Mr. Rosen, I see that you aren't getting very many responsive answers to your requests for elaboration. As tempting as it may be to apologize for the group, because you deserve a better answer, I'll decline in favor of a more process-oriented answer. Firstly, a great many people don't distinguish very clearly between op-ed and news, a co…
Mr. Rosen, I see that you aren't getting very many responsive answers to your requests for elaboration. As tempting as it may be to apologize for the group, because you deserve a better answer, I'll decline in favor of a more process-oriented answer. Firstly, a great many people don't distinguish very clearly between op-ed and news, a confusion heartily supported by op-ed writers who, in the best of circumstances, include verifiable facts within their articles that support their opinions/analyses. And secondly, I suspect that I'm not the only one who just doesn't keep track of news articles and trends like I expect a working journalist would. Instead, the things that create a lasting "bump" of memory are likely to tend to the outragreous and to have fuzzy attribution, and having a "sense of a trend" is more a feeling than a judgment.
I understand that my reliance on using such vague "impressions" to form my own opinions makes me more vulnerable to misinformation campaigns that drift by. On the other hand, I've got other things to do, thank God, besides obsess over the news. That's why I use as many sources as I can find to get my sense of the world and hope I'm right enough to get through the day.
I think I saw you mention that you're a professional journalist, right? May I ask, where do you get your news from, and who do you work for?
I didn't expect to get many responses because factually speaking, it will be difficult to actually find real excerpts that uphold the view that the NY Times is biased, simply because those excerpts really don't exist (or if they do, there are extremely few available). Sure, the Times makes mistakes, but it is a scrupulously even-handed piece of journalism, which to agree at least a little with the complainers, is very rare. It is one of the few major papers that provides immediate feedback on errors, in the online version right in the stories themselves and typically within a day or so after publication. They also print these retractions prominently.
I was a professional journalist but that was many lives ago LOL, in the 60s and 70s. I worked for the Tucson Daily Citizen (now defunct) and prior to that the Arizona Daily Star (still in publication). Back then our journalism was stellar. I don't think it is anymore (I still read it occasionally as while I live in San Francisco, I have many friends from high school who still live in Tucson). It was acquired by one of the major accumulators of local papers back in the 90s I believe and now it is a homogenized relic with some AP news and some local fluff pieces but very little that would pass as outstanding journalism. Sadly, that is true of most local papers today.
I get my news from a variety of sources, including obviously the New York Times, with occasional glances at the WaPo (which has gone horrendously downhill since the Bezos acquisition, sigh), the LA Times and (said with nose held between two fingers) the Wall Street Journal. I also watch MSNBC, but as I have said, it is NOT journalism, it is the left-wing version of Fox Snooze. Since the commentators on MSNBC tend to tell the truth much more than those at Fox, I find it more palatable, but again, it is almost 100% opinion, not journalism. Favorite commentators are Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Alex Wagner, Stephanie Rule, Ari Melber and Nicole Wallace. I abhor Joy Reid, Lawrence O'Donnell and "Morning" Joe Scarborough, and refuse to watch them anymore. I can handle puffery, but I can't handle the constant pounding of their attitudes. I also enjoy watching Michael Steele (former RNC Chairperson who has abandoned the GOP at least for now) although the further we get away from his departure from his party, the harder line he gets and it starts to be officious, sigh. I also like Jonathan Capehart when he is on, although he also goes to far at times, IMHO.
I almost never watch Fox Snooze because it just takes too much work to listen to the drivel. I watch CNN at times, but relatively rarely. For news, it is slightly better than MSNBC, but what was once a pretty reputable television news operation has fallen on hard times, IMHO, and now is a lot more like MSNBC than it is like the NY Times. Where are you Ted Turner when we need you? (Did I REALLY say that? LOL)
I read plenty of books, particularly about politics. And of course I have been a daily reader of HCR's newsletter for over two years.
I am surprised by the emphasis on "headlines". Anyone who reads a headline and then goes on a rant about the "content" of news in papers is a freaking idiot, IMHO. Apparently that includes a LOT of people who read this blog, which again is surprising to me. Headlines are written by copy editors or a headline desk, which is designed to attract readers. It conveys a minimal amount of information, and is permitted to do so in an "attractive" (or if you prefer obnoxious LOL) manner, that is part of journalism. I remember writing stories at the Star or Citizen, waking up in the morning and looking at the paper and would be astonished at what the headline writer had done (astonished often in a bad way).
