I gave up my NYT subscription after the 1619 project. What stuns me most are the legions of old school Boomer liberals who are yet unwoke to the reality that the ground shifted beneath them while they slept and their notions of liberalism no longer exist at places like the NYT. Skimming through the Gray Lady is less what they do to become informed than a ritual to reassure them of their intellectual superiority and their membership in the tribe of the elite. We owe our gratitude to the younger generation of bright journalists like Bari Weiss who, quite unlike their elders, have had the intellectual perception and moral courage to call things as they are.
Who on earth wants to work for a media outlet where the employees attack you on work comm channels if you go against the party line? No different than a high school clique, like the Times journalist said, but it’s every insufferable dweeb with an inferiority complex you’ve ever known. I wonder what slang words they have for genocide, white supremacy, Hitler, and threat to democracy?
" . . . defaming colleagues on Slack will no longer be tolerated." The words of a failed parent after the anti-social behavior of her child has become ingrained, and it's too late. The Times doesn't reflect the values of the country and hasn't done for a long time. Any resuscitation of principle after Oct. 7 will be limited to that story, and halfheartedly observed at that. They are still the paper of open borders, police defunding, college plagiarists, and speech restrictions.
The New York Times has lost its reason for being. I wonder what Arthur Ochs, the son of German Jewish immigrants who bought the near-bankrupt paper in 1896, would think of his great, great, great grandson and successor, the Jewish-adjacent Arthur G Sulzberger, who multiplied the bottom line as he allowed the paper to morph into a tiresome, woke rag sheet that pushes polyamory, bearded men in dresses, DEI/ESG, and unadulterated Jew-hatred. My $5 per month subscription expires in July, and I had planned to stop it then. But after reading this article, I'm seriously thinking about just pulling the plug on the old Gray Lady right now.
The NY Times needs to fire a lot of Jew-hating activists. It needs to hold copy editors responsible for the accuracy of headlines and stories.
And Times assignment editors need to be held accountable for the stories that they assign. Editors who run inaccurate stories and headlines should be fired on the spot.
The NYT made its choice a long time ago. It alienated any reader that counted on strict adherence to journalistic ethics and decided it could handle the decline in newspaper readership by kowtowing to a specific demographic.
While it's good to see that they considered the October 7 attack so brutal and indefensible that they removed the filter for an instant, the newsroom is so thoroughly biased as a whole that there really isn't hope for the paper. Their readership would feel abandoned if the NYT returned to the world of journalism. They need a safe space to go when the "flyover people" do strange things like oppose genocide (from the group that's actually trying - and not hiding it in any way, shape or form - to commit genocide) or, worse, consider a vote for Trump.
The NYT can't be saved. Nor can Amazon Lite (formerly known as the Washington Post) or the AP or Reuters or pretty much any forum controlled using this mindset. Journalism has been replaced by comfort food. Any change would be as unwelcome as lab-grown meat served for dinner at a cattle ranchers' convention.
These "Newsroom Revolts" (which in the past have also happened at the WSJ), can and should be dealt with simply and harshly:
Not only immediately terminate the insubordinates, but also post their names, pictures, and the reason for termination (INSUBORDINATION) on major job sites (Linkedin, Zip Recruiter, etc). This wiill not only scare those remaining into acceptable behaviour, it will insure that the insubordinates become virtually unemployable, since insubordination marks someone as a 'trouble-maker' and NO ONE wants to hire a 'trouble-maker', not even as a McDonalds burger flipper.
There are two stories here: 1) NYT infighting and the decorum of its staff, and 2) Is the reporting of the above Hamas story credible. The former is of less concern to me than the latter. For weeks, the credibility of the reporting has been disputed in and out of MSM. Who is the final word and when will we get it.
I've hung in with the NYTimes even after too many reporters and editors became hucksters for the Progressive point of view. I now read them mainly for recipes. At least their recipes are trustworthy. But any topic of substance? No. Not any longer.
This article is confusing. Wouldn’t someone who leaked evidence that the Daily suppressed a story about Hamas rapes most likely be someone who really wanted that story to get out? In other words, someone who thought the rapes were worth reporting? So why does the article read as though the NYT went after anti-Israel “activist” journalists for the leak? Wouldn’t those activists have agreed with the Daily’s decision not to publish the story? Why would they have leaked anything about that decision, or the process that led to it, if they got the result they wanted? Am I missing something?
As for those activist journalists, it’s been pretty apparent, to me at least, that the NYT has an extreme anti-Israel bias. Whenever they can print something negative about Israel, they do. Have they acknowledged yet that Israel did NOT bomb that hospital? And yet NY is the city with the highest Jewish population in the US and Sulzberger is Jewish. What gives? Who is running that place? Is someone trying to avoid the appearance of bias and going too far in the other direction? Is the NYT no longer a local paper for stories of interest to New Yorkers? Does it no longer have many Jewish people among its local readership?
As for the rape story itself, it seems like it was thoroughly researched and vetted, though as with any story, particularly one reported in the fog of war about a sensitive subject, there may be some errors. The overwhelming evidence is that the rapes did occur, and that these errors are most likely insignificant. I am somewhat shocked that the family of one victim claims the rape did not happen. However, I can think of many reasons why a family might take that position, none of which involve the story itself being false or falsely reported.
The last two paragraphs say it all. Activists can't handle the truth and will suppress it in any way possible.
I gave up my NYT subscription after the 1619 project. What stuns me most are the legions of old school Boomer liberals who are yet unwoke to the reality that the ground shifted beneath them while they slept and their notions of liberalism no longer exist at places like the NYT. Skimming through the Gray Lady is less what they do to become informed than a ritual to reassure them of their intellectual superiority and their membership in the tribe of the elite. We owe our gratitude to the younger generation of bright journalists like Bari Weiss who, quite unlike their elders, have had the intellectual perception and moral courage to call things as they are.
