It's True What They Say About the NYT

Some might say that genuine and sincere self-reflection is among the most valuable growth process in which humans (or even human organizations) can engage. Perhaps this is true, it has been very valuable to me...

But in the world of media, where the sum total of judgements must be hinged on what is actually published, that proverbial idea needs some adjustment.

The source of this article is an editorial, which is to say "opinion."

It's True What They Say About the NYT

In the final analysis, this is going to be "about Trump." My apologies in advance, for risking repugnance, in this thread. (I recognize I might find genuine interest, rather than no one actually engaging in the discussion. I hope for the latter.)

In 1972, National Review magazine published a content analysis titled “Is it true what they say about the New York Times?”

The analysis and conclusion reached in that study was an unwelcome shock to many of the conservative magazine’s subscribers, as it held that the Times was editorially balanced in its news pages, in contrast to its editorial pages. NR founder William F. Buckley Jr. took a lot of heat from his supporters, as did the co-authors of the study. Not surprisingly, NYT Executive Editor Abe Rosenthal loved it and bought hundreds of copies of the issue.

Five decades later, in early January this year, another study was published that comes to a very different conclusion about the objectivity of the legacy media, particularly the New York Times. The subject of this inquiry was news coverage of “Russiagate.”

This examination, undertaken by Jeff Gerth, a decorated investigative journalist formerly with the Times, was published by Columbia Journalism Review. It’s a tour de force! Having taken a year and a half to research and write, and at a length of 24,000 words in four installments, Gerth utterly destroys whatever is left of the lie that Trump was in league with the Russians, and of the extraordinary lengths the media went to spread that smear.

Of course, we can't simply ignore the actual world we live in and must acknowledge that with former President Trump posturing for another political run in the next presidential election, this piece is likely destined to become enjoined in the political theater... the usual result of such things is that the actual important information is lost to the clownery of name-calling, petty barks and the basest forms of disrespect.

If you have come here looking to exploit the discussion as a chance to show how clever your epithets can be, please, as a favor, spare me. On the other hand, if you are wondering how events 'eventually' resolves themselves... for our collective understanding, welcome.

But that is nothing compared to the fact that the news organization that is front and center in Gerth’s piece is the New York Times. The Times, and to a lesser extent the Washington Post, is to U.S. journalism what magnetic north is to compasses – the needle always points in their direction.

It is actually quite rare to find a piece in media recognizing the monolithic presences of certain media organizations... as I read that sentence, I thought to myself, " How odd that in a 'free market' the platforms of 'information' should be so structured, as to all of them being skewed in favor or against of one ideology, one political perspective, or one person. But, as it happens, that is exactly "how it has become."

No narrative did more to shape Trump’s relations with the press than Russiagate. The story, which included the Steele dossier and the Mueller report among other totemic moments, resulted in Pulitzer Prizes as well as embarrassing retractions and damaged careers. For Trump, the press’s pursuit of the Russia story convinced him that any sort of normal relationship with the press was impossible.

It is important to say that the reality we described earlier leads to all messages by one of the major publishers becoming instantly and automatically "amplified" and popularized ... even when it is untrue. That all objections to such a story are both unavailable to the public (outside of the characterizations of the publisher of the lie,) and virtually suppressed by the unavailability of similar platform dissemination and consideration.

The entire process and operation of the 'exposition' was never "unknown" to the publishers and authors. All of them knew full well that the "evidence" had been 'selected' 'crafted' and "applied." They knew - without exception - exactly whom they were serving, what the plan was, and they all (apparently) embraced the objective. Journalism be damned.

In my opinion, they have only harmed themselves. Demonstrating clearly and without ambivalence, they are not to be "trusted" with this kind of activity. The damage they have done is that at some future point, such determination and coordination may be critical needed... THEY can never undertake it without facing skepticism, suspicion, and at least, hesitation.

And given that neither the Washington Post nor the Times have publicly addressed the gaping hole Gerth’s reporting has torn in their credibility – and the muted reaction of most of the rest of the corporate media to Gerth’s exposé, we seem to have entered a new era. In today’s brave new journalism world, objectivity and even truth have been abandoned in favor of a journalism that simply reflects whatever political or ideological narrative is prevalent at the time.

Now, we know that realistically, the cautious approach to media content is necessary and prudent, we have here an example of the lesson we will be told to ignore... as the political theater progresses to it inevitable crescendo.

Thank you, dear reader. Your patient attention is much appreciated.

They (TPTB) really do believe a well structured propaganda program can create any reality they desire. For us pedestrians in is becoming harder to sift the facts from the feces .

It's a difficult pill to swallow that so many people can not connect any dots in regards to the media. So many "sources familiar with the matter say" articles and hardly anyone questioned the motives? At this point they might as well just say that they saw it on the internet. Amounts to the same thing. It's ironic when the response is "did you hear that on Fox news", when an alternative view is put forth. Like they are getting just fact based news?

www.cjr.org...

originally posted by: monkeyluv
www.cjr.org...

