There is something wrong at the New York Times
There is something wrong at the New York TimesFrom the papers presidential polling to noncoverage of Trumps stumbles, things arent adding up at the Gray Lady
By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV
Columnist
PUBLISHED MARCH 5, 2024 9:01AM (EST)
(Salon) Two things check that three things appear to have gone off the rails at the paper we used to call the Gray Lady. First, whoever is in charge of the papers polls is not doing their job. Second, whoever is choosing what to emphasize in the Times coverage of the campaign for the presidency is showing bias. Third, the Times is obsessed with Joe Bidens age at the same time theyre leaving evidence of Donald Trumps mental and verbal stumbles completely out of the news.
Lets start right there. At a rally on Saturday night in Virginia, Trump confused former president Obama, who left office seven years ago, with President Biden for the third time over the last six months. Putin has so little respect for Obama that hes starting to throw around the nuclear word, Trump said, as his crowd of rabid supporters suddenly fell silent. You heard that. Nuclear. Hes starting to talk nuclear weapons today. You wont find that verbal stumble and the crowds stunned reaction in the Times coverage of the campaign over the weekend. Youll have to subscribe to the online version of The Guardian if you want to learn how Trump is losing his way mid-sentence at rallies and just mumbling incoherently.
The Times on Sunday, however, had this headline ready for your morning coffee: Majority of Bidens 2020 Voters Now Say Hes Too Old to be Effective. Its another grab from the New York Times/Siena College poll they published on Saturday that is so outrageously flawed, a cottage industry has sprung up to pick apart its methodology and point out its glaring contradictions and straight-up bias.
....(snip)....
The truly incredible thing is that the New York Times provides the evidence that would cause any other reasonable journalistic enterprise to question the accuracy of its own poll. The poll shows that Trump still has the support of nearly every Republican who voted for him in 2020 this in the face of the fact that between 30 and 40 percent of primary voters have chosen another candidate than Trump. Those people are not poll respondents. Theyre voters. The Times/Siena poll also somehow comes up with 12 percent support among Democrats for Dean Phillips, who has yet to get more than two percent of the vote in a primary. Even Phillips himself put out a tweet that said When the NYT/Siena poll shows me at 12%, you better believe its flawed. Only 5% even know who I am. The poll also shows that among respondents who described themselves as unhappy with both candidates, they favor Biden over Trump by 12 points. So, Biden has the utterly disaffected vote and carries independents by four points, and hes losing to Trump by four points? ................(more)
https://www.salon.com/2024/03/05/there-is-something-at-the-new-york-times/
Lovie777
(12,392 posts)They are mostly RW, and they hate Pres Biden and the Democrats.
shrike3
(3,858 posts)As well as a narrative one. Narratives form in the media, and they're sticking with theirs.
Flatrat
(48 posts)Real news is news, not business decisions.
NYT is another example of everything Trump touches dies.
I cancelled my online subscription last week......Should have done it years ago.
My opinion is that it is a Right Wing Rag, no different than a high %age of Print Media across the entire U.S.
Same with other media: Radio, Network TV, cable, etc etc etc......
Hekate
(91,005 posts)And thereby hangs the tale of who sets narratives.
multigraincracker
(32,751 posts)that would never purchase or read their paper.
Joinfortmill
(14,504 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(145,839 posts)The NYT is determined to reelect TFG
LittleGirl
(8,292 posts)mountain grammy
(26,666 posts)But gave it up. The biased Bill Clinton coverage did it for me
LittleGirl
(8,292 posts)And hes really lost not reading it. The bashing of liberals was relentless and I stopped reading before he unsubscribed.
spooky3
(34,525 posts)Was four opinion pieces focusing on Bidens ageon the same day.
I think part of the problem goes beyond NYT, and its that top positions are held by older upper middle class white men (not all men disclaimer here). This is the only demographic group that substantially favored Trump in both previous elections (see Pew). They are so privileged that they cant see how their world views and perspectives differ from those of the rest of us, and feel no responsibility to get out of their bubble.
The same problem exists on SCOTUS majority.
Martin Eden
(12,885 posts)Judith Miller acted like a stenographer for the false claims about WMD.
RainCaster
(10,952 posts)I'd finally had enough of their Russian bias. I still pay for the Guardian, a fair paper with a global reach
Lonestarblue
(10,156 posts)They have been harping on Bidens age for more than a year now. I wrote on another OP that the Times today has stooped to a new low in Biden Bashing by dragging out Reagans Alzheimers and how Nancy Reagan should have prevented him from running for a second term, instantly drawing a unstated parallel in the readers mind that Biden has Alzheimers and Jill Biden should be doing something to convince Joe to drop out of the race.
