Thanks for this, Margaret. It boils down this particular issue quite succinctly. I’m curious if you’ve heard from any NYT reporters who are aware/troubled by the paper’s coverage. Is there anyone there who sees how damaging their work is, or are the inmates completely running the asylum? Reading the NYT now makes me so angry I can barely bring myself to look at it.
After years as a subscriber (print on Sundays since childhood when my parents got it & then as an adult; digital weekdays when it became available) I canceled. My anger and frustration were too great. When I called to cancel, my response to “why” was “sloppy, inaccurate headlines and content supporting a fascist .” It just wasn’t with my money when specific Substacks* were better.
*Support those of editorial cartoonists. Pulitzer-winning ones have been pushed out. Read Michael deAdder’s explanation. 4 Have recently been let go leaving them still drawing but not with income.
My personal story is very similar to yours going back decades. I suspect that after the election, I too will cancel my subscription which before 2016 was an unthinkable idea.
Excellent! Many of us long time Times readers are angry. My question for all of you is: Why are they “sanewashing” Trump? What’s wrong with the editors? You will see this kind of thing in articles about Ukraine, too.
An excellent, succinct example, and there are so many - every day - to choose from. The Times has completely lost its way in figuring out how to cover trump and the politics of our moment. Despite a recent editorial board opinion regarding trump’s unfitness, their political coverage continues to be unbelievably biased and prejudicial - a danger to our democracy. The same with other legacy media, though the Times is the most egregious. I unsubscribed last year. I read occasional articles gifted to me - and excellent commentary like yours - that confirms their continued descent to irrelevance. I’d love to think their actual existence is doomed. The end can’t come soon enough.
I am looping in NPR because its newscasts repeatedly play audio of Trump either lying or saying outrageous things, accompanied by the script saying, “falsely stated” or “there was no evidence that ____” Aurora, Colorado was the most recent example.
No! You do not put lies on the air. You do not give lies space in your publication. If the lie is so outrageous that you think it is newsworthy, you label it as such up front. Not, “Here, send your venom out to our audience. We’ll clean it up after.”
Margaret, the question remains, why is this happening? Why can't the NY Times cover Trump accurately? Why does it report his mendacity obliquely? Separately, on the headlines, perhaps it's the fact that the Times has largely given up writing simple declarative headlines. It's okay to back into headlines in some cases such as profiles: "Turning the page, Bob Seger, reminisces on his life on the road" (I made this up). But when the article leads with news, just say it, "Bob Seger regrets spending life on the road" (again, I made this up...I wish Seger was still touring and he probably does too!).
Send this graph to everyone you know and I’ll do the same: Historians: He’s a fascist. Political scientists: He’s a fascist. His own aides: He’s a fascist. The NYT: He shows a wistful longing for a bygone era of global politics.
The reporters' stories carry bylines. Why don't we hear the names of the headline-writers, who seem to answer to a higher authority (the publisher, perhaps?) ?
As a point of information, headlines can be written by different people - the writer, or one of the editors involved in the process. The publisher is not involved, at least not on the news side.
I assume editors write the headlines, and not reporters. But the publisher (who hires and fires any top position in the editorial ranks) holds the top hand.
The first sentence is not unlike a NYT profile of Hitler, published in 1938 just prior to the invasion of Poland. It was written by a British journalist who was found to be a Nazi sympathizer. I can’t recall the exact headline but it was something like “Herr Hitler’s Home in the Clouds”.
I’ve read it and forms the basis, in part, for my take. Churchill take is all mine but does parody the multiple “losing the forest in the trees” NYT takes.
We have three weeks to stop or seriously impede the surge of fascism. Lives are at stake. And the New York Times is hiding the news in paragraph 11. (Beside a useless negative piece on democracy's candidate.). This allows readers, (Trump's demographic--white men) to scan and feel okay about voting Republican, as their fathers did, as they always have.
Heather Cox Richardson wrote about other times the media has failed, and how a new press system rises up in that place. We don't have time though. So many people are working so hard, donating so much, to make up for the negligence of the legacy media. Is there no way to get them to do their job?
Cancelling the Times is not a solution. Kind of an ostriche move. We need to see what is happening to our press and responding to it rather than thinking our paltry subscription makks a difference.