But for me, headlines were just to grab a set of eyes. If you use the headline as a benchmark for what is in the story, you are ignorant and uninformed. Read the ARTICLE, that is what the headline is there for, to draw your attention. But it does NOT have to convey much information, and it can even be somewhat deceptive without violating any real journalistic standards.
If you just stay with the headlines, then you are going to be disappointed and shocked, and you will continue to be ignorant. READ THE FREAKING ARTICLES. Then make up your mind.
As I have challenged, I would love to see ANY actual quotations from a NY Times political article that shows extreme (or even moderate) bias toward Trump. I state that it simply doesn't exist and while I might find that I am wrong on a couple or three occasions, it is NOT by any means a major problem, certainly not at the Times (although it is much more a problem nowadays at the LA Times, WaPO and certainly at the WSJ which is of course owned by the Murdochs).
I think (don't know for a fact, but it is suspicion) that people are just too lazy to actually READ things and so they figure they can get an idea by reading the headlines. Sorry folks, it is hard work to be diligent about what you want to criticize and you owe it to yourself AND to those who might listen to you to DO the work and then make u p your mind.
And anyone who STILL will say "the NY Times is biased towards Trump", at least IMHO, is just expressing their OWN bias against having to read things and finding them NOT "critical enough" because they have already taken a position and won't be open-minded enough to read and learn. That is a sorry state to be in. It is of course EXACTLY what we complain about with respect to the right-wing media and their minions, that "those people don't read anything". Sadly we have the same problem and it is, at least from my perspective, worse, because WE should know better.
With that, I am outa here. There is too much blather with very little actual content from the various talking heads on this blog and it just bores me. The number of people who "commented" on my challenge with (as you noted) nothing but vague comments and hand waving rather than actual citations is a joke and I can't waste my time anymore. If Heather wants to let this blog become just ANOTHER source of disinformation, with a hive mind that ignores facts and amplifies nonsensical opinions, that's her choice, it is after all her blog. But I pay a fee to read it and sadly I am now disillusioned that she doesn't weigh in here. Maybe she is worried about her source of income, I could understand that, but to me, this is now nothing but click-bait, just as bad (and maybe worse given how much smarter I think most of these people OUGHT to be) as the right-wing Maga propeller heads.
Have a nice day, week, month and election season. I hope there is still enough sanity in this country to elect Kamala, but judging from the idiots on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, I am not sure any of THEM deserve it.
Mr. Rosen, I see that you aren't getting very many responsive answers to your requests for elaboration. As tempting as it may be to apologize for the group, because you deserve a better answer, I'll decline in favor of a more process-oriented answer. Firstly, a great many people don't distinguish very clearly between op-ed and news, a confusion heartily supported by op-ed writers who, in the best of circumstances, include verifiable facts within their articles that support their opinions/analyses. And secondly, I suspect that I'm not the only one who just doesn't keep track of news articles and trends like I expect a working journalist would. Instead, the things that create a lasting "bump" of memory are likely to tend to the outragreous and to have fuzzy attribution, and having a "sense of a trend" is more a feeling than a judgment.
I understand that my reliance on using such vague "impressions" to form my own opinions makes me more vulnerable to misinformation campaigns that drift by. On the other hand, I've got other things to do, thank God, besides obsess over the news. That's why I use as many sources as I can find to get my sense of the world and hope I'm right enough to get through the day.
I think I saw you mention that you're a professional journalist, right? May I ask, where do you get your news from, and who do you work for?
I didn't expect to get many responses because factually speaking, it will be difficult to actually find real excerpts that uphold the view that the NY Times is biased, simply because those excerpts really don't exist (or if they do, there are extremely few available). Sure, the Times makes mistakes, but it is a scrupulously even-handed piece of journalism, which to agree at least a little with the complainers, is very rare. It is one of the few major papers that provides immediate feedback on errors, in the online version right in the stories themselves and typically within a day or so after publication. They also print these retractions prominently.
I was a professional journalist but that was many lives ago LOL, in the 60s and 70s. I worked for the Tucson Daily Citizen (now defunct) and prior to that the Arizona Daily Star (still in publication). Back then our journalism was stellar. I don't think it is anymore (I still read it occasionally as while I live in San Francisco, I have many friends from high school who still live in Tucson). It was acquired by one of the major accumulators of local papers back in the 90s I believe and now it is a homogenized relic with some AP news and some local fluff pieces but very little that would pass as outstanding journalism. Sadly, that is true of most local papers today.
