The New York Times - They're even more evil now
PVW said:
That's still an argument for dumbing down the news. I'm not convinced it would actually make things better.
Put another way -- when NYT headlines get ripped out of context and shared on FB and twitter and cable news, that does indeed contribute to mis- and dis- information. And one could argue that, therefore, the NYT should do a better job of shaping their headlines to be a easily consumed as snippets on videos and social media. I'll admit that has a certain logic to it, but I think what you will end up with is people just as misinformed, and one less outlet where one can actually read anything with any depth to it. I think that'd be a loss, not a win.
tl;dr -- if the problem is social media sharing NYT articles without context, I disagree that it's the NYT that is the "force for evil" here.
I'd just like to go on record that it isn't me calling the NYT a "force for evil." My issue with the NYT and WaPo and many other mainstream sources is that the way they cover stories is easily exploited by the kind of lying that Trump and many Republicans do, as well as their bias for providing balance, even when there is no equivalence between the sides they are balancing. It's not evil on their part. It's just that these sources have all developed a very predictable way they cover political news and nefarious actors find it very easy to use to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of truth.
ml1 said:
“A simplistic notion of distracted Americans just glancing at headlines with little effort at going deep does not accurately describe what people believe they are doing.”
Who reads every paragraph in an entire newspaper or news site?
“Third paragraph.”
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
“A simplistic notion of distracted Americans just glancing at headlines with little effort at going deep does not accurately describe what people believe they are doing.”
I thought maybe you would take that sentence out of context. You left out the sentence before, which was "People both scan and read deeply."
So the actual results are better reflected in what I wrote above. People report doing both, scanning headlines AND reading stories in depth. The sentence you pulled out refers to the belief by most journalists that readers mainly or only look at headlines.
While Americans report actively scanning headlines and reading deeply into stories, journalists do not think this is the case. Four in 10 journalists say that the phrase “they rarely read beyond the headline” describes news consumers a lot. Just 1 in 10 say they read deeply into the details of stories a lot.
And if people are reading only the headlines of some stories, how does an editor know which readers and which stories those are going to be?
Yes
ml1 said:
PVW said:
That's still an argument for dumbing down the news. I'm not convinced it would actually make things better.
Put another way -- when NYT headlines get ripped out of context and shared on FB and twitter and cable news, that does indeed contribute to mis- and dis- information. And one could argue that, therefore, the NYT should do a better job of shaping their headlines to be a easily consumed as snippets on videos and social media. I'll admit that has a certain logic to it, but I think what you will end up with is people just as misinformed, and one less outlet where one can actually read anything with any depth to it. I think that'd be a loss, not a win.
tl;dr -- if the problem is social media sharing NYT articles without context, I disagree that it's the NYT that is the "force for evil" here.I'd just like to go on record that it isn't me calling the NYT a "force for evil." My issue with the NYT and WaPo and many other mainstream sources is that the way they cover stories is easily exploited by the kind of lying that Trump and many Republicans do, as well as their bias for providing balance, even when there is no equivalence between the sides they are balancing. It's not evil on their part. It's just that these sources have all developed a very predictable way they cover political news and nefarious actors find it very easy to use to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of truth.
Yes I know -- just a bit of wordplay with the thread title.
On your actual point, I'm just having a hard time imagining the same reader you are. If I think of someone reading the NYT, whether they're scanning headline or reading articles or some combination of that, I can't imagine that they see a headline like "Criticized for Coronavirus Response, Trump Points to Obama Administration" and come away thinking "Ow, it's Obama's fault!" Pretty much by definition, if you're regular reading the NYT, you're following the news and have a sense of context, including the fact that Trump lies, distorts, and deflects blame.
And if you're someone who doesn't understand that, who maybe sees this headline in a chryon on Fox or popping up on your FaceBook feed, you're clearly taking your strongest signals of what to believe from other sources than from the NYT. A headline that instead said "Trump Falsely points to Obama" would likely either never have made it into your media feed if you're a Trump supporter, or would have done so only in the context of a rant against the Fake Media out to destroy the President, or you're already ardently anti-Trump and the headline is just reinforcing your already held beliefs. I'm having trouble imagining a case where a different headline actually makes the difference in someone's understanding of Trump's lack of truthfulness.
