This seems to be happening all the item, particularly around the current administration's 'alternative facts'. Every day I read outrights lies and misrepresentation handled as if they are factual presentations, alternative views, or even just minor deviations, not that we can't perceive things differently, and those differences being legitimate. Facts are not typically hard and black-and-white, and even experts disagree about what many think are decided theory, but the soft-pedaling of harm nowadays needs to be stopped, somehow.
2
Jolly good, Jolly not so good.
1
Headlines, along with the deck, have two objectives: interesting enough to draw attention of readers and pull them into reading a story; and two to give an indication, when read along with the lead, on what is the big claim reporting is making. Rest of must back that claim with evidence presented in order importance. In recent months, more often NYT is failing the two objectives. Often if you read the story all through the kicker graph you felt as if the reporters are saying the claim we made at outset of the story, we are really not sure about. This has undermined inverted pyramid model that allowed readers pressed time to read headline and leads, and move on resting assured that claim is fully backed by the reporting. I hope editors at NYT will think about if the first objective has become the driving force in copyediting.
1
Many feel the Republican AHCA bill that passed the House is an unmitigated disaster. But the truth is far more complex and nuanced. Your column should acknowledge that.
The key question is probably how the bill will impact those with pre-existing conditions. This is indeed concerning, but the answer is far from clear. The legislation does not repeal pre-existing coverage, but it does place limits.
Similarly, the bill does not repeal the 10 health care mandates, rather it gives the states the authority to reduce their impact. The mandates in Obamacare are too generous, and were put in the ACA as much for political as for medical reasons.
The proposed bill will likely increase the disparity between what older individuals pay for insurance compared to the young. This will adversely impact older Americans. But it will benefit the young. And this too has merit; young people are already burdened with heavy debt and low wages. And their care is indeed less expensive than care for seniors. Perhaps some change is appropriate.
Obamacare was and is collapsing. In much of the country, the exchanges are failing, and not providing the affordable insurance options the law promises. This process is accelerating, and the issue is Obamacare not the Republicans. Something must be done, and the Republican bill may be a reasonable starting point.
And neither the ACA nor the AHCA does enough to address a fundamental problem: the extraordinarily high costs of health care in the US.
The key question is probably how the bill will impact those with pre-existing conditions. This is indeed concerning, but the answer is far from clear. The legislation does not repeal pre-existing coverage, but it does place limits.
Similarly, the bill does not repeal the 10 health care mandates, rather it gives the states the authority to reduce their impact. The mandates in Obamacare are too generous, and were put in the ACA as much for political as for medical reasons.
The proposed bill will likely increase the disparity between what older individuals pay for insurance compared to the young. This will adversely impact older Americans. But it will benefit the young. And this too has merit; young people are already burdened with heavy debt and low wages. And their care is indeed less expensive than care for seniors. Perhaps some change is appropriate.
Obamacare was and is collapsing. In much of the country, the exchanges are failing, and not providing the affordable insurance options the law promises. This process is accelerating, and the issue is Obamacare not the Republicans. Something must be done, and the Republican bill may be a reasonable starting point.
And neither the ACA nor the AHCA does enough to address a fundamental problem: the extraordinarily high costs of health care in the US.
The headline is much worse from using the word "poor" instead of "every one else." By restricting the discussion of this abomination to the poor you gloss over just how universally bad this is.
So, as in every one of Liz Spayd's columns, she yet again sees herself as the Sean Spicer for the NY Times.
So, as in every one of Liz Spayd's columns, she yet again sees herself as the Sean Spicer for the NY Times.
1
There's a piece on May 5, by Mark Siegel entitled "What the Republican Health Care Plan Gets Right."
While I don't think it is intentionally constructed to mislead (as Bret Stephens' pieces are) ... in a microcosm it exemplifies the problems of so much of today's "conservative" rhetoric, and I wonder where did this piece come from? Why did the NYT chose it?
"The government’ ... should ensure that insurance plans include mandatory benefits like emergency, epidemic, vaccine and addiction coverage. ... But Obamacare went well beyond these essentials, by mandating an overstuffed prix fixe meal filled with benefits like maternity and mental health coverage ..."
Why is "addiction coverage" a "mandatory benefit" but maternity and mental health coverage are "an overstuffed prix fixe"?
The crux if this piece is the claim "pre-existing conditions will continue to drive up premiums if everyone is compelled to pay the same price" ... Obviously flat-rating will drive up the premiums for those who do not have a pre-existing condition, and lower them for those who do.
He admits the 8 B$ is low, won't confront the real price. If the public is to pay the real price, how is flat-rating worse? ... the cost is the same either way.
So he admits the bill as it stands is a fail - and airily assumes a magical fix in the senate ... and that will make free money how?
Can't the New York Times find a more logical and well-reasoned argument than this?