I get my news from a variety of sources, including obviously the New York Times, with occasional glances at the WaPo (which has gone horrendously downhill since the Bezos acquisition, sigh), the LA Times and (said with nose held between two fingers) the Wall Street Journal. I also watch MSNBC, but as I have said, it is NOT journalism, it is the left-wing version of Fox Snooze. Since the commentators on MSNBC tend to tell the truth much more than those at Fox, I find it more palatable, but again, it is almost 100% opinion, not journalism. Favorite commentators are Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Alex Wagner, Stephanie Rule, Ari Melber and Nicole Wallace. I abhor Joy Reid, Lawrence O'Donnell and "Morning" Joe Scarborough, and refuse to watch them anymore. I can handle puffery, but I can't handle the constant pounding of their attitudes. I also enjoy watching Michael Steele (former RNC Chairperson who has abandoned the GOP at least for now) although the further we get away from his departure from his party, the harder line he gets and it starts to be officious, sigh. I also like Jonathan Capehart when he is on, although he also goes to far at times, IMHO.
I almost never watch Fox Snooze because it just takes too much work to listen to the drivel. I watch CNN at times, but relatively rarely. For news, it is slightly better than MSNBC, but what was once a pretty reputable television news operation has fallen on hard times, IMHO, and now is a lot more like MSNBC than it is like the NY Times. Where are you Ted Turner when we need you? (Did I REALLY say that? LOL)
I read plenty of books, particularly about politics. And of course I have been a daily reader of HCR's newsletter for over two years.
I am surprised by the emphasis on "headlines". Anyone who reads a headline and then goes on a rant about the "content" of news in papers is a freaking idiot, IMHO. Apparently that includes a LOT of people who read this blog, which again is surprising to me. Headlines are written by copy editors or a headline desk, which is designed to attract readers. It conveys a minimal amount of information, and is permitted to do so in an "attractive" (or if you prefer obnoxious LOL) manner, that is part of journalism. I remember writing stories at the Star or Citizen, waking up in the morning and looking at the paper and would be astonished at what the headline writer had done (astonished often in a bad way).
But for me, headlines were just to grab a set of eyes. If you use the headline as a benchmark for what is in the story, you are ignorant and uninformed. Read the ARTICLE, that is what the headline is there for, to draw your attention. But it does NOT have to convey much information, and it can even be somewhat deceptive without violating any real journalistic standards.
If you just stay with the headlines, then you are going to be disappointed and shocked, and you will continue to be ignorant. READ THE FREAKING ARTICLES. Then make up your mind.
As I have challenged, I would love to see ANY actual quotations from a NY Times political article that shows extreme (or even moderate) bias toward Trump. I state that it simply doesn't exist and while I might find that I am wrong on a couple or three occasions, it is NOT by any means a major problem, certainly not at the Times (although it is much more a problem nowadays at the LA Times, WaPO and certainly at the WSJ which is of course owned by the Murdochs).
I think (don't know for a fact, but it is suspicion) that people are just too lazy to actually READ things and so they figure they can get an idea by reading the headlines. Sorry folks, it is hard work to be diligent about what you want to criticize and you owe it to yourself AND to those who might listen to you to DO the work and then make u p your mind.
And anyone who STILL will say "the NY Times is biased towards Trump", at least IMHO, is just expressing their OWN bias against having to read things and finding them NOT "critical enough" because they have already taken a position and won't be open-minded enough to read and learn. That is a sorry state to be in. It is of course EXACTLY what we complain about with respect to the right-wing media and their minions, that "those people don't read anything". Sadly we have the same problem and it is, at least from my perspective, worse, because WE should know better.
With that, I am outa here. There is too much blather with very little actual content from the various talking heads on this blog and it just bores me. The number of people who "commented" on my challenge with (as you noted) nothing but vague comments and hand waving rather than actual citations is a joke and I can't waste my time anymore. If Heather wants to let this blog become just ANOTHER source of disinformation, with a hive mind that ignores facts and amplifies nonsensical opinions, that's her choice, it is after all her blog. But I pay a fee to read it and sadly I am now disillusioned that she doesn't weigh in here. Maybe she is worried about her source of income, I could understand that, but to me, this is now nothing but click-bait, just as bad (and maybe worse given how much smarter I think most of these people OUGHT to be) as the right-wing Maga propeller heads.
Have a nice day, week, month and election season. I hope there is still enough sanity in this country to elect Kamala, but judging from the idiots on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, I am not sure any of THEM deserve it.
Sigh... sigh... (double sigh!)