Come on, you can do better than just a "one-liner" consisting of only a link. This isn't insta-twit-book...

a reply to: Maxmars

I think more and more people are beginning to check out MS news stories that seem a bit 'off', and stories that quickly fade away without any satisfactory answers.

The balloon fiasco is one that had a great deal of media coverage, but quickly faded away, leaving people to do online searches for more information.

I hear a lot of people say they don't even watch the news anymore; it's all doomsday grandstanding and political infighting.

Some people are 'tuning in' and learning to do their own research while others are just 'tuning out'.

The entire playing field changed in 2016 and we're still learning how much effort and coordination went into it.

The problem though is that there is a huge number of people that still don't realize they are victims of propaganda. They still trust and believe the NYTs and mainstream media.

Journalists are now activist although many don't even have the self-awareness to admit it. There was an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal the other day outlining this lack of awareness.

It might be behind a paywall. Bring Back Objective Journalism

For example:

Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication recently released a survey of some 75 journalists titled “Beyond Objectivity.” Many of them argued that objectivity should no longer be the standard in news reporting.

“I never understood what ‘objectivity’ meant,” Prof. Leonard Downie Jr., a co-author of the report and a former executive editor of the Washington Post, wrote in a Post op-ed. “My goals for our journalism were instead accuracy, fairness, nonpartisanship, accountability and the pursuit of truth.” Much of the public would regard that as far more objective than what they read, hear and view now.

a reply to: Edumakated

I saw that too!

“Objectivity Has Got To Go”: News Leaders Call for the End of Objective Journalism

Truth is ... after I thought about it for a while, I came to the understanding that I should have expected these words to come out of their mouths ... This most recent generation of "journalists" are the prime graduates of "elite" university training- a school of thought that is characterized best by wantonly engaging in "doubling down" when they are caught out. It is sad really, they simply can't conceive of 'serving.' They refuse to 'report,' they demand they be allowed to 'tell.'

This "journalists" lofty pursuit of truth replaced the pursuit of cold hard facts.

Facts need no defense, no reinforcement, no 'convincing.' Truth requires all of those things, if not more.
The only things facts demand is recognition, truth demands acceptance.

I can't imagine how these highly trained elite club members move past that in good conscience.

a reply to: Maxmars

The source of this article is an editorial, which is to say "opinion."

Isn't that exactly the problem?
Report:
On Feb 18 2023, Maxmars wrote a thread about a NYT opinion piece on objectivity in journalism.
Opinion:
There's no objective reporting in the media, Maxmars said citing a NYT article.

Do you see the difference?
Once you got used to it is quite to easy to spot. And in terms of NYT: they were also the only ones who ran the Hunter laptop story.
Because they're doing this business for a while now and don't decide what story to cover based on ideology but what will sell.

As adult I should have enough media literacy to spot the report in an opinion, or the absence of it and vice versa.
Everything else, like projecting my responsibilty to be literate on the media is anti free speech, anti capitalism or anti free market and demanding a nanny state to protect me from those freedoms.

a reply to: Maxmars

Have you ever tried to be objective? It's almost impossible.
You always bring your own bias built on other stories you know, preferences etc. And you can't write 'engaging content' without being passionate about a subject.
Objectivity is basically an ideal impossible to ever be fully realised. Because you're expecting those 'elite students' as you say to achieve something impossible you're always going to end up disappointed.
Reaffirming your own bias that they do so intentionally.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: Maxmars

Have you ever tried to be objective? It's almost impossible.
You always bring your own bias built on other stories you know, preferences etc. And you can't write 'engaging content' without being passionate about a subject.
Objectivity is basically an ideal impossible to ever be fully realised. Because you're expecting those 'elite students' as you say to achieve something impossible you're always going to end up disappointed.
Reaffirming your own bias that they do so intentionally.

that new AI chat bot
proves it.

a reply to: Peeple

Thank you for your response. You have given me something to work with there, I ask for your forgiveness in advance if as I answer, you find that I missed your meaning... it is the essential difference between 'reporting' and 'conversing.' Feel free to redress if you think you need to expand.

Report:
On Feb 18 2023, Maxmars wrote a thread about a NYT opinion piece on objectivity in journalism.
Opinion: There's no objective reporting in the media, Maxmars said citing a NYT article.

This piece was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire. Not the New York Times. I say this because the immediate feel of your response was in defiance of my 'thread' about the subject (the author's article.)

Perhaps it would have served our understanding better if I stated that the article represents the author's disaffection with the behaviors demonstrated in the particulars of the Trump matter, and the abject bias they exposed. I am not responsible for the inferences you draw concerning your perceptions of my bias.

Please note that within the text that I supplied is no such statement that "there is no objective reporting in media," and saying so reframes your argument precariously on a supposition. What I said could be reduced, at best, to "Wide-spread media bias exists and has been abused gravely" (one might add unapologetically.) But even then, I think doing that might exclude the message intent, which I fear you didn't appreciate fully.