I still have a subscription because outside of politics the Times is still a decent paper. On politics, theyre almost as bad as Fox.
claudette
(3,635 posts)the New York Times. Any paper that would hire Magat Habermann is off my list
Their editorial policy has become pretty plainly right wing.
To be fair, they have been slowly progressing to this point for quite a long time. Witness the propaganda cheerleading they published in the leadup to the Iraq war, featuring Judith Millers false reporting.
I used to think that publishing right slanted garbage was part of their effort to be balanced. I no longer believe that. Their editorial decisions are being made explicitly to boost right wing politics; to make something legitimate that has never been legitimate. Fuck them.
intheflow
(28,519 posts)Basically, the same playbook as Trumps rhetoric is just bluster as he talks about hunting dissidents and being a dictator on day one.
Ray Bruns
(4,123 posts)bsiebs
(689 posts)I kept the subscription for decades as a way to support print media . But they proved they did not deserve that support. I am happy with my Los Angeles Times subscription
SergeStorms
(19,204 posts)is still tethered to reality. They're my "go to" newspaper, but I'm on the east coast. We're all slightly parochial when it comes to choosing our paper of choice, I believe.
bsiebs
(689 posts)If I go with another paper along with the LATimes, I definitely will subscribe to the WaPo.
Actually you got me thinking about it.. I am going to subscribe to the WaPo at least through November... and maybe beyond that. Thanks.
bsiebs
(689 posts)SergeStorms
(19,204 posts)It's always nice to get reporting from a few different journalists, in my opinion.
I get the Post and The Guardian (both digital). I also get ProPublica, which is free, but I contribute monthly just to keep them going (hopefully).
And then there's DU, the best of all, because we get a mashup of everything!
50 Shades Of Blue
(10,096 posts)To cancel too. I had to CALL and talk to somebody - who gave me a real hard time about canceling.
RocRizzo55
(980 posts)for a very long time.
nikatnyte
(244 posts)I got fed up with blatant bias and unbalanced reporting. I cancelled my subscription on Monday morning.
Mr. Evil
(2,863 posts)He insults them (or their families) incessantly and yet, they praise him and/or vote for him. Remember how many times he called them "the failing New York Times?"
The New York Times is after all, 172½ years old. Couldn't THEY be a bit too old?
PortTack
(32,820 posts)And will not go back.
They fill the pages with a lot more RW opinion rather than factual news.
Just Cancelled subscription. They don't need anymore of my few, hard earned dollars.
modrepub
(3,505 posts)As is most of the M$M. Publishing to attract attention, not necessarily to reflect any truthful discourse.
Take this Biden angle. It generates a reaction in the pro-Biden camp and the anti-Biden camp. Is it "true" or better yet a valid discussion point to engage folks in cyber space? Who cares, it gets the eyeballs, likes/dislikes and justifies their utility to advertisers.
In a sense, algorithm chasing is an abandonment of the fourth estate. The Press's responsibility to call "bullsh-t" when those in power are trying to manipulate the situation to their advantage. When all that matters is $, we are all going to suffer.
orthoclad
(2,910 posts)Maybe knowing this could dispel some of the mystery.
Should we call it the Gray Oligarch?
elleng
(131,370 posts)AG Sulzberger is chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of The New York Times.>>>
https://www.nytco.com/person/a-g-sulzberger/#:~:text=AG%20Sulzberger%20is%20chairman%20of,news%20organization%20in%20the%20world.
orthoclad
(2,910 posts)Chairman of the company inplies a board of directors. Interlocking boards of directors are a key feature of corporate dominance.
"...he is the sixth member of the Ochs-Sulzberger family to serve The Times as publisher since the newspaper was purchased by Adolph Ochs in 1896."
Hereditary property.
elleng
(131,370 posts)elleng
(131,370 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2024, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)
https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/orthoclad
(2,910 posts)Google. Alphabet. GoDaddy. Etsy. Realtor.com. AIG. Forbes. Venture capital. Microsoft. Mutual funds (Ariel). Meta (Zuckbook).
To quote "O Brother, Where Art Thou": "Is you or is you not my constituency?" (Klan politician).
Thanks again.
live love laugh
(13,204 posts)elleng
(131,370 posts)'AG Sulzberger is chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of The New York Times. With a journalism operation of more than 2,000 people reporting from around the globe, The Times is the most influential and award-winning English-language news organization in the world.
