#newyorktimes

See tagged statuses in the local BookWyrm community

Many critics, me included, focus on and Washington Post, TV networks, but influence comes from cable networks like and digital outlets where many people get "news," then amplified through social media / text chats/ email chains etc. Distortion is regular and called out rarely. We need a new project for media accountability that looks at and its platforms from the view of consumers, voters and stakeholders. That would also build trust.

The most absurd yet. As people note the disjointed aspects of Trump's speeches (lies, plus odd things he just makes up), this is the ' report. Trump is the lead voice, along with his supporters -- no voices questioning the mental state that might produce this, no skepticism. The NYT's political has really lost its way. Who's making these choices? Where is coverage elsewhere of the chorus of people alarmed by the paper's approach? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/01/us/elections/trump-speeches-weave.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HU4.X74_.2Ib7vL254drk&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

Este del es muy timorato, como de costumbre, pero cuenta bien una horrible del presente: las nuevas que se están creando en países pobres, disfrazadas de "polos" de inversión y esencialmente desprovistas de leyes. rapaz del siglo XXI. https://www.nytimes.com/es/2024/08/30/magazine/honduras-prospera-ciudad.html?unlocked_article_code=1.HU4.TB4i.Ve4qHJ0UrOPK

I appreciate that, as a distinguished and ethical journalist, Margaret Sullivan refuses to relent in her ongoing critique of the colossal failure of US corporate media at this critical juncture in history. She focuses on the New York Times.

I also think that her explanation of what's happening doesn't go nearly far enough:

"Nearly 10 years after Trump declared his candidacy in 2015, the media has not figured out how to cover him."


/1

https://margaretsullivan.substack.com/p/an-ugly-case-of-false-balance-in

Another in our daily reminders of how broken the ' political has become: Every development or finding about candidates and voters is framed in terms of who will win, to the point that reporters have internalized the sports thinking: "She was methodical and risk-averse in the 27-minute interview, performing like a top seed in the early rounds of the U.S. Open tennis tournament trying to hold serve, survive and advance to the next round." (By Reed Epstein)

Probably the most significant policy analysis the has offered on -- despite the a bad headline. Thomas Edsall's lede: "Donald Trump’s policy initiatives for a potential second term are rife with unintended adverse consequences — which, in less charitable terms, could be described as deliberate attempts to delude the electorate." And he has specifics to back it up. Gift link. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/28/opinion/trump-tariffs-deportation-economy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Gk4.Uz53.Q0EW7BT74i8C&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

The devotion to the horse race is at least consistent, if a waste of resources many of us bemoan regularly. Sadly, so is the paper's willingness to be manipulated. Instead of weighing news value and vetting for accuracy and context, the NYT can be counted on to simply regurgitate what candidates say each day in headlines that get a lot more attention than fact-checks after. Better would keep the daily trail in context and look harder at substance

It's great to listen to voters and an even better use of resources would be to evaluate the records and plans of the major parties and their candidates to see which have and will benefit voters in, for instance, rural areas such as Wilson County, -- ie tax cut, infrastructure act, ag policy, etc. Listen to concerns and then do that addresses those concerns. Instead, it's just more handicapping https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/23/us/elections/north-carolina-rural-voters.html?unlocked_article_code=1.FU4.cAal.vzLgbT7Z5MGN&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

Why does Judd Legum's Popular Information, with its tiny team of journalists, regularly out-report the huge political news staffs of the and others on stories like this? Because they're reporting independently, not just following the pack, playing referee on partisan messaging or reacting to campaigns and political insiders. Because they do the work. Subscribe — it's worth the modest cost. This is how we support the we need. https://popular.info/p/how-trumps-infatuation-with-a-racist?r=2j3sf&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web @juddlegum

Unlike & printed her emails, per AP News outlets were leaked insider material from the campaign. They chose not to print it. At least 3 news outlets were leaked confidential material from inside campaign, including its report vetting as VP candidate. So far, each has refused to reveal any details about what they received. described what they had in broad terms. https://www.yahoo.com/news/news-outlets-were-leaked-insider-041110554.html

"Headlines in the New York Times — probably the most influential mainstream news organization in the nation — matter even more. They make their way into the news ecosystem and can pollute the waters.

That’s why it’s so confounding when such headlines are either wrong or misleading. Consider this one in this past week’s New York Times:

'Trump Agrees to a Fox News Debate with Harris on Sept. 4'"

~ Margaret Sullivan


/1

https://margaretsullivan.substack.com/p/when-drudge-has-a-better-headline