Or to go back to you earlier joke, "Democrats Claim Sun Will Rise in the East, Republicans Disagree". I mean, if people don't already know where the sun rises and sets, is a headline really going to make the difference? (and someone needs a word with their science editor -- the earth spins, the sun doesn't rise or set).
Republicans read the NYT too. And they don't think the same way you and I do about what they read in the mainstream press.
Americans divided on party lines over risk from coronavirus: Reuters/Ipsos poll
Maybe a headline that bluntly calls out the lying and the obfuscation won't reach them. But why not at least try to tell the story as directly and bluntly as possible in the hope that some people are reachable by the truth.
terp said:
It's gotten awfully catty around here.
Ayn Rand loved cats. You can look it up.
Link to cats that look like Donald Trump: https://welovecatsandkittens.com/cat-pictures/15-hilarious-photos-cats-looking-like-donald-trump/
nohero said:
Ayn Rand loved cats. You can look it up.
so did John Lennon.
terp said:
It's gotten awfully catty around here.
"All creatures in fact are subject to needs and provided with capacities. Birds undertake long journeys to seek out temperatures that suit them, beavers cross rivers on the bridge they build, sparrow hawks pursue their prey openly, cats lie in wait patiently for theirs, spiders make traps for what they eat, and all work in order to live and develop."
- Claude-Frédéric Bastiat, "Economic Harmonies"
seems the NYT is getting the hang of writing headlines for stories about a guy lying his face off. It's not impossible to do responsible journalism and call out bald-faced lies.
Trump Now Claims He Always Knew the Coronavirus Would Be a Pandemic
The president tried to rewrite his history with advising Americans about the coronavirus. His own words prove him wrong.
Today the word "*******" which probably won't show up in this post was printed in a New York Times article. It was in a quote of Bernie Sanders answering a question. I was quite surprised that they didn't somehow bleep it.
I really wonder if they would have printed it if it were someone other than Bernie and if it were not an example of anti-Bernie bias.
STANV said:
Today the word "*******" which probably won't show up in this post was printed in a New York Times article. It was in a quote of Bernie Sanders answering a question. I was quite surprised that they didn't somehow bleep it.
I really wonder if they would have printed it if it were someone other than Bernie and if it were not an example of anti-Bernie bias.
Both Guardian and BBC have published articles this year with f*** and derivatives in full, after warnings that graphic or strong language is used. (Not in articles about US politics, that I’ve noticed)
it’s a sign of moving with updated community standards, I guess.
From The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (2015):
“If the precise nature of an obscenity, vulgarity or other offensive expression is essential to the reader’s understanding of a newsworthy event — not merely to convey color or emotion — editors should consider using the term or a close paraphrase; readers should not be left uninformed or baffled about the nature of a significant controversy.”
The link provides the full entry on “obscenity, vulgarity, profanity.”
DaveSchmidt said:
From The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (2015):
“If the precise nature of an obscenity, vulgarity or other offensive expression is essential to the reader’s understanding of a newsworthy event — not merely to convey color or emotion — editors should consider using the term or a close paraphrase; readers should not be left uninformed or baffled about the nature of a significant controversy.”
The link provides the full entry on “obscenity, vulgarity, profanity.”
If they had used f*** as appears in joanne's post readers would have understood what was said.
STANV said:
If they had used f*** as appears in joanne's post readers would have understood what was said.
From the above link: “Do not use initial letters followed by dashes or asterisks as a thin disguise for a vulgarism.”
Because it is a thin disguise. As you said, readers are going to get the word anyway, so what have the asterisks spared them? If a word is deemed worthwhile, use it. At least then readers are spared a pointless game of hangman.
(The words appeared in full in the publications I mentioned; I just knew they wouldn’t here.
i wanted to be precise about the terms I was using since I don’t usually swear in English but know of several words that can fit random strings of 4, 6, 7, etc asterisks.)
they're still at it. Talking about this piece.