We can still see examples of what the Times is putting out (I won't call it writing) w/o having a paid subscription. One doesn't need to give the NY Times coin to see the examples of their failures.
Why isn’t anyone asking why the Ochs-Sulzberger family is coddling a white supremacist, fascist, racist, bigoted, tax-dodging, lying, rapist with traitor tendencies?
NY Times columnist Gail Collins recently said this in one of her regular conversation with Bret Stephens after he did his usuals schtick about not voting for Trump but needing Harris to give him more reason to vote for her:
“ Gail: You know I’m not gonna tell you that Harris is doing enough serious interviews with national reporters. She’s not. Neither, obviously, is Trump, but we have a right to hold her to a higher standard.”
This shocking admission/defense of a blatant double standard by a prominent NY Times columnist has gotten no coverage. Kevin Drum is the only one who seems to have been bothered by it.
Hi, again, Margaret—If Barbaro of the Times is such a smart guy, he is being disingenuous in challenging you as he did, knowing that his audience is far larger than yours. Maybe, to be fair to you, he ought to invite you to participate on one of his podcasts, so you can tell him to his face what so many observers think about the Times’ election coverage and
Thanks for this, Margaret. It boils down this particular issue quite succinctly. I’m curious if you’ve heard from any NYT reporters who are aware/troubled by the paper’s coverage. Is there anyone there who sees how damaging their work is, or are the inmates completely running the asylum? Reading the NYT now makes me so angry I can barely bring myself to look at it.
After years as a subscriber (print on Sundays since childhood when my parents got it & then as an adult; digital weekdays when it became available) I canceled. My anger and frustration were too great. When I called to cancel, my response to “why” was “sloppy, inaccurate headlines and content supporting a fascist .” It just wasn’t with my money when specific Substacks* were better.
*Support those of editorial cartoonists. Pulitzer-winning ones have been pushed out. Read Michael deAdder’s explanation. 4 Have recently been let go leaving them still drawing but not with income.
My personal story is very similar to yours going back decades. I suspect that after the election, I too will cancel my subscription which before 2016 was an unthinkable idea.
Excellent! Many of us long time Times readers are angry. My question for all of you is: Why are they “sanewashing” Trump? What’s wrong with the editors? You will see this kind of thing in articles about Ukraine, too.
Here's the answer to your questioni from the horse's mouth: https://www.semafor.com/article/05/05/2024/joe-kahn-the-newsroom-is-not-a-safe-space
Appreciating all these comments.
An excellent, succinct example, and there are so many - every day - to choose from. The Times has completely lost its way in figuring out how to cover trump and the politics of our moment. Despite a recent editorial board opinion regarding trump’s unfitness, their political coverage continues to be unbelievably biased and prejudicial - a danger to our democracy. The same with other legacy media, though the Times is the most egregious. I unsubscribed last year. I read occasional articles gifted to me - and excellent commentary like yours - that confirms their continued descent to irrelevance. I’d love to think their actual existence is doomed. The end can’t come soon enough.
Your kicker really nails it, Margaret.
I am looping in NPR because its newscasts repeatedly play audio of Trump either lying or saying outrageous things, accompanied by the script saying, “falsely stated” or “there was no evidence that ____” Aurora, Colorado was the most recent example.
No! You do not put lies on the air. You do not give lies space in your publication. If the lie is so outrageous that you think it is newsworthy, you label it as such up front. Not, “Here, send your venom out to our audience. We’ll clean it up after.”
Margaret, the question remains, why is this happening? Why can't the NY Times cover Trump accurately? Why does it report his mendacity obliquely? Separately, on the headlines, perhaps it's the fact that the Times has largely given up writing simple declarative headlines. It's okay to back into headlines in some cases such as profiles: "Turning the page, Bob Seger, reminisces on his life on the road" (I made this up). But when the article leads with news, just say it, "Bob Seger regrets spending life on the road" (again, I made this up...I wish Seger was still touring and he probably does too!).
Have wondered the same. Is it to sensationalize in the belief non-Times readers will suddenly think it’s a tabloid?