I think your dislocation from my message comes from the reference to the NYT... while they did "run" with the Hunter Biden laptop story, the immediate results were evidently in line with the bias which prevails in their inner chambers... the NYT was 'cancelled' in some places, and the following silence was stark and very telling about the fact that after running with that story, they "ran" away from it with reckless abandon.

I agree that "commerce" can be a contributing factor in "media reporting"... and I agree that is almost always the case that if the "sponsors" revolt, they listen. But I find it difficult to believe that what happened with Russiagate was a matter of 'profit.' I could be wrong, but I'm still confident that it was bias, hubris, and an orchestrated project with many media "players" participating in it. I'll stop short of saying "conspiracy" because I know that's a trigger word.

As adult I should have enough media literacy to spot the report in an opinion, or the absence of it and vice versa.
Everything else, like projecting my responsibilty to be literate on the media is anti free speech, anti capitalism or anti free market and demanding a nanny state to protect me from those freedoms.

Why would you think that? Do you believe the world should operate on the principle that everyone is lying, all the time? That not even a "newspaper" or "media service" should be a valid source of information? How did you 'learn' the skill of discernment? Was there a class? Were you among those few who were taught rhetoric, logic, critical thinking skills in the context of journalistic integrity?

I would say that so many have never been exposed to these topics we can't realistically expect the skill of which you speak to exists in any 'public' body. In fact, the idea that "news" has true value is the entire point of their existence... or rather was, for about 50 years in the early 20th century.

Have you ever tried to be objective? It's almost impossible.

I do try. Not always, but I'm no journalist. And I don't make 'reports,' I make threads to discuss what is reported...

I disagree that it is impossible... It is just difficult... so much so that entire educational programs were established in institutes of higher learning expressly dedicated to teaching them... to make journalists who could be relied upon to inform. Some editors used to literally trash the kind of garbage that passes for journalism today... now they embrace it.

You always bring your own bias built on other stories you know, preferences etc. And you can't write 'engaging content' without being passionate about a subject.

Maybe you are correct that you can't write "engagingly" without passion. Or maybe that a dispassionate analysis of any event or topic is uninteresting. I guess that makes me someone who wants to be uninteresting from time to time.

Objectivity is basically an ideal impossible to ever be fully realised. Because you're expecting those 'elite students' as you say to achieve something impossible you're always going to end up disappointed.

If this were about 'my expectations' you might have a leg to stand on there. But I am not 'disappointed," only trying to share my observations... But once again, it's not impossible, just difficult. It's work.

Reaffirming your own bias that they do so intentionally.

I don't think it matters what their intentions are, only what they did. Why is another conversation entirely... one that we were denied participating in at the time... because their suspect "information" was broadcast everywhere at volume 11. And those few who 'asked' after the facts were beaten down and silenced. Journalism be damned.

((I hope you don't mind that I kind of merged your two posts into one for my response.))

A conflict that has no winning solution.
You want to believe people you trust.
Sometimes you get correct information.
Other times, you are lied to.

Belief itself, is the problem, as your intuition is the most valuable.

originally posted by: charlyv
A conflict that has no winning solution.
You want to believe people you trust.
Sometimes you get correct information.
Other times, you are lied to.

Belief itself, is the problem, as your intuition is the most valuable.

like the fiery but mostly
benign chemical spill
in ohio.

a reply to: Maxmars

'Defiance'? I wasn't aware you're the authority and every contrary opinion an act of defiance...
Also: NYT is in your title, your link and everywhere... so If that's my fault ...*shrugs just like that I lost all interest

originally posted by: monkeyluv
www.cjr.org...

Thanks for posting the link to

The press versus the president, part one
By Jeff Gerth

a reply to: Peeple

Sorry if the word "defiance' meant more to you than me, I didn't mean to imply some dramatic confrontation, as you have inferred... I'm not sure how we got to the point where you feel I'm posturing as an authority on anything. But here we are ...

I believe the NYT references in the article also seem to be more to you than me, I had intended this thread to be about collective and aligned media bias, and how the article author describes his opinion... not the NYT alone.

But again, since you seem to feel some manner of offense or repugnance at my word choices, I can only suggest you don't have to suffer them.

a reply to: stosh64

Any thank YOU for providing a description of what's at the end of that link!

a reply to: Maxmars

You committed the faux pas of writing multiple paragraphs that can't be quickly distilled into a bumper sticker slogan.

By the rules of ATS debate you are a doody-head.

I'll get your membership card in the mail shortly. Membership has no benefits, but we're looking at a Metaverse partnership so you can be virtually maligned in a fully-immersive open-world environment.

For the record neither the NYT or real clear politics broke the Hunter Biden laptop story. It was the NY Post that did. No one else would cover that story initially due to pushback from the government. Because despite being former intelligence agents the signers of the memo calling it Russian disinformation were playing off their government roles. Funny how no journalists wanted to dig deeper, as if they were satisfied with what was being done.