A while I saw this as a headline in some very funny piece. It is paraphrased and not my original work. Here goes: NYT has learned that a meteorite will wipe out all life on Earth the following day at noon. The Times headline “meteorite to destroy all life on Earth! Black women 4 times most likely to be affected”
Good, The NYT could earn back is reputation by cracking down on this bullshit. I was a subscriber in 2014 when they celebrated having 500,000 digital subscribers. They were my go to since I thought of the NYT as the peak of journalism. Then I saw an article criticizing special commitment centers for sexually violent predators. I was a Corrections Officer at the time and it blew my mind that the NYT wanted serial rapists and pedophiles released en mass.
I unsubscribed as the NYT turned into a raging dumpster fire. I first heard of Bari when she was on Rogan. It didn’t make any sense why I liked so much of what a NYT employee was saying.
Then she resigned, wrote that letter, and it made a lot more sense.
In a just world, activists get fired and journalists get hired. Unfortunately, few who attended Journalism schools are competent journalist. Most "journalists" at the NYT lack the intelligence, inetlellectual honor and integrity necessary to successfully perform their jobs. Management must be blamed for hiring such inferior pieces of Schiff.
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 Columbia Journalism Review did a four-part deep-dive into the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory and how it was covered in the media. The New York Times comes out looking very bad and they have yet to apologize publicly for misleading the public — with coverage for which they got a Pulitzer.
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.
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.
I sincerely hope the Times doesn't cave. What a good thing that would be! Growing a spine has to start somewhere, and this is a worthy cause.
A while I saw this as a headline in some very funny piece. It is paraphrased and not my original work. Here goes: NYT has learned that a meteorite will wipe out all life on Earth the following day at noon. The Times headline “meteorite to destroy all life on Earth! Black women 4 times most likely to be affected”
I loved the paper for years and now I can’t read it anymore. So sad. Well, nothing lasts forever and I wouldn’t be surprised if the paper collapses.
Good, The NYT could earn back is reputation by cracking down on this bullshit. I was a subscriber in 2014 when they celebrated having 500,000 digital subscribers. They were my go to since I thought of the NYT as the peak of journalism. Then I saw an article criticizing special commitment centers for sexually violent predators. I was a Corrections Officer at the time and it blew my mind that the NYT wanted serial rapists and pedophiles released en mass.
I unsubscribed as the NYT turned into a raging dumpster fire. I first heard of Bari when she was on Rogan. It didn’t make any sense why I liked so much of what a NYT employee was saying.
Then she resigned, wrote that letter, and it made a lot more sense.
In a just world, activists get fired and journalists get hired. Unfortunately, few who attended Journalism schools are competent journalist. Most "journalists" at the NYT lack the intelligence, inetlellectual honor and integrity necessary to successfully perform their jobs. Management must be blamed for hiring such inferior pieces of Schiff.
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.
"in charge"? Isn't that paternalistic? BTW, I have been listening to your podcasts for a while and am now enjoying your articles here.
The old gray lady (mare), she ain't what she used to be.
The Columbia Journalism Review did a four-part deep-dive into the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory and how it was covered in the media. The New York Times comes out looking very bad and they have yet to apologize publicly for misleading the public — with coverage for which they got a Pulitzer.
When I tell my Left-leaning friends about it, I always point out that Columbia is not a “far-right” university! Here a link to that four-part investigation; https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php
Yet, they’re not firing them. They’re still cowards.
I gave up reading the NY Slimes in the late 90s when they ran a "human interest" story about a nursing home full of old Stalinists.
Think about it - a story glorifying those who worshipped a man who actually killed more civilians than Hitler.
The old guard was really no better than the modern day radicals.
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.
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.
I would enjoy it more if they still didn't have so much power and influence.
Their power and infuence is declining, and to borrow a famous quote, " gradually, and then all at once".
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/
Dont' forget the big article they had showing that men can breast feed just like women. I mean, was that in the Onion first?
Instead of “All the News That’s Fit to Print”, a more accurate motto would be “All the News that Fits the Narrative”.
Well said! VERY well said!
With the NY Slimes, 'twas ever thus....