Who on earth wants to work for a media outlet where the employees attack you on work comm channels if you go against the party line? No different than a high school clique, like the Times journalist said, but it’s every insufferable dweeb with an inferiority complex you’ve ever known. I wonder what slang words they have for genocide, white supremacy, Hitler, and threat to democracy?
Instead of “All the News That’s Fit to Print”, a more accurate motto would be “All the News that Fits the Narrative”.
" . . . defaming colleagues on Slack will no longer be tolerated." The words of a failed parent after the anti-social behavior of her child has become ingrained, and it's too late. The Times doesn't reflect the values of the country and hasn't done for a long time. Any resuscitation of principle after Oct. 7 will be limited to that story, and halfheartedly observed at that. They are still the paper of open borders, police defunding, college plagiarists, and speech restrictions.
The New York Times has lost its reason for being. I wonder what Arthur Ochs, the son of German Jewish immigrants who bought the near-bankrupt paper in 1896, would think of his great, great, great grandson and successor, the Jewish-adjacent Arthur G Sulzberger, who multiplied the bottom line as he allowed the paper to morph into a tiresome, woke rag sheet that pushes polyamory, bearded men in dresses, DEI/ESG, and unadulterated Jew-hatred. My $5 per month subscription expires in July, and I had planned to stop it then. But after reading this article, I'm seriously thinking about just pulling the plug on the old Gray Lady right now.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-sulzberger-family-a-complicated-jewish-legacy-at-the-new-york-times/
The NY Times needs to fire a lot of Jew-hating activists. It needs to hold copy editors responsible for the accuracy of headlines and stories.
And Times assignment editors need to be held accountable for the stories that they assign. Editors who run inaccurate stories and headlines should be fired on the spot.
That will send a message to the Jew haters.
The NYT made its choice a long time ago. It alienated any reader that counted on strict adherence to journalistic ethics and decided it could handle the decline in newspaper readership by kowtowing to a specific demographic.
While it's good to see that they considered the October 7 attack so brutal and indefensible that they removed the filter for an instant, the newsroom is so thoroughly biased as a whole that there really isn't hope for the paper. Their readership would feel abandoned if the NYT returned to the world of journalism. They need a safe space to go when the "flyover people" do strange things like oppose genocide (from the group that's actually trying - and not hiding it in any way, shape or form - to commit genocide) or, worse, consider a vote for Trump.
The NYT can't be saved. Nor can Amazon Lite (formerly known as the Washington Post) or the AP or Reuters or pretty much any forum controlled using this mindset. Journalism has been replaced by comfort food. Any change would be as unwelcome as lab-grown meat served for dinner at a cattle ranchers' convention.
Journalists who are activists for jihadists are jihadists themselves, as in literally, the enemy of the people, as a great man once said.
I do so enjoy watching hallowed "institutions" like the New York Time live through the hell they have helped to create.
I hope the mayhem continues. I hope it is costly. I hope it hurts.
These "Newsroom Revolts" (which in the past have also happened at the WSJ), can and should be dealt with simply and harshly:
Not only immediately terminate the insubordinates, but also post their names, pictures, and the reason for termination (INSUBORDINATION) on major job sites (Linkedin, Zip Recruiter, etc). This wiill not only scare those remaining into acceptable behaviour, it will insure that the insubordinates become virtually unemployable, since insubordination marks someone as a 'trouble-maker' and NO ONE wants to hire a 'trouble-maker', not even as a McDonalds burger flipper.
There are two stories here: 1) NYT infighting and the decorum of its staff, and 2) Is the reporting of the above Hamas story credible. The former is of less concern to me than the latter. For weeks, the credibility of the reporting has been disputed in and out of MSM. Who is the final word and when will we get it.
I've hung in with the NYTimes even after too many reporters and editors became hucksters for the Progressive point of view. I now read them mainly for recipes. At least their recipes are trustworthy. But any topic of substance? No. Not any longer.
Read the reporter's bios. They all attended East Coast journalism schools.
Sounds like the reporters need to (i) grow up; (ii) understand the difference between op/ed and news; and (iii) learn how to be real journalists.
This article is confusing. Wouldn’t someone who leaked evidence that the Daily suppressed a story about Hamas rapes most likely be someone who really wanted that story to get out? In other words, someone who thought the rapes were worth reporting? So why does the article read as though the NYT went after anti-Israel “activist” journalists for the leak? Wouldn’t those activists have agreed with the Daily’s decision not to publish the story? Why would they have leaked anything about that decision, or the process that led to it, if they got the result they wanted? Am I missing something?
As for those activist journalists, it’s been pretty apparent, to me at least, that the NYT has an extreme anti-Israel bias. Whenever they can print something negative about Israel, they do. Have they acknowledged yet that Israel did NOT bomb that hospital? And yet NY is the city with the highest Jewish population in the US and Sulzberger is Jewish. What gives? Who is running that place? Is someone trying to avoid the appearance of bias and going too far in the other direction? Is the NYT no longer a local paper for stories of interest to New Yorkers? Does it no longer have many Jewish people among its local readership?
As for the rape story itself, it seems like it was thoroughly researched and vetted, though as with any story, particularly one reported in the fog of war about a sensitive subject, there may be some errors. The overwhelming evidence is that the rapes did occur, and that these errors are most likely insignificant. I am somewhat shocked that the family of one victim claims the rape did not happen. However, I can think of many reasons why a family might take that position, none of which involve the story itself being false or falsely reported.