If you mean by defending democracy that the NY times STOPS being a fair and unbiased news source, that is nuts! Their job is to REPORT, accurately, not "defend democracy". If you have actual evidence in dates and pages, please post them because I have their complete index at my disposal (I subscribe) and I have seen no (or at least extre…
If you mean by defending democracy that the NY times STOPS being a fair and unbiased news source, that is nuts! Their job is to REPORT, accurately, not "defend democracy". If you have actual evidence in dates and pages, please post them because I have their complete index at my disposal (I subscribe) and I have seen no (or at least extremely little) evidence of this bogus claim. All you critics are sounding like Trump, just making up stuff in the hours that no one questions you. You should think about that before making false criticisms or at least be ready to back up your allegations with dates and page numbers. Trust me I will look up every citation and see if you have a valid claim.
I take accusations of journalistic bias seriously having worked for a news paper in a former life and trust me if the NY times is biased in anyway its in FAVOR of democracy and our current president and not in favor of trump. But I suspect what you see is that they don't come down hard enough on trump for your satisfaction but that is just them doing the proper job of a newspaper.
Jon, they are neither reporting fairly and accurately, nor defending democracy, but while that may not be "their job" it is their role in a democracy, and if they cannot do that, then we should not be wasting our time supporting them.
I, too, am a retired journalist. Just yesterday, I posted about their extreme bias in the comments section. They're losing subscribers for a reason AND harming their own reputation. Very disappointing. Read carefully. They use deprecatory language when describing Harris Walz and laudatory language for Trump. Very disappointing, especially the decks, which erroneously used the term "rebuffed" in describing Harris.
We all read enough papers to know that the NYTimes is not reporting fairly. They have printed seven or eight times as many Trump and Republican related stories as Biden stories. I stopped the times went they relentlessly went after Biden to withdraw from the race.
Try to find a NY Times story where they call Trump on his lies. They report them as fact.
Even Maggie Haberman has towed the line when reporting on Trump and she is one of the best journalists they have.
And the WAPO is only marginally better because they have Jennifer Rubin, Catherine Rampell, Max Boot, Alexandra Petri, Dana Milbank to offset the bias of their editors.
I just don't think you're going to get a lot of support on your position here Jon -- sorry.
That's why all of us need to "take up oxygen" and make sure to get this information out there. I always re-post on all the legislators in my state and have started posting on Mike Johnson's page as well.
You just got an example in the article. I’ve seen it done by Fox for years. Take a true set of circumstances and, sure, report the facts but write it in ways that make the facts seem questionable. Or at least seem to be indicating something other than what they do. I’ve seen articles where the first two or three paragraphs are a basic synopsis, followed by the next three or four that pull in marginally relative facts and quotes that don’t necessarily correlate, but add to the storytelling in a way that makes it seem they do. I’ve seen them pick and choose quotes from people who slant the point of view of the entire article without providing equally valid quotes that would balance it out. Writing is an art; not a science. And art can tell you whatever vision of the truth the artist wants you to see. All without ever actually lying or ignoring the facts. NYT has become adept at that kind or article. It’s a shame. I used to like and respect them for refusing to dip into the fray.
That whole "a neurologist visited the White House umpteen times in the past six months; is Biden on the verge of collapse?" nonsense from just a few months ago is the best example I can think of lately. This is what Mr. Rosen above considers probative and unbiased reporting?
Granted, I'm not interested in or set up for keeping track of published articles in enough detail to get a statistically accurate view of bias and distortions, so I well recognize my vulnerability to my own millieu, biases, and prejudices. Instead, I'm just sitting by the river of information watching stuff float by, wondering if the water really smells funny or is it just me...
If you mean by defending democracy that the NY times STOPS being a fair and unbiased news source, that is nuts! Their job is to REPORT, accurately, not "defend democracy". If you have actual evidence in dates and pages, please post them because I have their complete index at my disposal (I subscribe) and I have seen no (or at least extremely little) evidence of this bogus claim. All you critics are sounding like Trump, just making up stuff in the hours that no one questions you. You should think about that before making false criticisms or at least be ready to back up your allegations with dates and page numbers. Trust me I will look up every citation and see if you have a valid claim.
I take accusations of journalistic bias seriously having worked for a news paper in a former life and trust me if the NY times is biased in anyway its in FAVOR of democracy and our current president and not in favor of trump. But I suspect what you see is that they don't come down hard enough on trump for your satisfaction but that is just them doing the proper job of a newspaper.
Jon, they are neither reporting fairly and accurately, nor defending democracy, but while that may not be "their job" it is their role in a democracy, and if they cannot do that, then we should not be wasting our time supporting them.
I, too, am a retired journalist. Just yesterday, I posted about their extreme bias in the comments section. They're losing subscribers for a reason AND harming their own reputation. Very disappointing. Read carefully. They use deprecatory language when describing Harris Walz and laudatory language for Trump. Very disappointing, especially the decks, which erroneously used the term "rebuffed" in describing Harris.
We all read enough papers to know that the NYTimes is not reporting fairly. They have printed seven or eight times as many Trump and Republican related stories as Biden stories. I stopped the times went they relentlessly went after Biden to withdraw from the race.
Try to find a NY Times story where they call Trump on his lies. They report them as fact.
Even Maggie Haberman has towed the line when reporting on Trump and she is one of the best journalists they have.
And the WAPO is only marginally better because they have Jennifer Rubin, Catherine Rampell, Max Boot, Alexandra Petri, Dana Milbank to offset the bias of their editors.
I just don't think you're going to get a lot of support on your position here Jon -- sorry.
That's why all of us need to "take up oxygen" and make sure to get this information out there. I always re-post on all the legislators in my state and have started posting on Mike Johnson's page as well.
You just got an example in the article. I’ve seen it done by Fox for years. Take a true set of circumstances and, sure, report the facts but write it in ways that make the facts seem questionable. Or at least seem to be indicating something other than what they do. I’ve seen articles where the first two or three paragraphs are a basic synopsis, followed by the next three or four that pull in marginally relative facts and quotes that don’t necessarily correlate, but add to the storytelling in a way that makes it seem they do. I’ve seen them pick and choose quotes from people who slant the point of view of the entire article without providing equally valid quotes that would balance it out. Writing is an art; not a science. And art can tell you whatever vision of the truth the artist wants you to see. All without ever actually lying or ignoring the facts. NYT has become adept at that kind or article. It’s a shame. I used to like and respect them for refusing to dip into the fray.
That whole "a neurologist visited the White House umpteen times in the past six months; is Biden on the verge of collapse?" nonsense from just a few months ago is the best example I can think of lately. This is what Mr. Rosen above considers probative and unbiased reporting?
Granted, I'm not interested in or set up for keeping track of published articles in enough detail to get a statistically accurate view of bias and distortions, so I well recognize my vulnerability to my own millieu, biases, and prejudices. Instead, I'm just sitting by the river of information watching stuff float by, wondering if the water really smells funny or is it just me...
An accusation can be true or false. Is a criticism more like an opinion, therefore, is “false criticism” a thing?