I don’t mean to exaggerate, but my opinion is that New York Times in particular has not practiced “real” journalism for many years now. As such, it’s difficult for me to be surprised that they once again have presented only what they would like the news to be. I know many writers here and around have friends and colleagues there, and you…
I don’t mean to exaggerate, but my opinion is that New York Times in particular has not practiced “real” journalism for many years now. As such, it’s difficult for me to be surprised that they once again have presented only what they would like the news to be. I know many writers here and around have friends and colleagues there, and you hope for the best, but the truth is, there’s no there there anymore. It’s been reduced to a mere mouthpiece of the crazy left.
Over the last couple of month, the New York Times has run articles on two different subjects with which I am deeply familiar. In both cases, they missed important details. Sad to say, they are no longer the paper of record. I'll look forward to the day I see thorough research and nuance.
This has been true since the late 1990's. I came to be aware of this when DOE was establishing a high school in the neighborhood, that our kids could actually use without being bused to far away overcrowded schools where they were not welcome. The Times sent a cub reporter, who did not bother to report on what the participants were actually saying, called us all racists, and went home to file the story, apparently without adult editorial supervision. At the time I thought of it as a perfect example of Manhattan contempt for "outer-borough-racist-oafs," laid with a trowel on our middle-class, politically liberal, mixed-race neighborhood. Since then this has morphed into something much worse.
The 1,300 Times employees who want to stay home get their news headlines from Twitter left. Their "journalists" are no longer hitting the road to find or follow real news stories, like the scary daily crime taking place in their own city. I don't know why anyone would give the NYT a dime to pay for a bunch of activists in their pajamas reporting on Twitter trends.
During the George Floyd protests and riots, the only actual reporting that was done by the Times was done by Nellie Bowles, who caught a plane to Seattle, and went out and got the story by talking to people there, the old fashioned way. You know, like an actual reporter. I'm eager for more high-quality reporting in the Times from her - but wait . . . she isn't there anymore, is she?
If you have just realized, the Internet killed the news industry. It's just another entertainment medium with a small group of diehards trying to report: everyone makes money off the work of whoever is left, including Common Sense.
The crossword has gone downhill under Will Shortz and the Wordplay comments section is unreadable. Not long ago, people were protesting the inclusion of “NRA”—the FDR program, not the gun lobby—as an answer because it was upsetting. There are regularly heated comments if someone criticizes puzzle quality as being “hurtful” or “unkind” to the creator. Many former commenters, myself included, don’t even bother anymore.
Spelling Bee is fun, but even there, idiot millennial editors censor perfectly legitimate words the eighth meanings of which could possibly be considered offensive.
As for the paper itself, I cancelled my subscription years ago.
The NYT knows their audience and this is the kind of story they want to read. Truth is irrelevant. But why do they want these lies? The message of this story, and many others like it, really is about good and evil. There are the good people, NYT readers, and bad people. The bad people can be Mormons, or religious people generally, or Southerners, or Republicans, etc. Isn’t it fun to feel superior to the racist masses?
There is another motivation in addition to the "feel good" aspect you describe. Whether true or untrue is irrelevant. The story is part of left wing propaganda that things like this happen every day and this story is just a reinforcement of that narrative. It's as old as AL Sharpton and Tawana Brawley so nothing new to see here!
Imagine being savvy enough to know about and read Substack but *still* believing the NYT practices actual journalism rather than just manufacturing consent for whatever the corporatocrats and oligarchs want to do next.
BS is rich! What alternative is rich! Straight up reporting is rich. It appears your standard for reporting is they wouldn’t print/say it if it wasn’t true.
I’m curious, even though I think you’re likely trolling people. Do you still believe there were racial slurs hurled at the black player at the game then?
No, I don't believe racial slurs were hurled at a black player at the game.
I this all this bemoaning about "the media" being for/against some aggrieved group is a waste of time and has become a sport.
I also don't care much about what's posted on Twitter and carried forward as click-bait in other cable media channels. The endless pursuit of ad dollars in this industry is tearing our country apart as evidenced by all the grievances aired here.
Well, I’m glad you’re not buying the lies of this story. However, this is the town square, and people get to air their grievances, which I might add you are taking great advantage of, this is a good thing. In a decent society holding politicians, media and our institutions to account is the right of every citizen.
The NYT claims to be the paper of account, it is far from that unless the account is biased to the left. We should call them on that every time.
I would posit it’s actually the lies told by media and politicians that are “tearing our country apart”, not the calling out of those lies.
Straight up reporting? Did Vimal Patel, author of the original story, travel to Provo to interview even a single person? He's based in Washington, DC. Did anyone from one of the Times' western bureaus go to Provo? I doubt it. The Times is nothing more than a Twitter megaphone, and, as one of the few major media outlets supported primarily by subscription revenue rather than advertising, they know what their audience wants.
When I read an article in the Times, I assumed they followed their journalistic process before their sports editors decide to publish online. I also see McKenna Oxenden contributed to reporting and Jack Begg contributed research.
