I'm late on this, but I can't resist. Ms. Spayd says she'd like to dispense with courtesy titles altogether, but would start by discontinuing the use of "Mrs.", apparently without regard to the preference of the person being referred to. Why am I just about certain that she would defer to the pronoun use preference of a person with a penis who, notwithstanding this rather defining characteristic, wants to be referred to as "she"?
1
This is a classic example of confirmation bias:
"When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confi...
Jason Stallman, like everyone at the NY Times, hates Trump and thinks Obama was the messiah. Therefore, he gravitates towards evidence that supports his worldview.
That is why is important to read news sources other than the NY Times. Sadly, readers prefer confirmation bias because it reinforces their biases and makes them feel safe.
"When people would like a certain idea/concept to be true, they end up believing it to be true. They are motivated by wishful thinking. This error leads the individual to stop gathering information when the evidence gathered so far confirms the views (prejudices) one would like to be true."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confi...
Jason Stallman, like everyone at the NY Times, hates Trump and thinks Obama was the messiah. Therefore, he gravitates towards evidence that supports his worldview.
That is why is important to read news sources other than the NY Times. Sadly, readers prefer confirmation bias because it reinforces their biases and makes them feel safe.
1
To Jason Stallman: "I wish I could say it’s complicated, but no, this one is pretty straightforward: I’m an idiot."
No, Jason, you are not "an idiot." You are a prejudiced, reactive, unprofessional jerk who has unfettered access to the most influential newspaper in the US. All you did is expose your massive, unrelenting, prejudice in favor of Obama and against Trump. You are so eager to slander republicans that you see facts that do not exist, and then use them to support your world view.
And for the record, Ms Spayd, you do not cheer "Bravo" when a journalist is exposed as a prejudiced, unprofessional hack. So thank you for confirming that you are merely a cheerleader and apologist for the pathetic bias of the editors.
The worst part of this entire story is that the left claims this is an isolated incident, when instead it is merely the most recent, most obvious example of what happens every day.
No, Jason, you are not "an idiot." You are a prejudiced, reactive, unprofessional jerk who has unfettered access to the most influential newspaper in the US. All you did is expose your massive, unrelenting, prejudice in favor of Obama and against Trump. You are so eager to slander republicans that you see facts that do not exist, and then use them to support your world view.
And for the record, Ms Spayd, you do not cheer "Bravo" when a journalist is exposed as a prejudiced, unprofessional hack. So thank you for confirming that you are merely a cheerleader and apologist for the pathetic bias of the editors.
The worst part of this entire story is that the left claims this is an isolated incident, when instead it is merely the most recent, most obvious example of what happens every day.
3
Last time they won the Supe, 50 players attended. This time, 34 players attended.
The roster limit is 53 active per game, plus injured reserve, PUP list, and practice squad.
The difference between 50 and 34 is quite significant.
Stallman IS an idiot, for failing to understand that fact.
The roster limit is 53 active per game, plus injured reserve, PUP list, and practice squad.
The difference between 50 and 34 is quite significant.
Stallman IS an idiot, for failing to understand that fact.
1
Reading through the article, it is easy to see the pathetic biases of the NYT editors and their writers.
And they wonder why they lost to the likes of Trump.
And they wonder why they lost to the likes of Trump.
2
The Times was a candidate? Really?
3
I wonder just how much has to be cut off a little girl before the Times won't care about upsetting Muslim sensibilities. This paper is worse than a rag.
3
Celia Duggar's explanation of her editorial choice to replace the medically-recognized term, female genital mutilation, with the term, "genital cutting," does not serve the interests of clarity, but instead serves to soften and mask the brutality, disfigurement and destruction of female sexual function and reproductive health engendered by this cruel practice. This type of equivocation has no place in responsible journalism. Perhaps Ms. Duggar will next choose to replace the "culturally loaded" term, beheading, with "cutting", too. What happened to the NYTimes' recent assertion that it was rededicating itself to reporting the truth? Cancel my subscription.
4
Dying to know why you thought that White House/Patriots photo was newsworthy anyway. Keep trying to reach out to the other side, guys.
It's not the photo that was newsworthy, it's the fact that some of the players were making a political statement by not attending. And photos commonly illustrate articles.
Tom Brady Skips Patriots’ White House Visit Along With Numerous Teammates
By VICTOR MATHER
APRIL 19, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/sports/-new-england-patriots-visit-wh...
Tom Brady Skips Patriots’ White House Visit Along With Numerous Teammates
By VICTOR MATHER
APRIL 19, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/sports/-new-england-patriots-visit-wh...
I assume the NYT editor who approved the decision to redefine female genital mutilation already acquiesced in the repugnant rebranding several years ago of torture as "enhanced interrogation techniques" or, even earlier, redefining hunger as "food insecurity". Euphemisms should not be a part of journalism. The Times should be ashamed of itself and should apologize to every female reader, most especially the victims of female genital mutilation.
3
The decision regarding use of "genital cutting", an ungendered and benign euphemism for Female Genital Mutilation, is deeply disturbing. It stinks of modern newspeak such as "collateral damage" and "enhanced interrogation." I expect and hope there will a public apology and retraction of this distinctly Orwellian policy.
4
So Stallman made this decision in 4 minutes and got it wrong. Why do 'journalists' feel obligated to push out the tweets before they have the facts on subjects about which they know nothing?
This is a replay of one of the first days of the Trump presidency (perhaps even inauguration day) when the pool reporter from Time Mag. tweeted from the Oval Office that the bust of Martin Luther King had been removed, when no such thing was done. The office was crowded that day and someone was standing in front of it. But the intrepid reporter didn't see it on a cursory look and just couldn't wait to get the (fake) news out. You would think the NYT would have learned from others' mistakes.
I read a book review in the Sunday NYT regarding GW Bush's portraits of veterans. The story contained the obligatory snide disparaging remark about Trump. When does this stop? The flap over the picture is not an excuse to criticize the Times. It richly earned that on its own.
This is a replay of one of the first days of the Trump presidency (perhaps even inauguration day) when the pool reporter from Time Mag. tweeted from the Oval Office that the bust of Martin Luther King had been removed, when no such thing was done. The office was crowded that day and someone was standing in front of it. But the intrepid reporter didn't see it on a cursory look and just couldn't wait to get the (fake) news out. You would think the NYT would have learned from others' mistakes.
I read a book review in the Sunday NYT regarding GW Bush's portraits of veterans. The story contained the obligatory snide disparaging remark about Trump. When does this stop? The flap over the picture is not an excuse to criticize the Times. It richly earned that on its own.
1
Why do "journalists" tweet at all? The forty character limitation is not exactly conducive to fair, accurate and thoughtful news coverage.
The reason they do it -- and their bosses let them do it -- is because they care more about "followers," "likes" and clicks then they do about dignified and honest journalism.
The rest is commentary or, more appropriately, haggling about the price.
The reason they do it -- and their bosses let them do it -- is because they care more about "followers," "likes" and clicks then they do about dignified and honest journalism.
The rest is commentary or, more appropriately, haggling about the price.
"I decided in the course of reporting ... to use the less culturally loaded term, genital cutting. There’s a gulf between the Western (and some African) advocates who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite, and I felt the language used widened that chasm."
That chasm needs to be widened.
That chasm needs to be widened.
2
Exactly!
