"...the headline on the Gorsuch piece suggests far more than the story delivers"? This is patently unethical and Trump's fake news at its worst. There is no doubt by now that the NYT is a viscerally anti-Trump paper, despite the promises of the editor that it would be more objective after it desperately tried to win the election for Clinton. "The pressures of a looming deadline made me do it" is not an excuse. I think it's time for some journalists to be fired.
5
It is fanciful to suggest that the pressures of a looming deadline can explain why the headline on a front page story (in particular, a story in the works for weeks, such as the Gorsuch private law practice piece) can be so out of sync with the underlying article. The Times is uber focused on its front page headlines, so the "secretive web" spin in that particular headline was purposeful. This sort of blatant bias really undermines the Times' credibility.
5
There have been far too many headlines that are either untrue, deceptive, or awkward. A little while back there was one about police shooting an "unarmed" man but then the facts of the article made clear the man was indeed armed. These are the kinds of mistakes that have consequences. It took HOURS for this egregious error to be fixed, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who emailed it in.
Less destructive but more common and annoying are the headlines (and whatever you call the summary sentence below them) that contradict the spirit of the article, and then also seem to change every 15 minutes as the editors decide exactly which combo will bait the most clicks.
Less destructive but more common and annoying are the headlines (and whatever you call the summary sentence below them) that contradict the spirit of the article, and then also seem to change every 15 minutes as the editors decide exactly which combo will bait the most clicks.
5
Instead of ignoring the real issue by dwelling on technicalities, why doesn't the Public Editor explore why all of these "mistakes" are in the service of liberal taking points? Clearly the quoted readers see the blatant liberal bias. Why does the Public Editor utterly avoid the core issue of the NYT's blatant liberal bias?
4
"I too thought one of the people was non-white, but there’s no doubting that they’re all male."
How you know? Did they say they identify themselves as male?
How you know? Did they say they identify themselves as male?
2
Liz: I'm curious as to why you say that aspect of Neil Gorsuch's private law practice (representing Phillip Anschutz as a client) was "curious".
4
I'm seriously considering not renewing because the Times is so restrictive about where it allows comments. If an article is interesting and/or even the slightest bit controversial, it's a good bet that commenting is NOT available. The one welcome exception is that all the staff columnists have comments on their op-eds. However, this is negatively balanced by the fact that contributing op-ed columnists do NOT have comments enabled. Yet these are precisely the type of pieces that people want to comment one.
The gates have fallen, yet the grey lady still wants to be the gatekeeper.
The gates have fallen, yet the grey lady still wants to be the gatekeeper.
7
"I read the gentleman in the back as a person of color."
This is the modern equivalent of "Some of my best friends are (insert nonwhite reference here)." Surely you can do better.
This is the modern equivalent of "Some of my best friends are (insert nonwhite reference here)." Surely you can do better.
2
I am concerned that the mailbox graphic for the public editor's column shows two blue and only one pink envelope. Are you implying that woman are less interested in the thorny issues that confront the public editor...
3
"... the mailbox graphic for the public editor's column shows two blue and only one pink envelope."
There are also four white envelopes and no brown ones, so clearly the illustrator and the Times are racists. :-)
There are also four white envelopes and no brown ones, so clearly the illustrator and the Times are racists. :-)
2
Delivering more Headline than story has become a regular occurrence at the Times. Readers complain- Public Editor passes on complaint; answer goes something like this:
"Yes, the headline could have been more accurate in conveying the story; but with extreme deadlines......" Another week passes and same o same o. Trying to be sensational- Esquiresque; jazzing-it-up, isn't necessary for an Established...Reputable News Paper- now is it?
"Yes, the headline could have been more accurate in conveying the story; but with extreme deadlines......" Another week passes and same o same o. Trying to be sensational- Esquiresque; jazzing-it-up, isn't necessary for an Established...Reputable News Paper- now is it?
7
And they constantly go to the times' editor for Standards, Phil "Like the Groundhog" Corbett, who has never criticized his employer in print and never will. Always the excuse.
Sorry. Seely should be Neely.
Wilson Seely and Tom Siebert were not picking nits.