“assumed they followed their journalistic process”. That pretty much sums it up. There is far too much assuming in reporting and far too much believing in reading.
The problem is on both sides: left and right. They are ALL owned by the same investment companies and each unit has created a niche market that panders to its audience—rather than reporting real news. Toxic but lucrative business models. There is no real news anymore in any consistent way.
Well said. It's become a sport now. I am willing to bet 99% of subscribers never heard of this incident until they read it here. And then, immediately, all grievances are freely aired.
Not true. USA Today ran a headline calling the Clay & Buck Show “white supremacists” for doubting the story and low and behold they were right. You can’t even suggest we take a second without getting labeled. Her dad who works for the government needs to answer for his race baiting behavior as well. It’s more than the pursuit of clicks. It’s the ideology promoting the idea that this happens all the time when it doesn’t.
I dunno about others, but this is both old news and standard fair from the left. Everything I've read from You today indicates You're likely a delusional leftist Yourself.
Furthermore there is a direct relationship between the Democratic Party and the corporate media outlets, which represents a necessary foundation for fascism. When we learned that the NYT is getting approval for messaging directly from the leadership of the Democratic Party, that's the nail in the coffin of any credibility the paper had left.
Yeah, clearly Bruce had not read ANY Fox News articles, like, ever. Both traditionally conservative and liberal mainstream outlets peddle stories tailored to their audiences. I see both everyday delivered to my iPhone, and I digest them both, with discernment of course.
I am not at all disagreeing with the point that the majority of the mainstream is liberal (very good point actually), just that both put out “news” tailored to their respective audiences and both require reading with discernment and should be taken with a grain of salt. It is a main reason I now subscribe to Common Sense.
I don’t mean to exaggerate, but my opinion is that New York Times in particular has not practiced “real” journalism for many years now. As such, it’s difficult for me to be surprised that they once again have presented only what they would like the news to be. I know many writers here and around have friends and colleagues there, and you hope for the best, but the truth is, there’s no there there anymore. It’s been reduced to a mere mouthpiece of the crazy left.
Over the last couple of month, the New York Times has run articles on two different subjects with which I am deeply familiar. In both cases, they missed important details. Sad to say, they are no longer the paper of record. I'll look forward to the day I see thorough research and nuance.
All the narrative that's fit to print.
But very little in the Times is fit to print. The motto should probably be changed to "All we print is narrative."
Our high school quote was “all the news that fits we print”
This has been true since the late 1990's. I came to be aware of this when DOE was establishing a high school in the neighborhood, that our kids could actually use without being bused to far away overcrowded schools where they were not welcome. The Times sent a cub reporter, who did not bother to report on what the participants were actually saying, called us all racists, and went home to file the story, apparently without adult editorial supervision. At the time I thought of it as a perfect example of Manhattan contempt for "outer-borough-racist-oafs," laid with a trowel on our middle-class, politically liberal, mixed-race neighborhood. Since then this has morphed into something much worse.
The 1,300 Times employees who want to stay home get their news headlines from Twitter left. Their "journalists" are no longer hitting the road to find or follow real news stories, like the scary daily crime taking place in their own city. I don't know why anyone would give the NYT a dime to pay for a bunch of activists in their pajamas reporting on Twitter trends.
During the George Floyd protests and riots, the only actual reporting that was done by the Times was done by Nellie Bowles, who caught a plane to Seattle, and went out and got the story by talking to people there, the old fashioned way. You know, like an actual reporter. I'm eager for more high-quality reporting in the Times from her - but wait . . . she isn't there anymore, is she?
If you have just realized, the Internet killed the news industry. It's just another entertainment medium with a small group of diehards trying to report: everyone makes money off the work of whoever is left, including Common Sense.
The crossword puzzle is pretty good. That’s it.
The crossword has gone downhill under Will Shortz and the Wordplay comments section is unreadable. Not long ago, people were protesting the inclusion of “NRA”—the FDR program, not the gun lobby—as an answer because it was upsetting. There are regularly heated comments if someone criticizes puzzle quality as being “hurtful” or “unkind” to the creator. Many former commenters, myself included, don’t even bother anymore.
Spelling Bee is fun, but even there, idiot millennial editors censor perfectly legitimate words the eighth meanings of which could possibly be considered offensive.
As for the paper itself, I cancelled my subscription years ago.
And Wordle.
The NYT knows their audience and this is the kind of story they want to read. Truth is irrelevant. But why do they want these lies? The message of this story, and many others like it, really is about good and evil. There are the good people, NYT readers, and bad people. The bad people can be Mormons, or religious people generally, or Southerners, or Republicans, etc. Isn’t it fun to feel superior to the racist masses?
There is another motivation in addition to the "feel good" aspect you describe. Whether true or untrue is irrelevant. The story is part of left wing propaganda that things like this happen every day and this story is just a reinforcement of that narrative. It's as old as AL Sharpton and Tawana Brawley so nothing new to see here!
BS. What alternative do you think exists? I read The NY Times article and it is simply straight up reporting. You are simply projecting your biases.