Regarding the article that used the term 'genital cutting' rather than "female genital mutilation" I can't see that the terms are terribly far apart, but if Ms. Dugger thinks she has made a selection of less culturally loaded word description, then perhaps she has accepted the practice as culturally appropriate.
However, in the context of the culture of the United States, the severity of the "cutting" seems to rise to the level of misogeny and mutilation to most of the civilized world.
However, in the context of the culture of the United States, the severity of the "cutting" seems to rise to the level of misogeny and mutilation to most of the civilized world.
2
The Times just hired a climate change denier to be a columnist. This is a mystifying and deeply disturbing decision which has not been addressed by the paper directly at all. The Public Editor decided that the most important recent issue on which to represent the readership however, was a misleading photo tweeted by the Sports editor. This column is a farce.
2
And a tragedy, the idea that mutilating the genitals of little girls should be reduced to a euphemism.
2
My Grandmothers were Mrs.
My mother was Mrs.
And as long as my wife will put up with me,
she has informed me that she is Mrs. Brown.
My mother was Mrs.
And as long as my wife will put up with me,
she has informed me that she is Mrs. Brown.
2
And yes we have a lovely daughter.
3
be trusted to report the news without inserting its political extreme left view.
https://goo.gl/2pCbgs
https://goo.gl/2pCbgs
RE: the Patriots photos:
(1) It was refreshing, perhaps unprecedented, for a NYTimes editor to own a problem or mistake! (2) Don't worry about people who use the mistake as a reason to mistrust the NYTimes -- they will never trust or rely on the NYTimes no matter what.
(1) It was refreshing, perhaps unprecedented, for a NYTimes editor to own a problem or mistake! (2) Don't worry about people who use the mistake as a reason to mistrust the NYTimes -- they will never trust or rely on the NYTimes no matter what.
1
The Times should be disappointed in what they did not because it gives more ammunition to anyone; it should be because it was in fact political snark, which it should generally avoid.
2
Good for Jason Stallman for standing up and admitting his latest mistake. This was a dumb idea, of course. But far from unique.
1
Regarding the Patriots photos, and with all due respect to the Public Editor, the photos do not "give ammunition to those who doubt The Times’s impartiality in matters of politics" - the photos give ammunition only to those who are already unshakable convinced that the Times is biased and Fox is "fair and balanced."
Serious readers don't go to the sports section for political analysis any more than we go to the politics section for analysis of the Super Bowl.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Serious readers don't go to the sports section for political analysis any more than we go to the politics section for analysis of the Super Bowl.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
2
Than why inject politics into the sports section?
The Left - and the NYT in particular among media - see politics in everything.
And where they cannot find any, they inject it so as to keep the readers emotions at boil.
And they wonder why their reputation is decreasing.......
And where they cannot find any, they inject it so as to keep the readers emotions at boil.
And they wonder why their reputation is decreasing.......
1
Celia Duggar's rationale for using the expression "genital cutting" is truly disturbing. "Genital cutting" implies that the practice is potentially benign. FGM is a horrific, abusive practice that bears no resemblance to male circumcision. It's purpose is to destroy women's sexual pleasure and is performed on small girls often with painful and permanently damaging complications. Shame on you, Celia Duggar. Really, that sort of pathetic equivocation makes me not want to read this publication.
16
Jane: '"Genital cutting" implies that the practice is potentially benign.'
You have a good point, but the alternative, FGM, is fundamentally a politically motivated term, as Dugger suggests.
The Times should adopt the correct surgical term, which is "excision":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excision
And since the procedure is illegal in the US, my suggestion would be "criminal genital excision" or "CGE".
You have a good point, but the alternative, FGM, is fundamentally a politically motivated term, as Dugger suggests.
The Times should adopt the correct surgical term, which is "excision":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/excision
And since the procedure is illegal in the US, my suggestion would be "criminal genital excision" or "CGE".
1
Not using "female genital mutilation" because it "widens the gulf" is ridiculous. Nobody who's in Togo performing FGM is reading the New York Times. And you have no trouble "widening the gulf" between urban and rural, blue state and red state, white and black, etc., etc.
What you really mean is, "We aren't allowed to say anything negative about Muslims."
What you really mean is, "We aren't allowed to say anything negative about Muslims."
2
Such ammunition as this, at worst, error, gives so-called critics of the Times, are blanks. PT is wrongly and knowingly echoing Goebbels when in his Tweet he calls the error a "big lie" and without an iota of merit. The Times' early detection, correction and apology mitigates such small and tangential confusion caused, to the point of obliterating it. Basta!
1
Dear NYT:
Don't let this slip up deter you from writing more frivilous hit pieces on Trump.
Keep swinging for the fences!
Don't let this slip up deter you from writing more frivilous hit pieces on Trump.
Keep swinging for the fences!
6
"failing @nytimes" says the failing President who recently misplaced an aircraft carrier, wait, an entire armada!
2
Regarding teams visiting the White House, why is this done?
2
I'm sure Stallman would have gotten it right if it was badminton or soccer. But football or baseball, it probably just wasn't worth the effort (especially with a chance to embarrass the President).
7
Siccer? Not really. The Times' soccer coverage has seriously decined in quality under Stallman. He's very much a tennis guy.
1
BFD. I realize that Trump's fans don't read very well, so they rely on pictures for their information. But the fact remains that about 50% more Pats showed up to meet Obama than to meet Trump. Imagine the contempt they must feel for him to pass up the opportunity to meet the President. Wow.
The Patriots said there were 35 players this time, 37 last time; the Public Editor repeated the Times's statement that there were 50 players last time, without noting the discrepancy between accounts.
PE: "I’m on the record as an advocate for discarding courtesy titles altogether."
Courtesy titles should be optional. For example, the Times omitted a courtesy title for the subject of a 2015 article, while retaining the courtesy title for the subject's mother:
* "The university allows students like Gieselman to select their own identity ..."
* "But Ms. Miller has learned to accept the person her former little girl has become."
A University Recognizes a Third Gender: Neutral
By JULIE SCELFO
FEB. 3, 2015
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/education/edlife/a-university-recogni...
Courtesy titles should be optional. For example, the Times omitted a courtesy title for the subject of a 2015 article, while retaining the courtesy title for the subject's mother:
* "The university allows students like Gieselman to select their own identity ..."
* "But Ms. Miller has learned to accept the person her former little girl has become."
A University Recognizes a Third Gender: Neutral
By JULIE SCELFO
FEB. 3, 2015
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/education/edlife/a-university-recogni...
How about doing us all a favor, and give your readers the courtesy of confining your judgments to the issue at hand? Do this rather than snarking about how much it still pains you to say that the Patriots won (in the greatest Super Bowl game ever with the greatest Super Bowl comeback ever, directed by the GOAT, Tom Brady)? Do your job - the Patriots did theirs.
Yes, 'snarking' is now a verb. And try to remember that the NYT is still a national newspaper.
Yes, 'snarking' is now a verb. And try to remember that the NYT is still a national newspaper.
3
There are of course a lot of dumb NYT commenters, but Ms. Jillian Goodman takes the feminist cake.
7
This comment is a personal attack on a Times reader. It should not have been posted. Flagged accordingly.
2
Uh oh, BearBoy. You've been flagged. Waaatch out, cause the thin-skin brigade is gonna getcha for a "personal attack" by someone who can't stand to hear someone express a dissenting opinion.
2
PE: "Promoting the story on its Twitter feed, the Sports section ..."
