
This is true. There really isn't much more. The world appears mostly grey to me to me as well, with few islands of black and white to retreat to.
posted by Miko at 7:06 PM on August 20, 2016
« Older NSA malware released by "The Shadow Brokers" | Tanks for Sale Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:37 PM on August 17, 2016 [14 favorites]