With deep regret, I cancel my subscription

[bvar22]

The following was posted to a thread in the Video Forum by a new member of DU, scentopine.
I though it was excellent, and worthy of a title thread in General Discussion.
With scentopine's permission, I have reposted it here.

Dear New York Times -

I am canceling my print subscription in Austin, Texas. I am saddened in part because my carrier has been outstanding in consistently delivering excellent service. The Times editors on the other hand, not so much.

This is a time of unprecedented corruption and fraud causing worldwide ruin. Along with our misadventures in Iraq, it is the story of a generation. But, there on the front page of the Sunday print edition - not a single story about our gilded class of robber barons on Wall Street. Just as the Times served assisted the Bush administration in its Iraq lies and fabrications, the Times finds itself again aiding and abetting the criminals who pillaged our treasury. So where is the story? In a snaky puff piece about executive salaries in the "business" section? And instead, what is on the front page? A business story about malls and water slides- what the???? Over and over corporate white collar crime gets treated as business as usual in the “Business“ section.

You recently devoted a major portion of your op-ed section to the insufferable ruminations of an unapologetic and defiant Wall Street banker whose company is at the center of our current disaster. Crocodile tears are still streaming. In many respects this piece serves to illustrate exactly why the Times will ultimately fail. It is not a viable entity delivering news and information that people need to make informed choices and decisions in their life. As you have reduced the physical size of your print format , you have also devoted less space to reader comments. It’s as if we don’t matter.

Published comments and opinions are too often from industry or political insiders defending or agreeing with an editorial position. The Times has doubled down on elitist contributors - crafting an artificial ecosystem for nurturing propaganda. Meanwhile, Brooks and Dowd offer little of substance in your shrinking universe of opinion. Dowd almost redeemed herself in a scathing piece about Judith Miller. It showed her as a woman with enviable intellectual and writing skills. Since then, however, the contributions pale in the face of excellent, informative writing found in hundreds of blogs. At best Dowd could find some corner in the weekly review section and her op-ed space should be turned over to the best of the aforementioned blog contributors.

Your "Mea Culpa" over the Iraq reporting gave me hope that the Times would start taking on the establishment. Like an unwitting investor in a Wall Street ponzi scheme - I have been fooled by the Times ownership, expecting big returns for my $50 a month investment. As a twenty-five year professional with two straight-A kids, I just can't continue to support an entity that is operating in a passive aggressive way against the values we teach our children - truth, integrity and justice. For raw reporting and core journalistic integrity, the passion for excellence just isn't at the top of the Times. I simply can't continue to support your editorial enterprise.

Signed...

Thanks, scentopine, and Welcome to DU !

[BlooInBloo]

1. It's especially funny because they keep telling us how IMPORTANT and INDISPENSIBLE they are...

While their entire pathetic fucking industry is falling around their faces.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. K&R!

Welcome to DU, scentopine!

Long may you post!

And thank you, bvar22, for posting this excellent letter...

[TahitiNut]

3. The business model of a newspaper is to marry subscribers with advertisers.

... like a marriage broker. When the subscribers become increasingly aware of the predations and corruptions of those advertisers, the business model falls apart. The subscribers stop subscribing. The advertisers stop advertising.

It's not rocket science.

Whenever a business model depends on covering up corruption and fraud, it'll fail. Eventually. But not soon enough, sadly.

[cabbage08]

4. New York Times is still in business?

O8)

[ms liberty]

5. Great ltte, bvar - thanks for posting it...and Welcome to DU, scentopine! n/t

[Spazito]

6. Excellent letter!

Thanks for posting this!

Edited to add: I went to the Political Video forum to post a welcome to scentopine, I hope others do as well.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Senator]

8. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, bvar.:thumbsup:

[scentopine]

10. thanks for the kind words

I don't see a future for mainstream news media - its like the old story about the buggy whip versus the automobile. There is so much meat to the story of the calamity surrounding us. People are under extreme stress, lives are being turned upside down. The great investigative stories are out there. Its as if the Times just hopes it all goes away so it can focus on fashion week. We need and deserve something more substantial than the watery pablum currently being served up.