I don't follow sports, but I am interested in biology, so it was very exciting to see @NYTSports's retweet featuring brains in vats:
https://twitter.com/TSNHockey/status/855426638565322752
The woman in the photo is Dr. Ann McKee. In this Times article, McKee is subsequently referred to as "Dr. McKee". So you can escape gender-specific courtesy titles by getting a doctorate. :-)
On C.T.E. and Athletes, Science Remains in Its Infancy
By BENEDICT CAREY
MARCH 27, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/health/cte-brain-disease-nfl-football...
I don't follow sports, but I am interested in biology, so it was very exciting to see @NYTSports's retweet featuring brains in vats:
https://twitter.com/TSNHockey/status/855426638565322752
The woman in the photo is Dr. Ann McKee. In this Times article, McKee is subsequently referred to as "Dr. McKee". So you can escape gender-specific courtesy titles by getting a doctorate. :-)
On C.T.E. and Athletes, Science Remains in Its Infancy
By BENEDICT CAREY
MARCH 27, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/health/cte-brain-disease-nfl-football...
Bottom line: more than a dozen players attended 2015 event vs 2017. The "most important player", Tom Brady, did not attend. I believe that bromance is over. Fact is, Trump needed Brady, no upside for Brady to attend.
4
Your sports editor's unequivocal mea culpa may be admirable, but it begs a larger question he -- and you -- fail to address: Why do your senior people feel compelled to make snap decisions on sensitive topics? That's not what people turn to The Times for.
12
It's worth noting that a Providence Journal Reporter reviewed the 2017 White House SB winners photos and found at least a dozen players--not admn staff--missing from the photos. Player attendance was definitely better in 2015. In the early 2000s--the Bush years-- with 3 SB wins by the Patriots, player attendance started out strong, then tapered off.
And the inauguration crowd for 45 was much smaller. Get over it, Trumpists.
And the inauguration crowd for 45 was much smaller. Get over it, Trumpists.
7
Yes, attendance tapered off because many had been there before
More self congratulatory back patting? Earlier this week, it was congratulating an editor for finally disclosing that a Palestinean op Ed writer critical,of Israel was in fact a convicted murderer of 5 Israelis. Never nice questioned him about how an experienced editor could have done such a thing. And now talking up a sports writer? Why didn't you ask him what prompted him to make a crowd comparison in the first place? It is simply not relevant.the NYT's bias is not longer creeping into its articles; it has largely taken them over.
19
I see nothing wrong with Mrs, Miss or Ms. I dislike Mx because it sounds like something out of Dick Tracy. Do not get me started on the horrid "cis."
What difference does it make that the slain French police officer was a defender of gay rights? Does the Times believe he would have deserved his fate if he didn't defend gay rights?
Re Hawaii- Hawaii (the big island) is an island in the Pacific. The state of Hawaii is a chain of islands in the Pacific. Sessions said nothing wrong. The accompanying Q&A merits a big "Really?" Can you drive to Hawaii, is Hawaii a state, etc. Was there a belated celebration of 4/20 in the newsroom?
What difference does it make that the slain French police officer was a defender of gay rights? Does the Times believe he would have deserved his fate if he didn't defend gay rights?
Re Hawaii- Hawaii (the big island) is an island in the Pacific. The state of Hawaii is a chain of islands in the Pacific. Sessions said nothing wrong. The accompanying Q&A merits a big "Really?" Can you drive to Hawaii, is Hawaii a state, etc. Was there a belated celebration of 4/20 in the newsroom?
5
Lynn: "Re Hawaii- ... Sessions said nothing wrong. ..."
As the Attorney General, Sessions should be fully aware that Hawaii has a United States District Court.
Unfortunately, the Times calls it "a Federal District Court". The full name is "United States District Court for the District of Hawaii", but the article never points that out.
Lynn: 'The accompanying Q&A merits a big "Really?"'
That Q&A fails to ask the only relevant question:
What is the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii?
Related article:
Jeff Sessions Dismisses Hawaii as ‘an Island in the Pacific’
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
APRIL 20, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/us/politics/jeff-sessions-judge-hawai...
As the Attorney General, Sessions should be fully aware that Hawaii has a United States District Court.
Unfortunately, the Times calls it "a Federal District Court". The full name is "United States District Court for the District of Hawaii", but the article never points that out.
Lynn: 'The accompanying Q&A merits a big "Really?"'
That Q&A fails to ask the only relevant question:
What is the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii?
Related article:
Jeff Sessions Dismisses Hawaii as ‘an Island in the Pacific’
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
APRIL 20, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/us/politics/jeff-sessions-judge-hawai...
1
Sessions certainly did say something wrong. It is a state, and, as such, has federal district courts, entitled to review both passed, signed legislation, as well as executive orders. Funny how executive orders were bad when signed by President Obama, and conspicuously less objectionable when signed by the pen of a republican. And even funnier is the fact that the judge suffering a under Sessions' ad hominem attack was approved with the advice and consent of the $enate, that including a vote for confirmation by one Jefferson Beauregard Sessions IV.
The first time my younger daughter explained to me the use of "cis-" to oppose "trans-" as far as gender was concerned, I laughed hysterically as I explained to her the etymology of "cis" and "trans" comes from organic chemistry and the differentiation of enantiomers, compounds with the same chemical formulae, but with differing shapes. She glazed right over.
The first time my younger daughter explained to me the use of "cis-" to oppose "trans-" as far as gender was concerned, I laughed hysterically as I explained to her the etymology of "cis" and "trans" comes from organic chemistry and the differentiation of enantiomers, compounds with the same chemical formulae, but with differing shapes. She glazed right over.
1
'cis'? what on earth are you talking about?
By LIZ SPAYD with EVAN GERSHKOVICH
Keep it up you two and yours will be the shortest PE editor in history.
Keep it up you two and yours will be the shortest PE editor in history.
7
Please, is there any doubt that the NYT is anti Trump, pro Obama and can no longer be trusted to report the news without inserting its political extreme left view.
20
Right. And thanks for ignoring that notoriously left-wing piece of punctuation known as the question mark!
2
"Regrettably, as the readers say, it gives ammunition to those who doubt The Times’s impartiality in matters of politic"
No Ms. Spayed. No. Mr. Gershkovich. It shows the lengths that the NY Times reporters and editors will go to make disparaging comparisons.
While I suspect that many on the Times' staff won't admit that the bias exists, it seems that the drumbeat of criticism that the Times has received on this subject, and amazes me that your editors aren't more willing to consider how they present factual matters BEFORE they make the type of mistake that happened here.
Did the apology of Publisher Sulzberger and Executive Editor Baquet about offering news "without fear or favor" fall on deaf ears? Do they not know what those words mean? Do they not recognize that the Times is under fire for their failure to live up to their own stated objectives?
Mr. Stallman's acceptance of responsibility and recognition of the nature of the error is refreshing, particularly after all of the non-apologies and responsibility ducking that has been the habit of newsroom leaders for year.
But these apologies devolve into self-serving "poop" -- Elizabeth Warren's term -- if nothing ever changes.
And, in the eight or nine years that I have been following the Times's Public Editor's remarks, little has changed, and the self-serving remarks continue.
So, esteemed Public Editor, could you tell us how the NY Times is going to hold its reporters, editors and, columnists feet to the fire?
No Ms. Spayed. No. Mr. Gershkovich. It shows the lengths that the NY Times reporters and editors will go to make disparaging comparisons.
