The NYT takes on the NYT

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Fox News is a gold mine.

That's for sure!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Fox News is a gold mine.

Fool's gold!

[fjtorres]

Back on topic, Barry Eisler:
http://barryeisler.blogspot.com/2014...tfeld-for.html

If there were a principle at work in Streitfeld’s attempted defense of his shoddiness, it could be summed up as, “I only cover what the establishment does, because that’s all that matters.”

[tubemonkey]

I’d almost rather that Streitfeld knows he’s acting as a legacy-publishing shill and is just trying to hide it. In some ways, it would be worse if he really believed all the lame excuses he trotted out to Sullivan.

That pretty much sums it up.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That pretty much sums it up.

Yup. But Konrath's ethymological dissection is a lot of fun:

http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2014/1...-hachette.html

Mocking whale math-ers is amusing.

[DiapDealer]

Thinking strictly in terms of "newsworthiness," Streitfield is right: 900 established somebodies pushing a radical agenda of status quo-ism is the much better story than 8k+ everybodies looking to tear down the walls. No contest, really.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by crich70

I can see their point. The press is supposed to present an objective viewpoint on whatever the issue under discussion is and it's hard to do that if you are taking sides in the argument.

If there had ever been an ounce of commitment to objectivity or integrity at the New York Times they would have spearheaded an effort to retract Walter Duranty's Pulitzer decades ago.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Phogg

If there had ever been an ounce of commitment to objectivity or integrity at the New York Times they would have spearheaded an effort to retract Walter Duranty's Pulitzer decades ago.

You may have a point, but I did say 'supposed to' not 'does' Phogg.

[Barcey]

Well kudos to Margaret Sullivan for recognizing and acknowledging the biased reporting. David Streitfeld's reporting and Suzanne Spector's lack of editing have done more to hurt NY Times' reputation than Amazon's reputation. We'll see if it improves going forward.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Phogg

If there had ever been an ounce of commitment to objectivity or integrity at the New York Times they would have spearheaded an effort to retract Walter Duranty's Pulitzer decades ago.

Do you frequently read the paper, or just figure that this is the only one with such issues? If so, you might want to check out the Chicago Tribune under Robert R. McCormick, and let me know how much stronger they are spearheading efforts to deal with the ridiculous coverage of Communism (equating it with the New Deal) that used to be found in that leading American paper.

I am not aware of any other paper issuing nearly as many corrections, including in the Kindle eInk editions, as The New York Times. And, yes, others also make mistakes. And how many of the others even have the check of an ombudsman or public editor?

As for Duranty, The New York Times has repeatedly reported on his faults:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/23/us...tant-says.html

Here is the conclusion of the Pulitzer Prize organization:

In its review of the 13 articles, the Board determined that Mr. Duranty's 1931 work, measured by today's standards for foreign reporting, falls seriously short. In that regard, the Board's view is similar to that of The New York Times itself and of some scholars who have examined his 1931 reports. However, the board concluded that there was not clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception, the relevant standard in this case. Revoking a prize 71 years after it was awarded under different circumstances, when all principals are dead and unable to respond, would be a momentous step and therefore would have to rise to that threshold.

Is there an alternative news source for eInk readers that you believe is more complete and accurate?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Is there an alternative news source for eInk readers that you believe is more complete and accurate?

I'm just guessing here, since I don't tend to read news, but I'll say "No."

If one wants complete and accurate, do what I think you and Tubemonkey suggest: Read several sources, and learn to recognize the biases. Add in a little follow-up of primary source material when practical.

Otherwise, just pick a source like you'd pick a film or restaurant critic: Find one who's taste you agree with. Of course, my approach of reading none of them is just as useful, and takes less effort.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ApK

I'm just guessing here, since I don't tend to read news, but I'll say "No."

If one wants complete and accurate, do what I think you and Tubemonkey suggest: Read several sources, and learn to recognize the biases. Add it in a little follow up of primary source materiel when practical.

Otherwise, just pick a source like you'd pick a film or restaurant critic: Find one who's taste you agree with. Of course, my approach of reading none of them is just as useful, and takes less effort.

Back in the day when the weekly newsmags mattered, a group of us at work shared our subscriptions to Time, Newsweek, US News, and The Economist. Made it easier to flag some of the lies.

[RDaneel54]

It took being on the inside of a "news" report by CBS 60 minutes for me to really understand how any news organization can slant what is presented. At the time, I was working for the U.S. Dept of Defense and actually new what was really going on. CBS wanted to pound their particular drum in the story so that is what got reported.

That event gave me a new level of distrust of any news source. Not that what they did is anything new. Slanted and biased news has been with us throughout history. And there are always those who trust a particular news source to give the straight and unvarnished truth.

The NYT does a lot of good reporting; it also does bad, lazy and slanted reporting.

When it comes to news, keep the rose colored glasses in their case.

[BookAdmin]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

...then it's an eRag

Good One

More seriously, an article depends on the sensitivity of the journalist, you just have to keep this in mind when you read the press.

[GoSharks]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Back in the day when the weekly newsmags mattered, a group of us at work shared our subscriptions to Time, Newsweek, US News, and The Economist.

If you did that today with the e-versions, it would be called piracy!