taibbi
Robert HarperAug 24
What a great piece. I was the only college student in my dorm to have the Times delivered; I grew up with it; had to have access to it. Slowly, through the years, the idea that it was "objective" became blurry under the microscope--the placement of stories, the "above the fold" importance, the sense of "we know what's right" started to annoy and then alarm. I stopped subscribing after 40 years. Matt has nailed it far better than I can elaborate, but one recent action of theirs was a real a zinger and I am surprised it wasn't brought into the discussion like the headline change. That is the political cartoon that was printed, then removed when the charge of "antisemitism" was made against it. A political CARTOON! The Times folks "apologized" for it and ended all future "cartoons" --no need to even invite another attack or smear I guess. Jonathan Swift or Moliere couldn't get a job there--not politically correct enough. I now send what I used to spend on the subscription to certain internet news sites and You Tube channels that are struggling to survive while trying to be what journalism was supposed to be. Judicial Watch for instance has done far, far more journalistic inquiries than the Times in he past few years and essentially broke not only the Clinton email scandal, but the whole Spygate scandal which made the Russia story seem petty and minor since the leaders of government agencies were involved in trying to take down a President they didn't like.
Sandy WellsAug 22
I was a daily subscriber of the paper version of The NY Times until 2 weeks ago. I am trying a digital-only subscription and using the proceeds to support my local, ailing LA Times. From the start of the Trump Era, I was aware that anti-Trump commentary or “slant” was baked into many, many stories and almost every editorial piece and even book reviews that had ostensibly nothing to do with Trump. Your analysis seems correct to me, that the Gray Lady is now using the Fox News playbook and it’s paying off for them. I find the tendency to be tedious but I’m not that offended by it. I mean our President has declared war on the press and it’s only natural that the press should respond. I don’t think that the Times has always gone to the lengths you describe to be objective. A while back, I read some Vietnam-era dispatches from the front lines that were unambiguously anti-war. Too bad those guys didn’t stick around long enough to blow through more of the crap we were fed about the Iraq War. To me, that’s when “straight” journalism went off the rails, never to return. I also suspect that Trump would never have been elected had our old stodgy printed press been fully functional and healthy.
renAug 25
I hate "objectivity," or even the perceived attempts at it. I think information is a lot more credible and easy to digest when I know where a person stands on something. So much of mainstream journalism is guided by adherence to the clique, by political opportunism, by a 'how dare you sir' approach to the political establishment, by a feigned allegiance to truthtelling. These people wouldn't dream of challenging power.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that couldn't stand the credulous, selfimportant brand of the New York Times. While it's depressing to see real newsrooms draw down and concentrate into DC/NY, there's hardly a more enjoyable development than watching the NYT lose its grasp on gatekeeper status.
The only thing I don't get, and perhaps I never will, is how these people could be so insulated and unaware of themselves. I don't think it's a conspiracy- they must have a genuine blindspot for their own cowardice at this dark moment in history. They must really believe that their softball editorial lines are the most noble form of journalism, not like bringing a frappuccino to a knife fight.
Meanwhile, they are all happy to crucify Assange. Thanks for another fantastic piece MT.
What a great piece. I was the only college student in my dorm to have the Times delivered; I grew up with it; had to have access to it. Slowly, through the years, the idea that it was "objective" became blurry under the microscope--the placement of stories, the "above the fold" importance, the sense of "we know what's right" started to annoy and then alarm. I stopped subscribing after 40 years. Matt has nailed it far better than I can elaborate, but one recent action of theirs was a real a zinger and I am surprised it wasn't brought into the discussion like the headline change. That is the political cartoon that was printed, then removed when the charge of "antisemitism" was made against it. A political CARTOON! The Times folks "apologized" for it and ended all future "cartoons" --no need to even invite another attack or smear I guess. Jonathan Swift or Moliere couldn't get a job there--not politically correct enough. I now send what I used to spend on the subscription to certain internet news sites and You Tube channels that are struggling to survive while trying to be what journalism was supposed to be. Judicial Watch for instance has done far, far more journalistic inquiries than the Times in he past few years and essentially broke not only the Clinton email scandal, but the whole Spygate scandal which made the Russia story seem petty and minor since the leaders of government agencies were involved in trying to take down a President they didn't like.
Sandy WellsAug 22
I was a daily subscriber of the paper version of The NY Times until 2 weeks ago. I am trying a digital-only subscription and using the proceeds to support my local, ailing LA Times. From the start of the Trump Era, I was aware that anti-Trump commentary or “slant” was baked into many, many stories and almost every editorial piece and even book reviews that had ostensibly nothing to do with Trump. Your analysis seems correct to me, that the Gray Lady is now using the Fox News playbook and it’s paying off for them. I find the tendency to be tedious but I’m not that offended by it. I mean our President has declared war on the press and it’s only natural that the press should respond. I don’t think that the Times has always gone to the lengths you describe to be objective. A while back, I read some Vietnam-era dispatches from the front lines that were unambiguously anti-war. Too bad those guys didn’t stick around long enough to blow through more of the crap we were fed about the Iraq War. To me, that’s when “straight” journalism went off the rails, never to return. I also suspect that Trump would never have been elected had our old stodgy printed press been fully functional and healthy.
renAug 25
I hate "objectivity," or even the perceived attempts at it. I think information is a lot more credible and easy to digest when I know where a person stands on something. So much of mainstream journalism is guided by adherence to the clique, by political opportunism, by a 'how dare you sir' approach to the political establishment, by a feigned allegiance to truthtelling. These people wouldn't dream of challenging power.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that couldn't stand the credulous, selfimportant brand of the New York Times. While it's depressing to see real newsrooms draw down and concentrate into DC/NY, there's hardly a more enjoyable development than watching the NYT lose its grasp on gatekeeper status.
The only thing I don't get, and perhaps I never will, is how these people could be so insulated and unaware of themselves. I don't think it's a conspiracy- they must have a genuine blindspot for their own cowardice at this dark moment in history. They must really believe that their softball editorial lines are the most noble form of journalism, not like bringing a frappuccino to a knife fight.
Meanwhile, they are all happy to crucify Assange. Thanks for another fantastic piece MT.
Comments
Post a Comment