While I suspect that many on the Times' staff won't admit that the bias exists, it seems that the drumbeat of criticism that the Times has received on this subject, and amazes me that your editors aren't more willing to consider how they present factual matters BEFORE they make the type of mistake that happened here.
Did the apology of Publisher Sulzberger and Executive Editor Baquet about offering news "without fear or favor" fall on deaf ears? Do they not know what those words mean? Do they not recognize that the Times is under fire for their failure to live up to their own stated objectives?
Mr. Stallman's acceptance of responsibility and recognition of the nature of the error is refreshing, particularly after all of the non-apologies and responsibility ducking that has been the habit of newsroom leaders for year.
But these apologies devolve into self-serving "poop" -- Elizabeth Warren's term -- if nothing ever changes.
And, in the eight or nine years that I have been following the Times's Public Editor's remarks, little has changed, and the self-serving remarks continue.
So, esteemed Public Editor, could you tell us how the NY Times is going to hold its reporters, editors and, columnists feet to the fire?
15
Your grandiosity, condescension and smug derision of The Great Unwashed, I.e. those unfortunate to dwell outside of 90210 and 10010 and Manhattan is now magnificantly on display for Amerca to see. Stallman's obviously can't add. His learning challenge, coupled with your corrupt vetting process for all things Trump, is now viral, affording the average Joe or Jane a look at your true colors.
Goodbye, without Good Luck.
Goodbye, without Good Luck.
7
There's plenty of reason for derision for anyone who supports Trump. Trump is quite clearly ignorant, incompetent, and a constant liar. Thus anyone who still supports him is delusional, or possibly motivated by racism. There is no way around that, it is impossible to avoid contempt of those who support the blustering liar.
1
WHOOPIE - The public editor takes on the earth shattering question of whether twice (the actual number) or four times as many (suggested by the photo) footballers came the the White House after the superbowl. Meanwhile there no response to the serious question of the NY Times's normalization of Trump's child-mind foreign policy in this https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/us/politics/trump-foreign-policy.html...
Look at all of the lead comments - readers are incensed that the Times imputes a rational basis to Trump's incoherent policy. If you are going to assert an invisible subtle plan to Trumps policies you better have some real evidence that the obvious explanation of incompetence is not valid. Show us the benefit that supersedes the costs of lost credibility and trust from South Korea and our other allies.
Look at all of the lead comments - readers are incensed that the Times imputes a rational basis to Trump's incoherent policy. If you are going to assert an invisible subtle plan to Trumps policies you better have some real evidence that the obvious explanation of incompetence is not valid. Show us the benefit that supersedes the costs of lost credibility and trust from South Korea and our other allies.
1
If courtesy titles are being sidelined could we also drop honorifics like Senator, Ambassador and Secretary when addressing former Senators, former Ambassadors and Former Secretaries of whatever. The US Constitution prohibits titles of nobility (Article I, Section 9), and giving this special status is misleading -- not everyone keeps track of all the currents and former's -- and there's nothing wrong with being introduced as former Governor Jones.
3
"The public editor’s take: I’m on the record as an advocate for discarding courtesy titles altogether."
If it is a "courtesy", one might question the loss of such. Life is coarse enough as it is, especially since January 20th.
If it is a "courtesy", one might question the loss of such. Life is coarse enough as it is, especially since January 20th.
7
Per her preference, we shall be calling a Spayd a Spayd, and nothing else, going forward?
3
Perhaps staffers on your Sports desk should consider working for the President's inauguration committee should he be re-elected. It seems your people have the experience and will always do a better job than the National Park Service in displaying larger crowd sizes on the National Mall.
Stallman's rush to judgement, a/k/a ax to grind is just biz as usual for the Times. His stupidity will bring more exposure to your Trump bias than any of the slanted news on front page that do the same thing.
This paper's credibility went the way of the Dodo in the last election cycle where it essentially was an outlet and shill for the two-time loser. Now you have established your connection with the IQ of that extinct species.
This paper's credibility went the way of the Dodo in the last election cycle where it essentially was an outlet and shill for the two-time loser. Now you have established your connection with the IQ of that extinct species.
15
Without "mainstream" media there would have been no Donald Trump. Hopefully same media will make amends for helping him steal the election and be a large part of sending him on his merry way (hopefully in shackles and leg irons.)
5
Your Patriots article's first sentence begins by saying that it "pains" the NY Times editorial board that they won the Superbowl. Why stab New England's sports fans? Do you imagine that you have more fans in Atlanta? Or did you find that first-ever Superbowl Overtime game unsatisfying? It was widely deemed the best Superbowl ever. I couldn't live without the Times, but it's hard to figure you out sometimes.
8
BB: "the NY Times editorial board"
The Public Editor's office has nothing to do with "the NY Times editorial board":
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html
BB: "it's hard to figure you out sometimes."
It's not too hard to read the byline: "By LIZ SPAYD with EVAN GERSHKOVICH".
That may seem a bit obscure, but it means that the Friday Mailbag is written by GERSHKOVICH. For more, see the note at the end of the post: "Each Friday, Evan Gershkovich, in the office of public editor Liz Spayd, ..."
As for the substance of your comment, the first sentence of the post appears to be an attempt to inject a personal note into the post. That didn't quite work for me, because I don't follow sports, so I had to do research to figure out who the losing team was.
The first article I found doesn't get around to actually naming the losing team until the last paragraph. And that paragraph begins "You know what happened." Ummh, no Jay, I DON'T "know what happened". That's what you are supposed to be REPORTING.
With Brady and Belichick, a Patriots Super Bowl Means a Dramatic Finish
Keeping Score
By JAY SCHREIBER
FEB. 6, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/sports/football/super-bowl-new-englan...
The Public Editor's office has nothing to do with "the NY Times editorial board":
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html
BB: "it's hard to figure you out sometimes."
It's not too hard to read the byline: "By LIZ SPAYD with EVAN GERSHKOVICH".
That may seem a bit obscure, but it means that the Friday Mailbag is written by GERSHKOVICH. For more, see the note at the end of the post: "Each Friday, Evan Gershkovich, in the office of public editor Liz Spayd, ..."
As for the substance of your comment, the first sentence of the post appears to be an attempt to inject a personal note into the post. That didn't quite work for me, because I don't follow sports, so I had to do research to figure out who the losing team was.
The first article I found doesn't get around to actually naming the losing team until the last paragraph. And that paragraph begins "You know what happened." Ummh, no Jay, I DON'T "know what happened". That's what you are supposed to be REPORTING.
With Brady and Belichick, a Patriots Super Bowl Means a Dramatic Finish
Keeping Score
By JAY SCHREIBER
FEB. 6, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/sports/football/super-bowl-new-englan...
1
Believe me, New England sports fans took no offense to the article's first sentence. They reveled in it.
4
As someone whose son goes to an English school, I have been quite shocked at how all the female married teachers are most definitely "Mrs" and all the ones who are not married are "Miss" (not even 'Ms'). It grates on my ears every time I have to say it -- but I do, because that is evidently their preference (even though I insist they refer to me as 'Ms'). I think the Standards Editor has it right, and the public editor should perhaps have a slightly more considered approach as her predecessor did.
5
SMarquet,
Why all the "Cultural Imperialism" ?
Why all the "Cultural Imperialism" ?
1
The sports editor's reaction is telling. He made a snap decision, in about 4 minutes time. If it had been something helpful to Trump, or hurtful to the Democrats, he would have taken more time and would have been more careful.