While I don't think it is intentionally constructed to mislead (as Bret Stephens' pieces are) ... in a microcosm it exemplifies the problems of so much of today's "conservative" rhetoric, and I wonder where did this piece come from? Why did the NYT chose it?
"The government’ ... should ensure that insurance plans include mandatory benefits like emergency, epidemic, vaccine and addiction coverage. ... But Obamacare went well beyond these essentials, by mandating an overstuffed prix fixe meal filled with benefits like maternity and mental health coverage ..."
Why is "addiction coverage" a "mandatory benefit" but maternity and mental health coverage are "an overstuffed prix fixe"?
The crux if this piece is the claim "pre-existing conditions will continue to drive up premiums if everyone is compelled to pay the same price" ... Obviously flat-rating will drive up the premiums for those who do not have a pre-existing condition, and lower them for those who do.
He admits the 8 B$ is low, won't confront the real price. If the public is to pay the real price, how is flat-rating worse? ... the cost is the same either way.
So he admits the bill as it stands is a fail - and airily assumes a magical fix in the senate ... and that will make free money how?
Can't the New York Times find a more logical and well-reasoned argument than this?
4
"[U]nderstatement to make a point?" I thought the New York Times was a newspaper. Report accurately, whether it has a rhetorical flourish or not.
Considering the avalanche of criticism over the Times' incredibly poor record of political journalism over the past year especially, you'd think the editors would be paranoid about not making any more hack mistakes. It already has one of the worst political reporting teams in media today; can't you at least get decent editors?
Considering the avalanche of criticism over the Times' incredibly poor record of political journalism over the past year especially, you'd think the editors would be paranoid about not making any more hack mistakes. It already has one of the worst political reporting teams in media today; can't you at least get decent editors?
5
Liz Spayd and your dear friend Brett Stephens? Hmmmm do I smell Judith Miller-type politics again at the NYT? What is that smell?
4
Brimstone...
1
It's not just the poor who won't benefit. An enormous range of other people will either be directly or effectively denied coverage. By Trump's own words, Trumpcare is a failure. For a reminder of his specific promises, see this article n Politico:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/trump-obamacare-promises-236021
3
In his past chapter as sports editor at the Times, Mr. Jolly would've sanctioned the headline "Cubs Win World Series; Indians....Not So Much."
Now, THAT would have been "understatement."
Now, THAT would have been "understatement."
4
Hardly a major error. The real fault lies in a system that does not offer a do over. Forgive the inference, but the self-recrimination is what people of conscience do to themselves when words alone cannot correct the unjust behavior of others who are behaving without conscience.
Either way, the headline is faulty. The "so" of "less so" points to an adjective or adverb, as in
"The wealthy are very confident; the poor, less so."
"The wealthy benefit very predictably; the poor, less so."
Just saying.
"The wealthy are very confident; the poor, less so."
"The wealthy benefit very predictably; the poor, less so."
Just saying.
2
Why don't we ask Bret Stephens who benefits? It may be our liberal contempt that convinces us that the wealthy will do better than the poor. I mean, why the rush to judgement? Could it be facts? Could facts matter? I'd be much more comfortable finding out what Bret thinks about this before we decide what's right and what's wrong. Really, it's Bret's analysis that matters in the end, right? Anything else would be jumping to conclusions and rushing to fix something that might not need fixing. It might be a mistake to even care about the poor. They might not want us caring so much about them, you know, we should check first. Yeah, check with Bret. He knows best.
3
Oh, the horror! The NYT accidentally didn't attack Trump in a way it was supposed to do. Alarm!
I suggest they rename Ms. Spayd's column from "Public Editor" to - "Rationalizations, Excuses and Apologia" --
And - for those who complain about poor grammar in a Times column -- that train left the station years ago...
And - for those who complain about poor grammar in a Times column -- that train left the station years ago...
6
"“The headline was written as a rhetorical device, using understatement to make a point,..."
What is this, a creative writing class? Save the nuance and give us precision and brevity. I would have written, "Take From the Poor; Give to the Rich", perhaps accompanied by a drawing of Paul Ryan in Robin Hood tights and bow and arrow.
I do agree with an earlier commenter who cited the common catch phrase "not so much" as something we all understand to mean not at all. "Less so"? Not so much.
What is this, a creative writing class? Save the nuance and give us precision and brevity. I would have written, "Take From the Poor; Give to the Rich", perhaps accompanied by a drawing of Paul Ryan in Robin Hood tights and bow and arrow.
I do agree with an earlier commenter who cited the common catch phrase "not so much" as something we all understand to mean not at all. "Less so"? Not so much.
5
Could simply use "Wealthy benefit; the poor suffer," but that would be applicable to most Republican policies over the last 40 years.
3
“The headline was written as a rhetorical device, using understatement to make a point,” said Tom Jolly, associate masthead editor.