[leftstreet]

11. K&R

:thumbsup:

[pleah]

12. K&R

:applause:

[liam_laddie]

13. This is NOT a defense of NYT's

editorial or op-ed pages, but I must note that the arts, travel, food, books and other special-interest sections and columns are quite important to us flat-land, not-on-a-coast furriners. There are human endeavors and passions other than politics, government, foreign affairs; i.e., arts and humanities.
Jes' sayin'-

[scentopine]

16. agree - it weighed heavily but for me it is about trust and truth

There is much to like about the Times. And you might be on to something - maybe fire the news and editorial staff and let the Times become more of a magazine/style/culture/food thing. Maybe there is salvage value there.

But right now, I'd happily trade in a few pages of the style section for a few more pages of real journalism and bone crushing exposes on what the hell happened and who is to blame. There are real people to blame and for whom justice must be served. Some things are worth looking back at and this is one of those things. Just like Iraq and torture and world wars and disasters of dysfunctional government. There needs to be accountability and real justice. There is no America for the people if there is no justice for the people. And there is a severe shortage of justice seeking right now.

If you are a regular reader of the Times, then you are probably familiar with the medical stories in the magazine where a patient (usually an affluent person with excellent health insurance who can afford the best doctors and diagnostic services) has a hard to diagnose condition. The Times goes into every detail of the various theories at play, sort of a CSI style - presenting lines and arrows and pictures of cancers and viruses and other pathogens. Eventually they arrive at root cause. Most of the readers are not doctors, yet the process and root cause is described in articulate, objective detail in a way everyone can understand.

That's the type of focus we need on Wall Street right now. Every day. Does the "mainstream" media think we can't handle it? I think they can't handle it. Time to pass the baton to people who can.

[MrMickeysMom]

23. Welcome to DU, indeed!

As evidenced by your letter to the Times (unpublished?), people respond when the writer presents something we can all relate to. The CSI style health related topics are a good example, but only if you're looking for something you can also get from a magazine, which must be their approach to reaching out to younger readers?

Maybe the Times editors and owners have given up on appealing an informed middle class. The average newspaper reader is of boomer age who couldn't possibly be looking for articulate objective detail about who's robbed us and continues to bleed us dry. :sarcasm:

[Javaman]

34. From a fellow Austinite, well said.

Cheers and welcome to DU!

[lostnotforgotten]

14. Very Good Letter

eom

[upi402]

15. I know how sad that is, and the Seattle P-I is gone now.

I just couldn't stand all the business cheerleading and union bashing. This news junkie dropped a hopeful journalism career and stopped frustrating myself with newspapers and TV news crapola. It's The Nation online, MSNBC, and Air America Radio for me.

Even PBS and lately NPR are a disappointment. I stopped giving to them too. I know it's what neocons want but the media cowards drew first blood so I responded rationally by voting with my dollars. The NYT wont print my little sad tale of late, let alone a local newspaper, so I wont cry for them as we meet in the unemployment line. effemall

[KoKo]

17. Well Said...and they wonder why subscriptions are down...and yet blame it on "advertisers."

Crap "Mainstream/Media Whores."

[spag68]

18. NYT

I'm a person who first read the Times in 1964. I fondly remember that it was the best news source from coast to coast, maybe on the planet. It is with great sadness that we saw this institution of news go downhill. For South American news, the Miami Herald was the best, now also sadly lacking. How can we believe anything when former decent news operations are now no more then propaganda rags, as in the NY Post or the Wash. Times. Fortunately we have the "tubes", BBC, and c-span resources.

[livefreest]

19. well said. ilove New York times but it seems they can't decide what is real reporting.