17
Stuff happens. Remember Maddow's "exclusive" about Trump's "tax return?" Maddow and David Cay Johnston got played for chumps, as laughable as the TV crews who predicted "Hillary's victory" on Election Night 2016.
3
Interesting stuff and good points made here. One thing about the Mrs./Ms./Miss quandary, is that this is not the NYT's fault at all, but a holdover of misogynistic tendencies in the past. The whole reason for the initial Mrs./Miss definition was that women were evaluated based on whether they were married, and there used to be a lot of "Mrs. Henry Wobblecrumpet", where the wife was identified only by the husband's name.
Thankfully that husband's name thing has been dropped, and "Miss" is hardly ever used, certainly not by the NYT and probably mostly in fancy debutante ball invites (another relic of misogyny).
But the NYT has to accede to the wishes of people like Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Trump, and what they want, being stuck in the past on this issue, is the title "Mrs.". If anyone is to be berated for this, it's the married women that insist on being called Mrs., not the NYT.
Also in the future I'd like to be called "Mistery Stackhouse" rather than "Mr.", because it sounds cooler.
Thankfully that husband's name thing has been dropped, and "Miss" is hardly ever used, certainly not by the NYT and probably mostly in fancy debutante ball invites (another relic of misogyny).
But the NYT has to accede to the wishes of people like Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Trump, and what they want, being stuck in the past on this issue, is the title "Mrs.". If anyone is to be berated for this, it's the married women that insist on being called Mrs., not the NYT.
Also in the future I'd like to be called "Mistery Stackhouse" rather than "Mr.", because it sounds cooler.
3
@ Dan Stankhouse
"If anyone is to be berated for this, it's the married women that insist on being called Mrs., not the NYT."
You didn't learn anything form the last election, did you?
"If anyone is to be berated for this, it's the married women that insist on being called Mrs., not the NYT."
You didn't learn anything form the last election, did you?
3
Why should a woman be berated if she wants to be called Mrs? Perhaps you are the misogynist in wanting to dictate a woman's appropriate title instead of respecting her choice.
3
Call me whatever, just don't call me late for dinner. ;-)
2
I was glad to see the NYT's attempt to make a political statement out of the Patriots' visit to the White House come back and bite them in the behind.
23
I recommended this comment even though I've been a loyal Times reader for 50 years and (non-)President Trump sickens me. The tweet was unworthy of the Times, and Mr. Stallman deserves no kudos for "owning" it. What he deserves is a long weekend in the woodshed, and the Public Editor should have said so.
1
"Bravo to the Sports editor for his honest response."??? You must have edited that part out. All he said in his reply was that it was his mistake, without ever being honest about why he did it: because it reflected poorly on Trump. Instead, it reflects poorly on him, you and the paper. Why can't the Times leave the petty nonsense to somebody else and just commit journalism?
20
Trump got the Lindbergh baby, you know. And provided the mortars used in Benghazi. Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters say they have the proof, right?
That's how mindlessly absurd this is getting -- USA's econ/debt position has never been worse, 15,000,000 under-employed, 43,000,000 on food stamps -- and NYTimes staff have to take cheap shots at Trump, every 10 minutes. The Chinese Communists are loving this.
That's how mindlessly absurd this is getting -- USA's econ/debt position has never been worse, 15,000,000 under-employed, 43,000,000 on food stamps -- and NYTimes staff have to take cheap shots at Trump, every 10 minutes. The Chinese Communists are loving this.
1
So, going back, oh, about ten days or so, the Sports section doesn't bother with game stories, because they can be found anywhere. Instead, it supposedly gives us stories that can't be found elsewhere.
So what it does have time for is political snark? In fairness, the difference in attendance between 50 players in 2015 and 34 now is quite statistically significant, given that roster size is 53 in the NoFunLeague. But, really, Jason Stallman? Has the Times learned nothing from it insistence that reporters and editors maintain social media presence, but must refrain from the ad hominem attacks favored by the president?
In the meantime, the Times ran a Rory Smith story about the controversial end to a Champions League matchup between holders Real Madrid and Bayern Munich. That story was opened up for comments, numbering about 18 when all comments, or any sign that they ever were, disappeared, like a sports version of Jimmy Hoffa. Is this another example of "stealth editing?"
Sports is a lost cause, Stallman's refreshing honesty notwithstanding.
I have a radical idea: perhaps the Times should stop trying to match speed with every Tom, Dick and Harry on the web, and proceed with all DELIBERATE speed. Getting it right is far, far, far more important than getting it first. Then all of those editorial apologies would be rendered unnecessary. Yeah, let's do THAT.
So what it does have time for is political snark? In fairness, the difference in attendance between 50 players in 2015 and 34 now is quite statistically significant, given that roster size is 53 in the NoFunLeague. But, really, Jason Stallman? Has the Times learned nothing from it insistence that reporters and editors maintain social media presence, but must refrain from the ad hominem attacks favored by the president?
In the meantime, the Times ran a Rory Smith story about the controversial end to a Champions League matchup between holders Real Madrid and Bayern Munich. That story was opened up for comments, numbering about 18 when all comments, or any sign that they ever were, disappeared, like a sports version of Jimmy Hoffa. Is this another example of "stealth editing?"
Sports is a lost cause, Stallman's refreshing honesty notwithstanding.
I have a radical idea: perhaps the Times should stop trying to match speed with every Tom, Dick and Harry on the web, and proceed with all DELIBERATE speed. Getting it right is far, far, far more important than getting it first. Then all of those editorial apologies would be rendered unnecessary. Yeah, let's do THAT.
5
Paul: "... the Times ran a Rory Smith story about ... Real Madrid and Bayern Munich. That story was opened up for comments, numbering about 18 when all comments, or any sign that they ever were, disappeared, like a sports version of Jimmy Hoffa."
There appears to be a bug that requires scrolling the article slightly before the comments icon is displayed in the upper right corner of the web page. There are 50 comments, including 13 by you.
For Barcelona, the End of a Campaign, but Not of an Era
On Soccer
By RORY SMITH
APRIL 19, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/sports/soccer/barcelona-juventus-cham...
The bug does not seem to occur on the mobile web site:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/sports/soccer/barcelona-juventus-c...
There appears to be a bug that requires scrolling the article slightly before the comments icon is displayed in the upper right corner of the web page. There are 50 comments, including 13 by you.
For Barcelona, the End of a Campaign, but Not of an Era
On Soccer
By RORY SMITH
APRIL 19, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/sports/soccer/barcelona-juventus-cham...
The bug does not seem to occur on the mobile web site:
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/sports/soccer/barcelona-juventus-c...
@ZGY: Thanks for trying to help, but you have the wrong Rory Smith article. The one you cite was about Wednesday's match between Barcelona and Juventus.
The one with the Flying Dutchman comments was about Tuesday's Real Madrid-Bayern Munich matchup.
The comments, to which I have a couple of e-mail confirmation links, no longer has comments visible on my ipad, my android smart phone, or on the desktop computer I am typing on right now.
Here is the link to that article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/sports/soccer/champions-league-real-m...
The title: "A Night to Remember, Except for the Referee."
The one with the Flying Dutchman comments was about Tuesday's Real Madrid-Bayern Munich matchup.
The comments, to which I have a couple of e-mail confirmation links, no longer has comments visible on my ipad, my android smart phone, or on the desktop computer I am typing on right now.