Yes, that's how I read it, and how it obviously was meant. To quote reader Frank Spencer-Molloy's artful reply below: "People who lighten up live longer, those who brood over imagined slights, much less so."
Anyone who thinks the NYT is anything less than apoplectic over the House GOP bill hasn't been paying attention these past decades.
Yes, that's how I read it, and how it obviously was meant. To quote reader Frank Spencer-Molloy's artful reply below: "People who lighten up live longer, those who brood over imagined slights, much less so."
Anyone who thinks the NYT is anything less than apoplectic over the House GOP bill hasn't been paying attention these past decades.
1
As a retired journalist who wrote thousands of headlines in my career, I understand the desire to "make a point" with the headline. Unfortunately, it was the type a college professor of mine called a "backward headline." That is, you had to read the story to understand the headline -- the opposite of how that relationship should work. And this one was doubly bad, in that even after read
ing the story is still didn't work.
Strong headline writing is one of the toughest of the journalistic arts, however, and one the Times is usually quite good at. And as mistakes go this is a relatively minor one; nothing on the scale of "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!"
ing the story is still didn't work.
Strong headline writing is one of the toughest of the journalistic arts, however, and one the Times is usually quite good at. And as mistakes go this is a relatively minor one; nothing on the scale of "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!"
2
My beef was with the online version of the headlines: winners and losers. I commented and a number of people seemed to agree. Using "winners and losers" versus simply stating how various people will be affected feeds into a dangerous, not to mention immature, narrative that is divisive in its own right. Along with the current leader's use of those words it not only pits people against one another as though it is a ball game, but it is pejorative. Why don't we just put a big L on the foreheads of the poor, or less "successful"( who says money=success?) and old people?
2
So, Spayd, you have been on the job for, what, eight months, and this is the third, or fourth time, you have felt it necessary to address this issue? I think we have a real problem here.
The Times want to check itself into clickbait headline rehab.
The Times want to check itself into clickbait headline rehab.
4
Trump ran on repeal and replace, was elected to do it, along with scores of others, and is trying his best to do it. Americans think ObamaCare is one of the biggest disasters ever.
Luckily they got to vote on it.
Luckily they got to vote on it.
Just call it 'Wealth Care' next time.
2
NYT, your headline game is weak on many occasions. Do you purposely sacrifice clarity in the name of cleverness and clicks? Your writers deserve better. Some of them are left defenseless against asinine viewpoints they didn't even articulate. Stop it with the ham-fisted heads. Have a talk among yourselves, and get the display copy back up to the level of your reporting and OP/ED.
1
And exactly how do we define "the poor?".
And "elderly?"
And "elderly?"
3
People who lighten up live longer, those who brood over imagined slights, much less so
14
Regardless of the headline, seriously, why did it take all these years to point out the advantages of the Affordable Care Act, who gained benefits from it, and who would lose out most if they lost their benefits?
This should never have been put in a crisis mode.
The truth about the ACA could have been clearly spelled out previously over years of personal stories.
I wish as a nurse I could speak with Barack Obama personally about this legislation. He never, ever got a fair shake.
How could a paper, even my favorite New York Times, have not done a better job of educating over and over again, giving us examples to show the naysayers, facts about real people. It's a little late. But reporters could still dig up some fascinating true stories to help the rest of us plead our case.
I would say show up at the town halls, but the bully legislators aren't even having them these days.
This should never have been put in a crisis mode.
The truth about the ACA could have been clearly spelled out previously over years of personal stories.
I wish as a nurse I could speak with Barack Obama personally about this legislation. He never, ever got a fair shake.
How could a paper, even my favorite New York Times, have not done a better job of educating over and over again, giving us examples to show the naysayers, facts about real people. It's a little late. But reporters could still dig up some fascinating true stories to help the rest of us plead our case.
I would say show up at the town halls, but the bully legislators aren't even having them these days.
23
You write "One reader, Liz Smith, put it better than me on Twitter:."
The correct grammatical phase is "better than I on Twitter:."
The correct grammatical phase is "better than I on Twitter:."
13
Not so fast (or should I have said "Not as fast"?), Ted Gallagher. Both are generally acceptable. In one case you're using "than" as a conjuction; in the other as a preposition. So if you use the word "am" or "did" after it, you must say "better than I am/did." But if you leave "am" or "did" out, it's perfectly okay to say "better than me" because you're using it as a preposition.
That came up in George H. W. Bush's acceptance speech when he said something about "a kinder, gentler nation." Reaganites were complaining "kinder than whom?" And then, of course, the grammar war broke out, as it is prone to do.
That came up in George H. W. Bush's acceptance speech when he said something about "a kinder, gentler nation." Reaganites were complaining "kinder than whom?" And then, of course, the grammar war broke out, as it is prone to do.