Conversation
between @gregggonsalves and @jmartNYT.
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
This is journalistic malpractice. If we don't have scale-up of testing, we will be in lock-down for months & months. There is no debate on this, why frame it like there is one? Next: Trump says earth flat, scientists say otherwise. @jmartNYT & @maggieNYT https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/us/politics/trump-governors-coronavirus-testing.html?searchResultPosition=2 …
Jonathan Martin@jmartNYT
you’re picking the wrong fight, move along
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
Sorry Jonathan, I don't care how important you think you are, how important you think the @NYTimes is as a newspaper, but the political desk has been abysmal on this. I say this as someone who has worked on infectious diseases for 30+ years. 1/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
From @peterbakernyt now infamous hot take of @realDonaldTrump as he "struggles to find the balance between public reassurance and Panglossian dismissiveness" your collective reporting on the political aspects of this have been off-the-mark. 2/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
Everything is a Punch & Judy Show, and the real story of the absolute and continuing failure of the response to #coronavirus gets obscured in your reporting as "who's winning the day" in DC. 3/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
There is tremendous reporting going on on the pandemic, but it's from places like @statnews or @propublica who take their task with a bit more seriousness than your political reporters. 4/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
This is an emergency, act like it. It matters that you're failing, and it's not about a lowly reader trying to score points, but the fact that @NYTimes eliding, equivocating on the federal response has consequences for millions of people. 5/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
So, get better. Tell us, why 4 months into this we STILL have insufficient number of tests--what happened politically that led us to this point, keeps us still incapable of rising to the task. 6/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
Tell us why we have people with no relevant experience like Richard Epstein and Larry Ellison at the right hand of Jared Kushner who is at the left hand of the President? How a culture of amateurism, denigration of expertise took hold in this Administration. 7/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
There are political stories abounding in this world-historical crisis and you surrender to the he-said-she-said variety of reporting, every time. 8/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
We all can make you a list of political questions that millions would love to be answered beyond Governor Bullock said this, President Trump said that. 9/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
I buried dozens of my friends during the height of the AIDS epidemic and we're all preparing for burials now of friends and family in this new pandemic. Don't you dare tell me to move on. 10/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
Do your job. We are facing one of the greatest challenges in American history, largely due to political failures of the current Administration. Dig. Find out what is happening, the roots of the failures. Name names. You have the resources of one of biggest papers in the US. 11/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
Stop the transcription of press conferences, calls as the news in and of itself. Go deeper. Explain how current American politics led to this epidemiological and economic calamity, and how our leaders are or are not rising to the challenge. 12/
Gregg Gonsalves@gregggonsalves
You may lose your access to certain prized sources inside the White House, the invitations to the best parties in DC, but you'll gain the respect of your readers and rescue your reputations from the disdain of history. end/
jimmurphy said:
Still of the same opinion, DB?
yes. They did delete this eventually. But this was their initial "both sides" response to Trump's suggestion that maybe we could inject disinfectant into people's lungs.
Seriously?
This was their correction on Twitter. If this wasn't in the context of a pandemic it would be hilarious. But under the circumstances it's more tragic that they can't bring themselves to say that the president is saying crazy stuff.
I saw the correction and agree that it was really odd.
Can you or DB give an example, other than perhaps NPR, that gets it right?
drummerboy said:
NPR is as bad as the Times.
Interesting. Because they try to acknowledge the opposing view?
I’ve always seen the mission of the news side of the NYT and WAPO as “this is what happened.” Then the analytical articles do just that - analyze, and the Op-Ed pages provide opinions and spin.
Is the main objection. That the news side is not calling out the lies? And I agree about the lies, btw.
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Advertisement
People report doing both -- scanning headlines, and reading stories in depth. While they may read some stories in depth, for some stories, they are only going to get a superficial exposure. I don't see why this should be in doubt. Who reads every paragraph in an entire newspaper or news site?
How Americans describe their news consumption behaviors