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.
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!).
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 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.”
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.
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.
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?
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?
Well, he DOES hale from very 'big brained' people, genetically, as he explains when he boasts about his uncle, the professor at MIT. That blood relationship gave him encyclopedic science knowledge and understanding so genetics expertise is a given, after all.
No one is coming to save us, we must save ourselves from the fascist and the complicit corporate owned media.
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
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
Can't we do both?
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.
The fish rots from the head. 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.
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?
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?
Now Trump is a geneticist.
Well, he DOES hale from very 'big brained' people, genetically, as he explains when he boasts about his uncle, the professor at MIT. That blood relationship gave him encyclopedic science knowledge and understanding so genetics expertise is a given, after all.
No one is coming to save us, we must save ourselves from the fascist and the complicit corporate owned media.
My NY Times subscription is ended.
Oof, the grad student comment is going to leave a mark.
Excellent.--And chilling.
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.
Right. After all, Trump doesn't have to be a human.. he's always been "Trump being Trump".
“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.”
Mike Barbaro threw down the gauntlet and you have replied for which I am extremely grateful.