Here is the link to that article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/sports/soccer/champions-league-real-m...
The title: "A Night to Remember, Except for the Referee."
2
Paul: "... you have the wrong Rory Smith article."
No. You failed to post a link to the "right" article. And instead of complaining here, I suggest that you complain to the Times's Customer Care desk:
http://www.nytimes.com/help/index.html
(Scroll to the end.)
For the record, I don't see any comments on the "right" article either.
No. You failed to post a link to the "right" article. And instead of complaining here, I suggest that you complain to the Times's Customer Care desk:
http://www.nytimes.com/help/index.html
(Scroll to the end.)
For the record, I don't see any comments on the "right" article either.
Does anyone who reads the NYT's believe they are impartial? I think people now come to the NYT's to get fed their anti-Trump material just like the other side went to Fox to hear Obama shredded.
Sadly, there is no longer a source for news for those of us who consider ourselves moderates/independents.
Sadly, there is no longer a source for news for those of us who consider ourselves moderates/independents.
26
Well then the Patriots certainly have a gender problem because I don't see one woman on those steps last year....in fact the Patriots seem to exclusively hire young men who are about 6-5 and over 230 lbs.....hum....would like to have some rabid Patriots fan take a closer look because my bet is those folks up on the steps last year are in fact mostly players.....and this is much ado about nothing.
Tweets are not news, whether from Mr. Stallman or President Trump. They are fleeting thoughts, instant mini-snacks, pop, swallow or spit, all in a matter of seconds. News, otoh, is what we consume here, a fully-finished product, brought to us after professional edits and re-edits.
These who read too much in to any Tweet are those in search of a life. Really.
The problem with Mr. Stallman's tweet has nothing to do with him. It's about the paper he works for. More specifically, the insane amount of slicing, dicing, analyzing and re analyzing The Times does to Trump's every tweet, all with sole objective to find fault. It's a source of great amusement to us Trump supporters. Don't take Trump literally we plead, then ROFL when The Times does exactly that.
I read Mr. Stallman's apology as one on behalf of his paper. One long overdue. Hopefully they'll learn their lesson. Mr. Stallman, in the meanwhile, should get over it. Dood.
These who read too much in to any Tweet are those in search of a life. Really.
The problem with Mr. Stallman's tweet has nothing to do with him. It's about the paper he works for. More specifically, the insane amount of slicing, dicing, analyzing and re analyzing The Times does to Trump's every tweet, all with sole objective to find fault. It's a source of great amusement to us Trump supporters. Don't take Trump literally we plead, then ROFL when The Times does exactly that.
I read Mr. Stallman's apology as one on behalf of his paper. One long overdue. Hopefully they'll learn their lesson. Mr. Stallman, in the meanwhile, should get over it. Dood.
6
It is stupid, unthinking anti-Trumpism.
There are enough things to criticize Trump for that you don't need to become Lawrence O'Donnell spewing ridiculous conspiracy theories.
But there are also plenty of issues on which Trump makes sense.
A sensible person would focus on the issues and policies, not ad hominems.
There are enough things to criticize Trump for that you don't need to become Lawrence O'Donnell spewing ridiculous conspiracy theories.
But there are also plenty of issues on which Trump makes sense.
A sensible person would focus on the issues and policies, not ad hominems.
18
Yes. Many people have not watched TV news for months. Gas-bags like O'Donnell and Hannity are so predictable, just leave the TV on mute, nothing new is going to be said.
1
How to explain "Mr."-mass killer?
2
"Mr. Ant", the rock musician, was always on of my favorite
2
My favorite was the second name citation of a review of Meat Loaf's "Bat Out of Hell" album. "Mr. Loaf..."
1
How about dropping Mr.?
1
From The Atlantic magazine, April 2017, on an article about Sen. Joseph McCarthy, by Sam Tanenhaus:
"In reality, journalism is the first, not final, draft of history--provisional, revivable, susceptible to mistakes and at times falsehoods, despite the efforts of even the most scrupulous reporters."
"In reality, journalism is the first, not final, draft of history--provisional, revivable, susceptible to mistakes and at times falsehoods, despite the efforts of even the most scrupulous reporters."
2
Nice title:
A Patriots Photo Lets Trump Score a Point
Here's an admission the Times is not an objective paper, even regarding a news - look, there's an ongoing contest between it and Trump...
Thanks for being honest.
A Patriots Photo Lets Trump Score a Point
Here's an admission the Times is not an objective paper, even regarding a news - look, there's an ongoing contest between it and Trump...
Thanks for being honest.
3
"Why did you not ask the "sports editor" why he was motivated in the first place to mislead the public? Oh, never mind."
Eggs Ackley.
Eggs Ackley.
6
The Times made a mistake and apologized promptly. But you know, I thought it was a fantastic mistake! Just helped to make my day a little brighter.
1
Because the truth doesn't matter as long as "your side" wins for the moment?
This is the mindset bred by the NYT.
This is the mindset bred by the NYT.
4
As a loyal son of Rutgers University, I am proud of the fact that all 4 of our alumni who were on this year's SB winning team chose not to participate in the Trump Photo Op. For some, I know it was a matter of conscience, for others, perhaps they recalled Chris Christie's pained "Deer in the Headlights" photo when he first declared his loyalties to the Trump Campaign. No need for them to feed the Narcissistic ego that occupies the Oval Office; let him create his own alternative facts to slake his thirst.
4
Please write a story about the people who favorite Trump's tweets. I'm really curious about who takes the time to favorite his grumpy rants.
B: "... his [Trump's] grumpy rants."
If that's all you know about Trump's tweets that must be because you read the Times's biased coverage of his tweets. In fact, Trump regularly tweets upbeat things.
Check for yourself:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
If that's all you know about Trump's tweets that must be because you read the Times's biased coverage of his tweets. In fact, Trump regularly tweets upbeat things.
Check for yourself:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
The PE's last comment is ludicrous. Now the NYT and east cost liberals want to decide how people should refer to themselves. I am sure his mother didn't put "Prince", on his birth certificate. Mrs Trump can ask to be referred to as Betty Boop if she wants, its her decision.
5
Winning New York Times once again trumps Failing President Trump.
Sore loser. SAD!
Sore loser. SAD!
More name calling and clearly the commenter never read the article.
Typical mindless partisanship for the NYT comment thread.
Typical mindless partisanship for the NYT comment thread.
Re the Patriots photo, even a very cursory glance at the 2015 photo shows clearly that there were way more than 50 people pictured. It does suggest that someone was overeager to make a negative comparison. I agree with all those who are saying -- please be as vigilant as you can in this crazy environment!
1
"it gives ammunition to those who doubt The Times’s impartiality in matters of politics."
On what planet does anyone, including anyone at the Times, honestly believe the Times is impartial in matters of politics? That the Times is not an extension of the Democrat party?
On what planet does anyone, including anyone at the Times, honestly believe the Times is impartial in matters of politics? That the Times is not an extension of the Democrat party?
19
Bravo for the sports editor to own his twit tweet on Trump? What else was he going to do? It was the dumbest of mistakes, yet spoke volumes at how quickly the Times is willing to jump on Trump. Just stupid. This newspaper can do so much good if it can get its politics out of the way. Cover the right, and the left, with equal zeal. Show no mercy, but report correctly.
6
Early in the article the Times Public Editor bemoans a Times' mistake causing readers to doubt its impartiality. Then, near the end, she advocates dropping the courtesy title "Mrs." from the Times, even when the women, such as Theresa May, prefer it. The Public Editor shows her own bias in preferring to require married women to accept "Ms" whether they want to or not.