[Truth2Tell]

20. Recommended. I canceled mine

about a year ago. It was hard. It was my daily habit of 20 years. The physical act of reading the Times over lunch was hard to shake. The Venezuela coverage was the long-overdue straw that broke the camel's back for me, but the reasons are endless. I do find it's useful to poke my head into the Web version from time to time to see exactly what they want us to believe.

[truedelphi]

21. Exactly two Saturdays ago, I got a free NYT's and it was nothing but an apology

For the poor tortured souls who are the Captains of the Big Banks and Financials.

Made me quite glad that whenever a telemarketer calls and asks me to subscribe, I always mention the lousy lousy reporting that NYT's does.

[scentopine]

52. great way to put it

Every day Wall Street squats in their front yard (literally), leaves a steaming pile and they pretend they can't smell it. I can read the Wall Street Journal for that. Some great reporting on banking corruption came out of the Philadelphia Inquirer (or maybe it was another Phila paper) during the first banking melt down (S&L). This story is a hundred times bigger. There should be front page coverage everyday with a relentless drive for the truth.

[truedelphi]

55. If Americans, including loyal Dems, understood how corrupt the

Past six months of interactions between the Executive Office and the Banking, Fed and Treasury Officials really were, people would be in the streets.

However, The George W Bush Presidency was a learning tool for the Powers that Be. They discovered that if you have 20% of the populace accepting the President's "vision," and you have the MSM media behind you, then you can hold down the Presidency and make things good for the Establishment.

Sadly, I guess this is Obama's game plan. Part of his deal with the Bigger Powers That Be must have been that he will get suitable press coverage for at least the short term.

[Alcibiades]

22. The right has been so busy gaming the ref

that the so-called "liberal media" turned hard right some time ago, sometime in the Clinton years, if not in the 1980's. They have been able to take their liberal readership for granted--after all, where are you going to go? Now that we have a choice, we can tell them to change their ways or else.
They won't, though.

I've often thought a truly liberal national daily might do well.

[defendandprotect]

24. It isn't simply the internet bringing down the NY Times .. . it's the lies . . .

the failing to acknowlege -- the hiring of Karl Rove --

and the decades of all this!

[Iwillnevergiveup]

25. Rec #49

GREAT letter! The L.A. Times has seriously fallen down in its' reporting, too. On Sunday's front page was a huge story about an unfortunate young woman from Mexico who has a deformed face. I had to turn to page 26 for one mention of President Obama's European odyssey.

[Miss_Underestimated]

26. "all the news that's fit to print on TP"

used to be avid NYX reader, but felt compelled to boycott them for good when I found out about the Judith Miller escapades

[The Wizard]

27. The Times like the Titanic

hit an iceberg and is sinking. The iceberg in this case was the right wing minority that convinced the Times to print with a rightward list. In a shredded form it works well in cat litter boxes and also as a whole it makes a great bird cage liner and fish wrap.
When advertiser's interests trump the original intent of the business to report the news, the business loses viability.
It was also the Times that wouldn't let the Whitewater story die long after it was shown to be baseless. That's when they jumped the shark and became a rag. Then the Judith Miller/Iraq false reporting eviscerated more of their credibility to the point of making them defunct as a news source.
Anyone or entity that aligns with the Bush cartel winds up under the bus in the end.

[Sherman A1]

28. Superb!!!

Thanks for posting

[tavalon]

29. This is a fine but somewhat misleading post

I thought we were being subjected to another drama queen DU adios but instead got a peek into a well deserved New York Times dismissal.

Thanks muchly scentopine and Bvar for the repost

[NJmaverick]

30. I would cancel just for giving that anti-Obama hack Krugman a forum

to spew his anti-Obama rhertoric

[MannyGoldstein]

32. What, Specifically, is Unfair About What Krugman Is Saying?

Summers and Geithner are handing trillions to the same exact people and firms who wrecked the economy, and doing so under "heads you win, tails we lose" rules. It's shatteringly awful.