What exactly are you defending 😂
Imagine being savvy enough to know about and read Substack but *still* believing the NYT practices actual journalism rather than just manufacturing consent for whatever the corporatocrats and oligarchs want to do next.
Please explain how is it possible that “straight up reporting” by a national newspaper be proved to be dead wrong by a college newspaper?
Rod Serling couldn't explain it!
BS is rich! What alternative is rich! Straight up reporting is rich. It appears your standard for reporting is they wouldn’t print/say it if it wasn’t true.
Trolling I assume? If not I encourage you to read about the founder of this site and learn about how bad their journalism has become.
Wow. The only conclusion one can draw from this comment is that either you are not all there upstairs or that you are just another troll. Or both.
Great. The inmates surely are running the asylum!
I’m curious, even though I think you’re likely trolling people. Do you still believe there were racial slurs hurled at the black player at the game then?
No, I don't believe racial slurs were hurled at a black player at the game.
I this all this bemoaning about "the media" being for/against some aggrieved group is a waste of time and has become a sport.
I also don't care much about what's posted on Twitter and carried forward as click-bait in other cable media channels. The endless pursuit of ad dollars in this industry is tearing our country apart as evidenced by all the grievances aired here.
Well, I’m glad you’re not buying the lies of this story. However, this is the town square, and people get to air their grievances, which I might add you are taking great advantage of, this is a good thing. In a decent society holding politicians, media and our institutions to account is the right of every citizen.
The NYT claims to be the paper of account, it is far from that unless the account is biased to the left. We should call them on that every time.
I would posit it’s actually the lies told by media and politicians that are “tearing our country apart”, not the calling out of those lies.
Good thing You and the NYT don't have any biases. /sarc
Straight up reporting? Did Vimal Patel, author of the original story, travel to Provo to interview even a single person? He's based in Washington, DC. Did anyone from one of the Times' western bureaus go to Provo? I doubt it. The Times is nothing more than a Twitter megaphone, and, as one of the few major media outlets supported primarily by subscription revenue rather than advertising, they know what their audience wants.
When I read an article in the Times, I assumed they followed their journalistic process before their sports editors decide to publish online. I also see McKenna Oxenden contributed to reporting and Jack Begg contributed research.
Good to know the specific list of names and people who failed to put in any basic effort to learn the truth.
Their work is specifically for people like you, who choose to defend them as they choose to deceive you.
“assumed they followed their journalistic process”. That pretty much sums it up. There is far too much assuming in reporting and far too much believing in reading.
Well said! 👍
The problem is on both sides: left and right. They are ALL owned by the same investment companies and each unit has created a niche market that panders to its audience—rather than reporting real news. Toxic but lucrative business models. There is no real news anymore in any consistent way.
Well said. It's become a sport now. I am willing to bet 99% of subscribers never heard of this incident until they read it here. And then, immediately, all grievances are freely aired.
Not true. USA Today ran a headline calling the Clay & Buck Show “white supremacists” for doubting the story and low and behold they were right. You can’t even suggest we take a second without getting labeled. Her dad who works for the government needs to answer for his race baiting behavior as well. It’s more than the pursuit of clicks. It’s the ideology promoting the idea that this happens all the time when it doesn’t.
I dunno about others, but this is both old news and standard fair from the left. Everything I've read from You today indicates You're likely a delusional leftist Yourself.
The red flag is the change of subject to character attacks on "what I think they are like"
Nonsense. The media is overwhelming leftist. This is not to say that there aren't equally lurid right-wing news outlets but they are not mainstream.
Fox is pretty mainstream. So is WSJ (though their reporting is at least generally accurate and they print retractions when they're wrong).
Correct. Fox IS considered mainstream, and it’s news and sensationalist headlines are also tailored to its more conservative audience.
You've just nailed exactly why the WSJ is the only major news outlets I pay for.
Honest people apologize when they get things wrong, and know that it's not only ok but our moral duty to do so.
Furthermore there is a direct relationship between the Democratic Party and the corporate media outlets, which represents a necessary foundation for fascism. When we learned that the NYT is getting approval for messaging directly from the leadership of the Democratic Party, that's the nail in the coffin of any credibility the paper had left.
The Gray Lady is dead. Long Live Common Sense!!
Nonsense. The media is overwhelmingly for the rich and neither right or left.
Yeah, clearly Bruce had not read ANY Fox News articles, like, ever. Both traditionally conservative and liberal mainstream outlets peddle stories tailored to their audiences. I see both everyday delivered to my iPhone, and I digest them both, with discernment of course.
Let's see........
Mainstream liberal broadcast or cable outlets - CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, MSNBC.
Conservative - FOX.
I am not at all disagreeing with the point that the majority of the mainstream is liberal (very good point actually), just that both put out “news” tailored to their respective audiences and both require reading with discernment and should be taken with a grain of salt. It is a main reason I now subscribe to Common Sense.
We agree. And the content varies within them from efforts to present facts to flat out fabrication and willful distortion.
Now that's truly funny.