18
More urgent -- with its intense grip on LGBT, when will The Times start using "Mx.?" C'mon, get with it, Grey Lady!
2
The not-100%-technically-accurate photo comparison seems fair given the state of the media these days.
I mean If Fox News found itself in a similar position, would it have corrected itself? I doubt it... that network uses this kind of "reporting" expertly and successfully all the time, almost always without the slightest contrition.
Would Trump himself have backed down? Ha. Not a chance. If anything, he would have doubled down.
I noticed Stephen Colbert on his Late Show used the photo without mentioning its perhaps-less-than-ideal context. Maybe Colbert understands what's at stake in this battle. Maybe it's time to start fighting fire with fire, given how the other approach is resulting in so much burning.
I mean If Fox News found itself in a similar position, would it have corrected itself? I doubt it... that network uses this kind of "reporting" expertly and successfully all the time, almost always without the slightest contrition.
Would Trump himself have backed down? Ha. Not a chance. If anything, he would have doubled down.
I noticed Stephen Colbert on his Late Show used the photo without mentioning its perhaps-less-than-ideal context. Maybe Colbert understands what's at stake in this battle. Maybe it's time to start fighting fire with fire, given how the other approach is resulting in so much burning.
3
I agree with the Reader that the NYT (& everyone else) drop all 'courtesy titles'. Especially for politicians. It makes them sound like they are decent folk, & we all know they aren't. Especially *45.
I have not used his name commenting anywhere since Dec. He is *45 (meaning that someday his presidency (note, no capital) will have a footnote in all history books explaining about his lack of honesty, morals, & intellect). Sometimes I call him Voldemort or 'he who must not be named'. Why? He enjoys seeing his name published. Doesn't matter if it is in a good article or comment, or a bad one. Its his daily erection giver. I will not be a party to that. Naming him & the leaders of congress with courtesy titles gives them a legitimacy they do NOT deserve. If anyone says I must, I will do this: Mr*45, Mr Voldemort, Mr 'he who must not be named'. Just to show the idea that he deserves a Mr in front of his 'name' is ludicrous. Don't forget, by those antiquated rules, when you speak of his youngest son you MUST call him Master, until he is 13.
When talking about those who need to be arrested, tried & hung for treason I always make it clear that the VP took that nice picture of all the not nice old white men, who were trying to pass a law to kill millions of Americans with their DEATH BILL. Try another one, it will be the same. But I do not name him. He is supposed to have morals, but, he lusts after the presidency so hard that he has lost all credibility as a moral man.
I have not used his name commenting anywhere since Dec. He is *45 (meaning that someday his presidency (note, no capital) will have a footnote in all history books explaining about his lack of honesty, morals, & intellect). Sometimes I call him Voldemort or 'he who must not be named'. Why? He enjoys seeing his name published. Doesn't matter if it is in a good article or comment, or a bad one. Its his daily erection giver. I will not be a party to that. Naming him & the leaders of congress with courtesy titles gives them a legitimacy they do NOT deserve. If anyone says I must, I will do this: Mr*45, Mr Voldemort, Mr 'he who must not be named'. Just to show the idea that he deserves a Mr in front of his 'name' is ludicrous. Don't forget, by those antiquated rules, when you speak of his youngest son you MUST call him Master, until he is 13.
When talking about those who need to be arrested, tried & hung for treason I always make it clear that the VP took that nice picture of all the not nice old white men, who were trying to pass a law to kill millions of Americans with their DEATH BILL. Try another one, it will be the same. But I do not name him. He is supposed to have morals, but, he lusts after the presidency so hard that he has lost all credibility as a moral man.
4
So nice to know that you're a complete grown up about those things with which you disagree.
the photo of Mr. Hollins does not look like any "booking photo's" I have ever seen before. the low camera angle and the lack of height marks seem to indicate that this is not a 'booking photo's at all.
3
"Regrettably, as the readers say, it gives ammunition to those who doubt The Times’s impartiality in matters of politics."
"Impartiality"? Are you serious? The Times, along with major big-city papers and legacy television networks, did everything it could to assure Hillary's election. The standard procedure was to omit or play down stories unfavorable to Hillary while maximizing (in every way) stories unfavorable to Trump. The vast majority of opinion pieces followed suit. I don't understand how you can deny this. General opinion in the mainstream media was that a Trump victory would be such a disaster that reporters and editors had a duty to ignore journalistic ethics when necessary to address a higher patriotic and moral duty. Now you can argue that such general opinion was right on the mark, that Trump has been a disaster. But you can't simultaneously argue that the mainstream media was impartial.
"Impartiality"? Are you serious? The Times, along with major big-city papers and legacy television networks, did everything it could to assure Hillary's election. The standard procedure was to omit or play down stories unfavorable to Hillary while maximizing (in every way) stories unfavorable to Trump. The vast majority of opinion pieces followed suit. I don't understand how you can deny this. General opinion in the mainstream media was that a Trump victory would be such a disaster that reporters and editors had a duty to ignore journalistic ethics when necessary to address a higher patriotic and moral duty. Now you can argue that such general opinion was right on the mark, that Trump has been a disaster. But you can't simultaneously argue that the mainstream media was impartial.
28
Are you serious? Do "private email server," "Benghazi," "Benghazi" and "Benghazi" mean nothing?
5
Harry,
You seemed to have lost sight of the difference between the news and the op ed sections of the paper. As for maximizing stories unfavorable to Trump, you are aware no one has to really do that, right? All they have to do is report his statements versus his own actions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/18/trumps-old-twe...
And, yes, his election has been a disaster. Ask yourself, how would you and the rest of the Republican party responded if the Russian accusations (I use that term as we are waiting for the completion of the investigation) had been against a Clinton administration? I suggest you would have already called for an impeachment by now.
You seemed to have lost sight of the difference between the news and the op ed sections of the paper. As for maximizing stories unfavorable to Trump, you are aware no one has to really do that, right? All they have to do is report his statements versus his own actions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/18/trumps-old-twe...
And, yes, his election has been a disaster. Ask yourself, how would you and the rest of the Republican party responded if the Russian accusations (I use that term as we are waiting for the completion of the investigation) had been against a Clinton administration? I suggest you would have already called for an impeachment by now.
7
Don't forget the prominent daily graphic that asserted Hillary had an 80 percent probability of becoming president.
1
What will Trump cook up for the missing Patriot players?
2
I'm not a Trump supporter. That said, a simple, rough count of the people in both pictures would see that in 2015, there were about 80 people surrounding President Obama and roughly half that surrounding Trump.
The difference is players who attended the events was 16 and upon further checking, Victor Mathers's story wasn't datelined, and unless mistaken, that means the story was covered from New York and not from Washington.
Had it been held at the White House, maybe a reporter could have actually, you know, ASKED a Patriots spokesperson about attendance rather than depending on "the team's Twitter handle."
This is not about photos; it's about lazy and incomplete reporting, which is infinitely worse.
The difference is players who attended the events was 16 and upon further checking, Victor Mathers's story wasn't datelined, and unless mistaken, that means the story was covered from New York and not from Washington.
Had it been held at the White House, maybe a reporter could have actually, you know, ASKED a Patriots spokesperson about attendance rather than depending on "the team's Twitter handle."
