What Kind of Language Is That to Use in The Times?

Maybe it's because I live in Europe, or because I'm getting older (over 50), but indeed, I don't come to the Times to know who sleeps with whom. That is completely irrelevant for most public figures. Why would we need to know anything about the private life of a sports star, or even of a politician? The only exception would be a politician or other public figure (from a church or something), whose claim to fame would be his boasting about the importance of moral values, marriage and the like. Otherwise, it's not only none of our business, but is also quite boring.

The conservative daily I was working in had a similar problem. In provincial elections in the southern state of Tamil Nadu (then Madras), a parochial, separatist party captured power. Till then the paper never mentioned the names of most of its leaders. Overnight they were the ruling elite. The daily changed its policy.

So the gangster says, "What kind of language is that to use in The New York Times?" Omg, hahaha. And I see Dutch got his start hanging around pool halls. Don't I somehow recall P rhymes with T and that stands for trouble?

The Times is in charge of what it prints. Just make darn sure you have the facts correct and backed up. Use discretion and if the story is cogent and time-meaningful, get it out there. That's what newspapers are supposed to do.

In fact, I would very much like to have a Pinocchio Fact Checker working full time, especially during the run ups to elections. The lying and bending of truth by candidates is a national shame. That too is a “language” issue.

Dutch Schultz was from The Bronx? I never knew that.

And I beg of the New York Times to remain steadfast in upholding its civil reporting. There is a reason that NYT is the only publication that makes a monthly appearance on my general ledger.

The Time continues to use the outmoded (but now quaint) "Mr." before a male's last name. Except in one glaring instance: Hitler! Good onya, Times, for Hitler. But it's time to abandon the titles for both men and women. "Decorum" and "civility" don't really require them.

I think that outing politicians' personal lives and foibles is in large part responsible for the now conventional tone of political reporting. It's now the most trivial, most sensational, least illuminating, least relevant "facts" to making a good voting decision that consumes the most ink and is deemed the *most* relevant to ability to govern. This has driven down the quality of candidates for voters to choose from, and therewith quality of governance and policy. So, thank you pandering media and "character" police for the Donald Trumps, Sarah Palins, Ted Cruzes and Rick Santorums. Thank you very much.

So The Times is now a non partisan newspaper? That is indeed news to me.

How important to a reasonably intellectual community is it to know anything about a scandal and those involved beyond what facts can be proved and reported in a properly decorous way?

Who's to care and why?

naf 85; no interest at all.

FDR, JFK, LBJ, Ike, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and even George S. Patton had one or more extramarital affairs.

Given a choice between the leadership of any of those folks and the current apparently faithful, but woefully ineffective President, I'd take any of the philanderers.

It may be time to recall Lincoln's response to complaints about Grant's occasional binge drinking: "Tell me what brand of whiskey that Grant drinks. I would like to send a barrel of it to my other generals."

Off course the Clinton - Lewinski story blew the lid off of any constraints of the N.Y. Times and other respected media. What is sad, is once this was seen as legitimate, every detail that was unethically elicited by Ken Starr was reported everywhere. The nuances, the humanity of the young woman, was never the story.

Had she had a competent lawyer from the beginning, she may have been told to admit that sexual relations took place, and refuse to provide the details. As a matter of fact, she didn't need to answer anything based on the fifth amendment.

Now, so many years later, the trajectory of her life is still defined by that event, and the endless crude jokes by now revered late night hosts. The N.Y. Times fell into line, even for the first (and I guess only time) in the full transcript of the testimony printing the taboo F word.

Substance and meaning sometimes requires details, even accepting unavoidable breach of sensibilities. I would say that there are no longer stories that are inherently unfit to print. In fact, the greater dereliction can very well be their exclusion from respected media

AlRodbell.com

Perhaps as subscriber draw, the Times Insider might without great difficulty or added expense easily and routinely maintain a running tally of 535 Congressional reps, other federal and state elected and appointed officials, judges, etc. involved in extramarital dalliances, unless contemporary infidelities, or coverage thereof, ended with Newt at his dying wife's bedside.

October 31, 2015

New York Times language universal - it's always to send the very best message to fit the reporting. That's its historic brand messaging for all that may need to fit their meaning's exegesis for living well within the boundaries of the good life. All words are the best for readers and characters for reporting; or indeed 'worthy' of editorializing.
There is only one language and that's to make sure the words connect to story and its verifiable and having an ROI on the ink or bits and bytes.

jja Manhattan, N.Y.

The NYT knows it better than anyone: it's not only what you write, it's what you omit to write.
In 1884, it was "an unapologetically partisan newspaper". Things haven't changed much in 131 years. Today, it's no secret that the Times is very much a Democratic one (which is fine by me). What's troubling is the zeal with which its editors and writers overwhelmingly favour Ms. Clinton over Sanders, both in exposure and penchant. Sanders always comes out as an agitated, chaotic howler with no real grasp on reality or defined plans, while in fact, he's the most experienced Democratic candidates, and his policies are thoroughly drafted and explained.
The decent and exemplary thing to do would be first, to advertise where your loyalties lie, like maybe having a signature like : All the news we deem fit to print. And Hillary 2016!
In that sense, although the NY Times may seem like a serious news organization with responsible reporting and weighed opinions, it is in reality a a sophisticated Democratic version of the Washington Times, a poorly-veiled media outlet for its owners and funders, who also are among the largest donors to Ms. Clinton's campaign.
Never mind the language, is that the kind of discourse to use in the Times?

?
?
What does a reader of The Times really WISH to see covered by writers at The Times (or nytimes.com, now that your offerings are digital-first)?

The seeds of an answer to that question can be found in 11 readers' letters, here:

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/letters-the-edwards-aff...

.
.
Puh-leeze!

Despite Mr. Corbett's protestations, nytimes.com runs stories that have click-value even if they are personally intrusive and not particularly newsworthy for the people who turn to this website over the many other options.

Take the recent incidents concerning the former decathlete who competed in the Olympics as Bruce Jenner.

That person arranged an exclusive interview with respected newswoman (and former Nixon press aide) Diane Sawyer, during which private life facts might be discussed. But long before the interview took place, gossip rags were filled with speculation. In the print edition and on nytimes.com, Mr. Corbett's news organization ran an article that purported to be about the gossip rags' speculation, but was of course about the private facts that would be discussed in the interview. Subsequently, there was another story about the issues surrounding the type of private facts that would, in the future, be covered by Ms. Sawyer. Both times, the name of Bruce Jenner was used, and the information that was supposed to be private was discussed.

It was not, at the time, newsworthy to a Times audience.

Of course, the interview did take place. When it aired, and when Vanity Fair magazine put out its next edition, the world was introduced to the transgender person who called herself Caitlyn Jenner. Then, once again, nytimes.com carried the story. This time, there was actual news.

And once again, the Public Editor needed to settle controversies.

Form the Exner obit: "...whom she said was also her lover."

Now THAT is a cause for journalistic embarrassment.

It's true about the statement "pushover for a blonde". I just googled it and the only reference in the first page or so was to this article.

"The Times of 1884 was an unapologetically partisan newspaper."

2015 - nothing has changed

“But it’s the truth isn’t it?”

Shouldn't this quote have a comma after "truth"?

"The Times ... holds itself as an exemplar of decorum and civility."

But just today in another section of the paper The Times is defaming "white people."

IMO, the only reason to write about a public figure's private life is when that person is an utter hypocrite. For example, a politician whose platform includes anti-gay denunciations and then turns out to be having a same-sex affair. Or one who is firmly anti-abortion--except when his young mistress gets pregnant, and he urges her to have the procedure.