You know that snarky joke about Saint Peter at the gate, a newly deceased soul approaches ....
St. Peter: Who comes to heaven's gate?
New Soul: It is I.
St. Peter: Go to hell! We don't need any more English teachers here!
St. Peter: Who comes to heaven's gate?
New Soul: It is I.
St. Peter: Go to hell! We don't need any more English teachers here!
1
Sam, "than" is not a preposition that is used in the case above. It may be used than way for numerical objects (It takes less than an hour), but will not serve in the case here, in which it clearly introduces the only clause that makes sense: "better than I am". "Better than me am" won't cut it.
1
Yet another inane PE column!
Be Gone Ms. Spayd! Be Gone!
Be Gone Ms. Spayd! Be Gone!
10
“The headline was written as a rhetorical device, using understatement to make a point,” said Tom Jolly, associate masthead editor.
NYT: These are not times for "rhetorical devices." Tell it as it is. The Truth matters.
NYT: These are not times for "rhetorical devices." Tell it as it is. The Truth matters.
29
In English we say "Tell it like it is."
Your prissy "...as it is" is the error of Mrs Grundyism, conforming to a nonexistent rule to be what teecher thinks is nice.
Your prissy "...as it is" is the error of Mrs Grundyism, conforming to a nonexistent rule to be what teecher thinks is nice.
No, David, "like" is only a preposition, not a fable of teachers, but a fact of the rules of the language. You can break the rule if you'd like, surely, all you want. But it's not repealed because you do, or because you insult "teechers".
3
Liz, make it "to try to soft-pedal ..." not "try and ..."
10
TRB,
Go and jump in the lake. You're making stuff up.
Go and jump in the lake. You're making stuff up.
Liz reveals an ignorance of written language not expected from a New York Times writer. But then Bret Stephens. (Ignorance and Zionism, Pulitzer notwithstanding.)
1
For heaven's sake, David. Take a course. A lot of us really do speak correctly. It's like you're here to hurl spit-wads. It's starting to make you look, well, not so good.
1
I think the (rather hackneyed) expression they were going for was probably "Wealthy People Benefit, the Poor Not So Much." Changing it to "less so" saved a few characters, at the expense of altering the meaning.
9
How about "the Poor Don't". That would be even fewer.
26
Correct to "better than I on Twitter".
9
Wrong, John, wrong. "Me" is English. "I" is teecher.
Editor, reading David's remarks, I have to suggest a flag form "incredibly annoying".
2
Why should I trust Spayd to trust the unnamed editor's word? Spayd thinks Bret Stephens, already corrected in matters of fact, is arguing in good faith. Spayd thinks having more and more fact-free right-wing blowhards is a breath of fresh air after putting up with the liberal bias of the Brookses, Tom Friedman, and Douthat.
Spayd's judgement may be just the slightest bit little bit off is what I'm saying here..
Spayd's judgement may be just the slightest bit little bit off is what I'm saying here..
26
And thank you for ex-Spayding that. There is no justification for Stephens except in his little alt-right fantasyscape. As for Brooks, Friedman and Douthat, "liberal"? Hardly. Brooks is a con, Friedman is a grifter and Douthat is well, an alter boy who took a wrong turn in typewriting class. That is, he learned to type, but missed the class about content.
Spayd is corrected here, just as Stephens was in his first column. Birds of a fast and loose feather flock together?
1
May I say, Cheap Jim, that you are being way too hard on Ms. Spayd. What's obvious is that she's trotted out for comic relief--she's the NYT version of a late-night talk-show host, sent to deliver a charming, amusing monologue that would seem to contain some content but is actually as insusbstantial as gas.
The headline wasn't rhetroically deceptive, it was fraudulent. The House Republicans voted--openly, gleefully, sadistically--to do as much damage to the poor (and the almost poor) as they could without actually sentencing them to death. This is not a secret to any other outlet, not even conservative ones. But the NYT is petrified that it will be flooded with complaints from its reactionary detractors, and so it's new standard is...if shading the truth doesn't work, pretend there is no truth. There is only "fairness."
Yes, the Nazi death camps slaughtered millions of people, but think of how many hard-working unemployed Germans got full-time jobs there.
The headline wasn't rhetroically deceptive, it was fraudulent. The House Republicans voted--openly, gleefully, sadistically--to do as much damage to the poor (and the almost poor) as they could without actually sentencing them to death. This is not a secret to any other outlet, not even conservative ones. But the NYT is petrified that it will be flooded with complaints from its reactionary detractors, and so it's new standard is...if shading the truth doesn't work, pretend there is no truth. There is only "fairness."
Yes, the Nazi death camps slaughtered millions of people, but think of how many hard-working unemployed Germans got full-time jobs there.
4
Wealthy People Benefit; the Poor, Not So Much.
The intended expression is ironic, the revision loses that.