This is not about photos; it's about lazy and incomplete reporting, which is infinitely worse.
20
Well, if we're going to get granular, what about the immediate relative of Tom Brady's is reported to be seriously ill? He's supposed to attend, despite that?
Heck, enough of the "without fear or favor" hoo-hah -- just change the newspapers's name to "The 'Trump Is Always Wrong' Times." And just save everyone, time and effort. Or "The 'HRC Would Have Been Better Than Trump' Times."
Heck, enough of the "without fear or favor" hoo-hah -- just change the newspapers's name to "The 'Trump Is Always Wrong' Times." And just save everyone, time and effort. Or "The 'HRC Would Have Been Better Than Trump' Times."
1
I was embarrassed for the times that they thought journalistic excellence is achieved by commenting on a Superbowl team's visit to the White House. Really? There's no news in that - this was an event that occurred over two months ago. I could care less if the entire Patriot team wants to protest Trump. So what! Professional athletes' opinions on politics are not relevant as were talking about 32 teams x 54 players + 10 practice squad=2,048 MEN ONLY out of 309 million US citizens. Move your focus to other MORE representative samples of American opinion. Don't even cover the event next year and you won't get in trouble for petty complaints. You're better than this.
10
"You're better than this."
Maybe 40 years ago, but not since Obama.
Maybe 40 years ago, but not since Obama.
2
Interesting that this attitude toward "Mrs." seems so derogatory. As a 57-year-old feminist, I remember, of course, when women fought for "Ms." and supported it. But still, to act as though long-married, older women should somehow shun "Mrs." seems condescending to me. A (another?) indication that the Times may be far more liberal and out-of-touch with the attitudes of most of the country. Why the judgment? Mrs. Ms. Miss... whatever the woman prefers.
13
The NYT doesn't care what you or anyone else wants to call themselves because the NYT knows what is best for you.
7
I assume you didn't think that one through, Kev.
In a private forum if someone doesn't mind being called a particular name or a slang or slur more power to them. In a public forum it isn't just a matter of individual choice. It impacts everyone. The default way to refer to a woman should be Ms. since that is the neutral term. If the individual objects you can change it if you want, noting the person's preference.
Just to be fair, how about we start noting, in parenthesis, if a man is married or not? Mr. Kevin Crowley (married). Mr. Kevin Crowley (bachelor). After all, we don't want long-married men to feel left out of the adulation for their achievement or for unmarried men to be mistakenly thought "off the market."
In a private forum if someone doesn't mind being called a particular name or a slang or slur more power to them. In a public forum it isn't just a matter of individual choice. It impacts everyone. The default way to refer to a woman should be Ms. since that is the neutral term. If the individual objects you can change it if you want, noting the person's preference.
Just to be fair, how about we start noting, in parenthesis, if a man is married or not? Mr. Kevin Crowley (married). Mr. Kevin Crowley (bachelor). After all, we don't want long-married men to feel left out of the adulation for their achievement or for unmarried men to be mistakenly thought "off the market."
1
Hey, what about the newest-coolest -- "Mx." As in, NYT's laser-focus on LGBT.
Let's get with it, people!
Let's get with it, people!
Of course, if the times had not published any pictures of the Patriot´s visit, critics on the left would have tweeted that the Times is downplaying an important story.
There will be plenty of opportunities to point out solid, impartial, data-driven evidence of the Trump administration´s lack of success. The Times doesn´t need to rush through these superficial stories.
Also, can I get an amen here that the vast majority of the Times´s readers don´t give a flying fig that the Times scooped everybody else?
There will be plenty of opportunities to point out solid, impartial, data-driven evidence of the Trump administration´s lack of success. The Times doesn´t need to rush through these superficial stories.
Also, can I get an amen here that the vast majority of the Times´s readers don´t give a flying fig that the Times scooped everybody else?
8
Obama still drew a larger crowd than Trump. Again.
13
Obama never held a serious job in the private sector. Trump is white. They are nothing alike -- like comparing a Yugo to a Ferrari.
Trump's current wife is a Slovene, but she was born a Yugo.
1
I love the editor's excuse for the mug shot. "It was the only photo we had." You have reporters, find another one.
17
Don't you know? No reporter leaves the office these days or even bothers to search the Internet independently. "Reporting" now means asking the public "do you have a story for us? Please email us."
1
Hey, ever heard the term "deadline?" Most people have them, not everyone is a lifetime politician who thinks there are unlimited amounts of time, unlimited numbers of police officers, and bottomless pits of taxes. Really. Not kidding.
1
Why did you not ask the "sports editor" why he was motivated in the first place to mislead the public? Oh, never mind.
16
The Patriots photo was a mistake and the NYTimes acknowledged it. There was a similar incident with Time Magazine concerning the Martin Luther King bust at the White House. Those are regrettable but there is a false equivalency here. The radical right would like us to believe that one mistake---even a trivial one, and one that is acknowledged---discredits the entire news media and calls into question the very notion of truth. In that bizarro world, a president who repeatedly lies (I'm sorry, that word needs to be used for the extraordinary pattern of falsehoods), spreads falsehoods, and encourages misinformation is somehow vindicated by anyone making an error anywhere anyhow. That "logic" is the problem, not the occasional error in the news media or the reasonably debatable choices that all news media must make everyday in terms of what to cover, what to highlight, and how to do so. The Carl Vinson isn't the only thing sailing the wrong way these days.
22
Honestly, a "mistake"? The whole point of showing the photos was to highlight the disparity in attendance. (For whatever reason.) Whave journalists in the first . . Oh never mind.
2
No need to be sorry, president golf-hole lies and lies big time.
" .. Those are regrettable but there is a false equivalency here. The radical right would like us to believe that .."
Journalism 101 -- don't mix football with football + staff. Period. A boo-boo is a boo-boo.
As to the "radical right" .. gad, this absurd tediousness is a major reason why NYT is losing readers. Did the RR also get the Lindbergh baby, promote Big Foot, and cause the flooding in Calif.? Does Liberal Derangement Syndrome ever take a day off?
Journalism 101 -- don't mix football with football + staff. Period. A boo-boo is a boo-boo.
As to the "radical right" .. gad, this absurd tediousness is a major reason why NYT is losing readers. Did the RR also get the Lindbergh baby, promote Big Foot, and cause the flooding in Calif.? Does Liberal Derangement Syndrome ever take a day off?
Once again we see Liz Spayd's practice of pander, praise, deflect.
As usual, Liz Spayd is laser-focused on conservative views, this time, coming to the support of Donald Trump and an irrelevant tweet from The Times sports department.
But then we see Spayd doing her usual, lavishing praise Times management:
"Bravo to the Sports editor for his honest response."
"Another thanks to an editor with candor and clarity, in this case about how the photo selection process works."
And then it's back into the public editor bunker after a nonsensical non sequitur about what to watch on Amazon Prime.
Moving on.
As usual, Liz Spayd is laser-focused on conservative views, this time, coming to the support of Donald Trump and an irrelevant tweet from The Times sports department.
But then we see Spayd doing her usual, lavishing praise Times management:
"Bravo to the Sports editor for his honest response."
"Another thanks to an editor with candor and clarity, in this case about how the photo selection process works."
And then it's back into the public editor bunker after a nonsensical non sequitur about what to watch on Amazon Prime.
Moving on.
18
Could be that the current public editor is working toward abolition of the position since so few worthy topics seem to make it to the screen. Cost-cutting, you know.
8