[NJmaverick]

36. Why not start with Krugman's false claims that nationalizing the banks are cheaper

in the end it cost the same, because taking ownership of the banks means you assume the debt. It's playing with Bush like math, when you talk about how much cheaper it would be to purchase or take over these institutions. We could then go on to how wrong Krugman was, about Obama's standing with the rest of the G-20 members. We could finish up with how the market is proving Krugman's doom and gloom predictions wrong.

[TankLV]

37. I'd trust a PROVEN EXPERT like Krugman over a bloviating IDIOT who just has an OPINION anytime...

The banks ARE failed already.

Enough with proping them up with OUR money.

Those with up to 250K will be allright. The rest can ROT - this is a way to GET RID OF THE EXCESSIVE RICH WHO CAUSED THIS MESS BY GAMBLING AND "LOST" and level the playing field once again.

And don't forget, those RICH have already secreted all their ill gotten gains in some off shore bank accounts.

It's time to end this charade...!

The average person will be more than taken care of, and we will END this transfer of OUR wealth to the wealthy FEW!!!

STOP SOCIALIZING THE RISKS AND PRIVATIZING THE REWARDS!!!

[NJmaverick]

38. Nice bloviating

:eyes:

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Nationalizing Means Much More Than Just Assuming The Debt

1. It means the end of the bleeding - no more giving bankers more cash under (the astonishing!) "heads you win, tails we lose" rules.
2. Once an institution is insolvent, the government can choose which liabilities to pay, and which not to pay.
3. The government always gets the best terms on debt, because they are the always safest debtor. Hence lower borrowing costs.

[NJmaverick]

41. Not of those points really change the over all cost

the government is still going to honor debts. If they don't they will create the same destructive situation that the bailouts, or the nationalization, were there to prevent.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. I Strongly Disagree

Each of those things will save trillions, or at least hundreds of millions.

[NJmaverick]

44. Any potential savings will be offset by the natural over head that exists in the govenrmental

structure. The need for competitive bids and buyer's lists. The excessive paper work and rules and the civil service requirements all will create extra costs, if they banks were nationalized. In the end, any potential savings will be offset by these costs.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Actually, Government Is More Efficient At Most Large Things

Overhead on Social Security is only a few percent. Overhead on Medicare is 5%, vs. 20%+ for private insurers.

[NJmaverick]

46. I have worked in both the government and the private sector

and I have to say I have seen first hand that the government is naturally more inefficient. I have seen it where I have had to pay more to purchase items, because of the rules. I have seen it in the inabilty to act in an agency's best interest, because it violated the red tape that is the hallmark of government operations.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. And CEOs Sucking Up Zillions Is The Hallmark Of The Private Sector

In the end, government typically ends up much cheaper for large things. Look at private health care mechanisms in the US vs. public mechanisms in the rest of the developed world. On average, they pay half as much per person as we do.

[noiretextatique]

51. i have worked in the private sector and government

and i believe government is far more efficient than the private sector, in general. there may be specific cases of companies that operate more efficiently, but i don't believe that most do.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Disagree: NYT Today: "Farm Workers’ Rights, 70 Years Overdue"

The Times is often targeted for a couple of reasons:

1. Their news articles are only news - they don't conatin commentary. If they were reporting on some whopper of a lie from Bush, they would not point out that it was a huge lie - that would go in an investigative piece or an editorial.

2. They try to cover the spectrum of opinion - not endorse it.

They had an awful period early in this decade when they were run by Howell Raines, a pinhead who was finally booted after the Iraq War cheerleading debacle. But other than that dark period, I think they do their job spectacularly.

Remember, they broke the warrantless wiretapping article after Bush personally threatened the publisher and editor in the Oval Office. Their editorials have been unrelentingly hostile to the Paulson/Summers/Geithner Banker Bailout. They have some of the greatest actually-Democratic columnists, such as Krugman, Rich, and Kristof, who have been slamming the Obama administration for being too far to the right.