As publisher and chairman, Mr. Sulzberger oversees both newsroom and company operations, and is the principal steward of the independence, ambition and excellence of Times journalism. During his tenure, Mr. Sulzberger has invested heavily in investigative journalism, pushed The Times to expand into new digital formats like audio and multimedia, and has been an outspoken defender of the free press in the United States and abroad. A key architect of the companys digital transformation and business strategy, he has helped grow The Timess digital subscriber base to more than nine million, from 800,000 in 2014, the year he authored the Innovation Report.
Before becoming publisher, Mr. Sulzberger worked as a reporter and editor. He began his career at The Providence Journal and The Oregonian before joining The Times as a metro reporter. He later served as a national correspondent, assistant metro editor, associate editor for newsroom strategy and deputy publisher. A graduate of Brown University, he is the sixth member of the Ochs-Sulzberger family to serve The Times as publisher since the newspaper was purchased by Adolph Ochs in 1896.'
https://www.nytco.com/person/a-g-sulzberger/#:~:text=AG%20Sulzberger%20is%20chairman%20of,news%20organization%20in%20the%20world.
CTyankee
(63,926 posts)I read them regularly. If the NYT is so slanted, why are they there? Is there a plot I don't see?
This puzzles me and kinda has me worried...
underpants
(183,007 posts)I forget which group it was - Wonen or college educated- but they had Bidens support gap going from 46 to 6. I didnt even look into the details of the poll.
eppur_se_muova
(36,317 posts)Joinfortmill
(14,504 posts)enigmania
(113 posts)President Biden's not willing to throw 99% of Americans under the bus.
2naSalit
(86,920 posts)Should join in calling them out too.
onetexan
(13,079 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(33,547 posts)Sogo
(5,015 posts)Why are they sacrificing their status as "the newpaper of record" to buttress Trump? It will take some good investigative journalism to uncover that...
Eyeball_Kid
(7,440 posts)cross paths with NYT executives at the same parties and charity functions. There hasn't been a blossoming fascist movement anywhere, any time, without the fervent support of oligarchs and the very wealthy. And Trump is still the oligarchs' and fascists' poster boy. Oh, and Trump's oatmeal brain doesn't discourage these people one bit. They are hell-bent on perpetuating his brand. His actual functionality doesn't matter. Trump's effectiveness could match an image of him on a cardboard cut-out and they'd vote for the goon.
hadEnuf
(2,223 posts)Chances are they are MAGATs who have infiltrated their way in there.
dalton99a
(81,700 posts)etc. etc.
drmeow
(5,037 posts)systematically working to break the Editorial-Business wall. I seem recall in the 90's a leaked memo suggesting there should be no such wall. Advertising profit trumps everything else - everything else. I haven't trusted the corporate media for about 30 years - and the NY Times in particular. Their coverage of leftist topics and positions has NEVER coincided with my personal leftist views - except sometimes on specific social issues that are popular in NYC. I've never been willing to support them, especially because they have had what I consider a false reputation for being liberal. Even their status as middle of the road now is, IMO, based on a truncated spectrum where the true left is not even represented.
usaf-vet
(6,233 posts)...... if it were not so outrageously true.
The NYT and Judith Miller shilled for the Bush (W) administration to drag use into a war in Iraq to look for WMD which WHERE never found.
A war to retaliate against Osama bin Laden and his attack on the Twin Towers from his stronghold in Afghanistan.
To refresh your memories and establish new ones, watch the movie wherever you can find it.
https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Awe-Woody-Harrelson/dp/B07F37YQXR
Aussie105
(5,485 posts)/Lecture warning!
Ask yourself some questions:
Am I being told what should be important/concerning to me?
Why is this topic revisited repeatedly?
Why are some topics of interest to me ignored or covered superficially?
Why are those specific words and phraseology used?
English (and most other languages) are subtle tools.
Often the way questions and topics are discussed have wrapped up in them the answer or response you are supposed to come up with.
A good indicator that you are being 'guided' in a direction you don't like:
Do you feel squeamish or uncomfortable after watching or reading specific media information?
Seek more comforting media, in that case.
But remember, there is bias there too - it's just that you approve of it.
/end lecture.
Mr. Mustard 2023
(121 posts)....Declared Deadbeat Donald the Traitor was beating President Biden in "ALL BATTLEGROUND STATES BY 6 POINTS!".
So they want us to believe that after:
Beating the Republicon Deadbeat in 2020.
Dems winning nearly every election after 2020.
Dems winning the midterms in 2022.
Ohio voting to protect abortion rights.
The Deadbeat shrinking his base by kicking out all non-believers.
The Alabama IVF ruling.
Never Trump Republicons.
Haley receiving 25%-30% of votes in nearly every primary.
Want us to believe that the country, or battleground states at least, have suddenly decided to switch back to the Republicon Deadbeat Traitor?
Sure.....