The fish rots from the head. Read this interview with Times executive editor Joe Kahn. It illustrates a great deal about what's wrong with the Times. https://www.semafor.com/article/05/05/2024/joe-kahn-the-newsroom-is-not-a-safe-space
Send this graph to everyone you know and I’ll do the same: Historians: He’s a fascist. Political scientists: He’s a fascist. His own aides: He’s a fascist. The NYT: He shows a wistful longing for a bygone era of global politics.
Agreed. That pithy--and spot-on--quote from Kruse sums up what's wrong with media coverage, and the NYT's in particular, of trump.
General Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump, “Trump is a fascist to the core”. “Trump is a total fascist” .
On CNN:
Gen. Mark Milley : “Trump is a total fascist”.
https://youtu.be/D6dtf8V6XYE?si=5T4fnJ1X2x3ApGOw
The reporters' stories carry bylines. Why don't we hear the names of the headline-writers, who seem to answer to a higher authority (the publisher, perhaps?) ?
As a point of information, headlines can be written by different people - the writer, or one of the editors involved in the process. The publisher is not involved, at least not on the news side.
I assume editors write the headlines, and not reporters. But the publisher (who hires and fires any top position in the editorial ranks) holds the top hand.
“From the aviary of his Tyrolean getaway, Mr. Hitler relaxes with studies of his life long interest in genetics of European Jews.”
“Angry colonialist WS Churchill struggles to find a leadership theme beyond his warlike obsession with a German leader.”
The first sentence is not unlike a NYT profile of Hitler, published in 1938 just prior to the invasion of Poland. It was written by a British journalist who was found to be a Nazi sympathizer. I can’t recall the exact headline but it was something like “Herr Hitler’s Home in the Clouds”.
I’ve read it and forms the basis, in part, for my take. Churchill take is all mine but does parody the multiple “losing the forest in the trees” NYT takes.
We have three weeks to stop or seriously impede the surge of fascism. Lives are at stake. And the New York Times is hiding the news in paragraph 11. (Beside a useless negative piece on democracy's candidate.). This allows readers, (Trump's demographic--white men) to scan and feel okay about voting Republican, as their fathers did, as they always have.
Heather Cox Richardson wrote about other times the media has failed, and how a new press system rises up in that place. We don't have time though. So many people are working so hard, donating so much, to make up for the negligence of the legacy media. Is there no way to get them to do their job?
This nails the reason I canelled my NYT subscrition. Thank you.
Cancelling the Times is not a solution. Kind of an ostriche move. We need to see what is happening to our press and responding to it rather than thinking our paltry subscription makks a difference.
We can still see examples of what the Times is putting out (I won't call it writing) w/o having a paid subscription. One doesn't need to give the NY Times coin to see the examples of their failures.
Can't we do both?
The fish rots from the head. https://www.semafor.com/article/05/05/2024/joe-kahn-the-newsroom-is-not-a-safe-space
Why isn’t anyone asking why the Ochs-Sulzberger family is coddling a white supremacist, fascist, racist, bigoted, tax-dodging, lying, rapist with traitor tendencies?
Doesn't seem to matter what Harris does, it will never be enough. But they seem to think it would be unfair to demand the same of trump.
NY Times columnist Gail Collins recently said this in one of her regular conversation with Bret Stephens after he did his usuals schtick about not voting for Trump but needing Harris to give him more reason to vote for her:
“ Gail: You know I’m not gonna tell you that Harris is doing enough serious interviews with national reporters. She’s not. Neither, obviously, is Trump, but we have a right to hold her to a higher standard.”
https://jabberwocking.com/let-us-hold-donald-trump-to-normal-standards-of-conduct-please/
This shocking admission/defense of a blatant double standard by a prominent NY Times columnist has gotten no coverage. Kevin Drum is the only one who seems to have been bothered by it.
Right. After all, Trump doesn't have to be a human.. he's always been "Trump being Trump".
Oof, the grad student comment is going to leave a mark.
Mike Barbaro threw down the gauntlet and you have replied for which I am extremely grateful.
Hi, again, Margaret—If Barbaro of the Times is such a smart guy, he is being disingenuous in challenging you as he did, knowing that his audience is far larger than yours. Maybe, to be fair to you, he ought to invite you to participate on one of his podcasts, so you can tell him to his face what so many observers think about the Times’ election coverage and