And they’ve gotten rid of the position of public editor, which is the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears in response to public criticism. Apparently even having a lapdog like Liz Spayd in that position was too much of an inconvenience for the Grey Lady.
2 Likes
I’d rather vote for Oprah…
Dean Baquet - we know the Kremlin targets not just political opponents, but also journalists who get too pesky. Well what better way to alter coverage than to go after the editor. you have to wonder what Fat Nixon and/or the Poisoner might have on ol’ Dean—I mean, Two Scoops’ NY/NY mob ties go back to the 80’s, and who better positioned to weigh in on that than the Paper of Record. Instead we heard nary a peep during the campaign, it was just all about her emails.
2 Likes
Too bad there is no way formally to “dislike” this comment. I’ll just say it is overblown, excessive, and foolish. Of course, the Times makes mistakes, but no paper covers not only politics and government, but also culture and society as a whole with the depth of the Times. Fortunately “dangoodbar” will never get his wish of pissing on the grave of the Times. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the Times is the worst newspaper except for all the others.
All about her e-mails? Total nonsense. There was far more negativity about Trump than about Clinton in the Times, and it wasn’t Trump that the Times endorsed. Obviously, “timbo” is one of those people who expects nothing but one-sided coverage about his favored candidate.
Nice try - what I don’t expect is false equivalence bothsiderism, which is what we get fat too often in matters Trump—going way back.
ETA - actually it’s worse than that: breathless coverage of her emails, and not a peep about his mob ties. So, kindly shut it.
2 Likes
Check your data:
https://www.salon.com/2017/12/15/the-ny-times-coverage-of-clinton-v-trump-was-lacking_partner/ Discussing the Columbia Journalism Review finding that the NYTimes coverage of the election was both vacuous and lopsided.
“It seems incredible that only five out of 150 front-page articles that the New York Times ran over the last, most critical months of the election, attempted to compare the candidate’s policies, while only 10 described the policies of either candidate in any detail,” they noted. “In just six days, the New York Times ran as many cover stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails as they did about all policy issues combined in the 69 days leading up to the election.”
What we needed was full and honest coverage of both candidates: we didn’t get it.
2 Likes
It’s far past time for this company’s demise. They are no longer kittens and grandmas. They’re a platform for evil and are responsible for throwing an election. Their Board must hang for treason. If the hangings in this nation must go on for a year to send the message that we will no longer tolerate criminals taking a paycheck while committing crimes against humanity and lining their pockets with bribes and laundered money then so be it. As for the Congress which is aiding, abetting and giving solace to the enemies of our nation - they can hang too.
Bush/Cheney must still be punished for Iraq along with Rumsfeld and the rest of them. Trump and his gang must be punished too. As for judges they appointed? Unseat them all. Undo this terror and punish those responsible.
Sorry. I have no intention of shutting it, kindly or otherwise. You’re obviously one of those cranks who populate this site for whom the Times can do no right, and a January, 2017, article from Wonkette, far more “breathless” than anything the Times has ever written about Hillary, hardly proves your point. Hillary is to blame for her own foolish handling of her e-mails and her pathetic responses to the issue, and I don’t forgive her for it. The Times could hardly be expected to suppress the story when they discovered it. I do wish the Times had been more aggressive about exploring the shadier sides of Trump, including his money laundering, but they’ve hardly been silent about these matters during the past year. Stop pretending the Times ever favored Trump over Hillary, or that a story suggesting that no evidence of collusion had been found as of the beginning of 2017, before the Comey firing and before the discovery of the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians–by the Times as I recall–represents their present position.
At best, by your analysis, the Times was a day late and a dollar short.
Also, you need to check the terms if service around here.
3 Likes
1,00,000 people are dead from a war that should have been prevented. It is not so much that the NY Times as the paper of record so as to appease the perpetrators of the lies that cause the war and their supporters who would never read the Times and both ignored and insulted its own reader base that was screaming the truth,
But what has me wanting to piss on its grave is its continuing to pat itself on the back for how it covered the Iraq War instead of coming clean on its culpability, just like those it helped lie America into the disaster.
And if the Iraq War is not enough, Trump is president to a good extent because of how the NY Times handled the Hillary email especially the Comey letter. Nate Silver has written recently that he still has not forgiven the NY Times about its culpability in regard to Trump being president. So even if I was able to get past the Times helping lie America into a war that cost 1,000,000 lives and many other treasures and its continually patting itself for its actions, if you read Nate Silver you have another reason for wanting to piss on the NY Times grave.
I mean if you miss the biggest and most obvious issues and lies of the day, so what that you make the trains run on time.