I’ll pass on “giv[ing] conservatives any more ammo to bash it [The New York Times] as a ‘liberal rag.’ “ But reality is reality. The Times advocated for the confirmation of Merrick Garland. It can not be happy with the prospect of Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. I looked quickly at the headline in question and immediately thought “hit piece on Neil Gorsuch.” Which wouldn’t have surprised me.
Not to worry. We can look forward to further reporting from the Times which will in fact be Gorsuch hit pieces.
I’ll pass on “giv[ing] conservatives any more ammo to bash it [The New York Times] as a ‘liberal rag.’ “ But reality is reality. The Times advocated for the confirmation of Merrick Garland. It can not be happy with the prospect of Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. I looked quickly at the headline in question and immediately thought “hit piece on Neil Gorsuch.” Which wouldn’t have surprised me.
Not to worry. We can look forward to further reporting from the Times which will in fact be Gorsuch hit pieces.
1
Headlines were clickbait before there was such a thing as reading by clicking. To be fair, their purpose is to get eyes into the story, where the facts unfold with patient nuance. Yes, the Gorsuch headline over-promised sensationally, but headline writing is always an art that degrades its subject. Smiley face.
1
There's an article in today's paper about shopping at an off-price clothing retailer in the south. The accompanying photo has two women in it. Don't men shop at off-price clothing retailers? Why aren't they represented in this photo?
4
"Don't men shop at off-price clothing retailers?"
Yes, but you have to take the trouble to actually read the article to find that out:
"On a recent Saturday, a crowd of women and a scattering of men rifling through the racks included two shoppers who drove six and a half hours from their home in Charlotte, N.C."
Is This Store the Best-Kept Secret in Fashion?
By STEVEN KURUTZ
MARCH 15, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/fashion/best-kept-secret-in-fashion-s...
Yes, but you have to take the trouble to actually read the article to find that out:
"On a recent Saturday, a crowd of women and a scattering of men rifling through the racks included two shoppers who drove six and a half hours from their home in Charlotte, N.C."
Is This Store the Best-Kept Secret in Fashion?
By STEVEN KURUTZ
MARCH 15, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/fashion/best-kept-secret-in-fashion-s...
PE quoting reader Lee: 'The illustration ... depicts three men holding charts.'
The problem with art is that there is always room for interpretation. For example, the person on the right looks like a transgender man. :-)
For another interpretation, note that Mankiw's essay specifically refers to "three members of his [Trump's] Council of Economic Advisers" who have yet to be appointed by Trump. Also, note that the three "economists" in the illustration are scowling. With those facts in mind, the illustration could be suggesting that Trump's choices will all be men, but they should scold him like school teachers.
PE quoting editor Cox: "And only 12 percent of full professors of economics are women."
Excellent point. A statistical table could have been used instead of artwork to illustrate Mankiw's essay, but that choice would have denied an artist a commission.
BTW, for readers who really do like statistics, I highly recommend the "Statistical Abstract of the United States". The US Census Bureau discontinued its publication in 2011 to save money, but ProQuest and Bernan Press have revived it.
Save the Statistical Abstract
by Paul Krugman
August 22, 2011
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/save-the-statistical-abstract/
The problem with art is that there is always room for interpretation. For example, the person on the right looks like a transgender man. :-)
For another interpretation, note that Mankiw's essay specifically refers to "three members of his [Trump's] Council of Economic Advisers" who have yet to be appointed by Trump. Also, note that the three "economists" in the illustration are scowling. With those facts in mind, the illustration could be suggesting that Trump's choices will all be men, but they should scold him like school teachers.
PE quoting editor Cox: "And only 12 percent of full professors of economics are women."
Excellent point. A statistical table could have been used instead of artwork to illustrate Mankiw's essay, but that choice would have denied an artist a commission.
BTW, for readers who really do like statistics, I highly recommend the "Statistical Abstract of the United States". The US Census Bureau discontinued its publication in 2011 to save money, but ProQuest and Bernan Press have revived it.
Save the Statistical Abstract
by Paul Krugman
August 22, 2011
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/save-the-statistical-abstract/
1
Portraying equality, though, hardly makes it real, unless one is happier with a positive delusion rather than the truth.