Just look at their few most recent editorials:

The Credit Card Trap starts off with "It’s only fair. The federal government is doing everything it can to restore the nation’s banks to health. In return, Congress should require those banks to give their credit card customers a better break."

Farm Workers’ Rights, 70 Years Overdue - "Farm and domestic workers deserve basic rights that others have long taken for granted, as well as improvements in safety and sanitary conditions."

The New Debtors’ Prisons - "The practice of sending people to jail because they cannot make court-ordered payments is both barbaric and unconstitutional."

Diplomacy on the Sidelines - "We fully support President Obama’s efforts to engage the Iranian government, but we wonder whether this incremental, seemingly ad hoc approach is best."

I share your anger at the fucktard who wrote the absurd piece that the Times published - but I think that you should reconsider your hatred of the NY Times, as they were just presenting something informative, showing the Predator Class for what they are. I'm probably far more Liberal than most at DU, and I think that the NY Times is my strongest ally in the media.

Instead, you should consider redirecting your outrage towards Summers and Geithner, who are handing one years worth of US income to the bankers under "heads you win, tails we lose" rules - as the Times and its columnists keep pointing out.

[scentopine]

53. all good points

On the whole I disagree with many of the general editorial opinions I read, however, that's not really at the center of my complaint and probably didn't make that clear.

Management decides the stories that will run and allocates the resources to cover them. This is a massive, massive story. It isn't about opinion, it is about truth. Without truth, there is no justice. There is a story with enough evidence for coverage each and every day while exposing the various root causes and the people behind this disaster be they democrat or republican. In fact, they should be hiring extra staff, building out a special section for extra coverage, etc. If they want to sell more papers that's what they need to do. In all the gory detail even if it means airing dirty laundry off their Wall Street neighbors.

Without great investigative journalism digging and digging for the truth, there are no checks on business or government. They have woefully under-reported this story. They be saving money reporting water parks in shopping malls, but in the long run it will cost them.

In fact, the lack of detailed investigative journalism works against the opinions you mentioned. If they want to build clout and credibility they need to allocate the resources to the stories that matter most right now.

I was a long time subscriber, I held on to the bitter end. I don't hate them, they are simply lost and refuse to ask for directions.

[xchrom]

33. kick -- be nice if the nyt could see this thread. nt

[davidinalameda]

35. I feel the same about the SF Chronicle

over the past few years, since Hearst bought them, they've been trying to add "other" voices to their editorial pages

I picked it up one day and they had a column from Bill O'Reilly

they also carry Pat Buchanan's hateful screeds as well

the cons in this area don't read the Chronicle so why is the paper pandering to them

[DevonRex]

39. I cancelled my subscription with no regrets whatsoever because of Miller.

The NYT isn't worth what they're charging anymore, even if it did report real news.

It is now the size of the 1989 Denver Post, which you could read in an hour. The Denver Post is now the size of a weekly community newspaper. I call it the Denver Pamphlet. I cancelled my subscription to that paper, too.

You know, maybe I did feel some regret when I cancelled the NYT. Or maybe sadness is the right word. It certainly was sad to finally have to admit that teh NYT was just as right wing as WaPo and that we had lost another objective voice.

[4_TN_TITANS]

42. DU and The Nation are all I need.

Thank-you again to those who keep this site posted with the freshest progressive news and info!

[FailureToCommunicate]

47. Fine, but how much of that news comes from real reporters at NYT and other

papers?

[FourScore]

49. k&r

[RedCloud]

50. Fine work "V" and scentopine

En la lucha,

Red Cloud

[mykpart]

54. Although I enjoy their crossword puzzles,

I have never actually read the New York Times, mostly because, well, it's New York, and I don't really give a rat's ass what New Yorkers read about. But I always figured that if Ann Coulter hated it, it must be OK.