This is a thoughtful and honest analysis, it appears to me. Thanks for it. The NYT is best when simply presenting the facts and declaring its sources in as neutral a voice as possible. Reading, listening to, and watching the media, one would have to think 95% of the population voted Democratic in the last election. Those who present what we are supposed to accept as "news" should remember this is not the case.
I was recently shocked to hear a program on NPR which presented an investigation into the political influence of the wealthy. I assumed it would be the usual diatribe about the Koch brothers and other right-wing players, and prepared to change the station, when -- to my surprise -- the presenters actually pointed out there were just as many wealthy leftists buying political influence as there were those on the right. Shocking! NPR actually presenting both sides of an issue? What's the world coming to?
While a few isolated examples of impartiality doesn't exactly constitute a revolution back to some semblance of balance, it is encouraging. The only question is, Is it too little too late?
This declaration by Liz is the most encouraging thing I've found in the Times since "How to hide $400 million" last November.
I was recently shocked to hear a program on NPR which presented an investigation into the political influence of the wealthy. I assumed it would be the usual diatribe about the Koch brothers and other right-wing players, and prepared to change the station, when -- to my surprise -- the presenters actually pointed out there were just as many wealthy leftists buying political influence as there were those on the right. Shocking! NPR actually presenting both sides of an issue? What's the world coming to?
While a few isolated examples of impartiality doesn't exactly constitute a revolution back to some semblance of balance, it is encouraging. The only question is, Is it too little too late?
This declaration by Liz is the most encouraging thing I've found in the Times since "How to hide $400 million" last November.
The "real power of journalism" should be telling the truth.
The truth is not the sensation du jour, nor providing publicity to monsters. Let's have more varied news from around the world on the front page.
And can we have a Public Editor who at least pretends to be an ombudsman and not a fancy apologist.
This is just more clickbait.
The truth is not the sensation du jour, nor providing publicity to monsters. Let's have more varied news from around the world on the front page.
And can we have a Public Editor who at least pretends to be an ombudsman and not a fancy apologist.
This is just more clickbait.
2
Please fix the intermittently disappearing comment columns!
Very disappointed by the Times' decision to publish information about the Manchester terrorist attack before the British government was ready. All journalists and their outlets need to show extreme discipline in deciding to publish leaked information, in particular when it may jeopardize an investigation to find dangerous killers who target civilians. Publishing names and photos of a very active investigation is dangerous and only serves those extremists in our government who are trying to muzzle the press.
Exemplary journalism????? Quoting anonymous sources and being a tool for leakers is nothing to be proud of. The way you treated Obama who ran one of the most dishonest and corrupt administrations in history vs. the way you hammer President Trump day after day could not be more obvious to anyone with a brain.
1
I don't know what the Times offers it's employees to smoke, but the Public Editor must have taken a huge hit.
Comey's contemporaneous memo is self serving. It was not released at the time but only after he was fired. And it was read to reporters over the phone. We have no way of validating whether what Comey said actually reflects the conversation. To me, it doesn't read at all like obstruction. And Comey must not have thought it was obstruction or else he was obligated to report it. It's quite plausible that Trump -- who had just fired Flynn and probably felt sorry for him -- was simply expressing the notion that he hoped that Flynn didn't have to go through any more public embarrassments. A reasonable sentiment.
And there is nothing saying that the FBI was investigating Flynn for any criminal act, nor has the Times produced any evidence of a crime.
As far as the security issue with Russians. Anonymous sources contradicted by those actually in the room. And -- as has been reported -- the president has authority to declassify information.
Neither of these were fact based scoops.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the Times runs multiple eds & op-eds daily that bash anything and everything Trump. The "objective" reporting oozes anti-Trump opinion.
You may be trying to help the Times regain its reputation (if it ever had it) for objectivity -- but any objective reader can detect quite easily that this rag is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the left.
Comey's contemporaneous memo is self serving. It was not released at the time but only after he was fired. And it was read to reporters over the phone. We have no way of validating whether what Comey said actually reflects the conversation. To me, it doesn't read at all like obstruction. And Comey must not have thought it was obstruction or else he was obligated to report it. It's quite plausible that Trump -- who had just fired Flynn and probably felt sorry for him -- was simply expressing the notion that he hoped that Flynn didn't have to go through any more public embarrassments. A reasonable sentiment.
And there is nothing saying that the FBI was investigating Flynn for any criminal act, nor has the Times produced any evidence of a crime.
As far as the security issue with Russians. Anonymous sources contradicted by those actually in the room. And -- as has been reported -- the president has authority to declassify information.
Neither of these were fact based scoops.
Meanwhile, back in reality, the Times runs multiple eds & op-eds daily that bash anything and everything Trump. The "objective" reporting oozes anti-Trump opinion.
You may be trying to help the Times regain its reputation (if it ever had it) for objectivity -- but any objective reader can detect quite easily that this rag is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the left.
3
It is good to see Spayd here praising the efforts of the NYT and WaPo to get scoops regarding how our country is being run.
However, it stuns me that she does not connect this to the outrage over the Stephens matter. Her argument was that people should read the NYT because they are interested in opposing viewpoints. This is shockingly naive.
I've spent half of my professional life in the news business. I have seen how opinion writing has migrated from the exalted reaches of the classic opinion pages to every Facebook page, Twitter feed, and blog there are. Honestly, except for Krugman, Blow, and maybe Kristof, none of your columnists are really worth a read.
I said when Stephens was hired that it would likely make me reconsider my subscription with the times if he was not gone by the end of this month. I am still reluctantly leaning towards doing just that. I did not spend however many dollars a month getting a NYT digital subscription because I was interested in much of any opinions, much less opinions from different viewpoints. I did it because I wanted to support a news organization that spends its money on gathering news, not hiring irrelevant columnists with nothing of value to say. I believe you could take the money you spend on columnists and give it to the news division, fire the vast majority of those columnists, and let the readers submit any opinion pieces. I highly doubt the quality of the writing would suffer significantly.
However, it stuns me that she does not connect this to the outrage over the Stephens matter. Her argument was that people should read the NYT because they are interested in opposing viewpoints. This is shockingly naive.
I've spent half of my professional life in the news business. I have seen how opinion writing has migrated from the exalted reaches of the classic opinion pages to every Facebook page, Twitter feed, and blog there are. Honestly, except for Krugman, Blow, and maybe Kristof, none of your columnists are really worth a read.
I said when Stephens was hired that it would likely make me reconsider my subscription with the times if he was not gone by the end of this month. I am still reluctantly leaning towards doing just that. I did not spend however many dollars a month getting a NYT digital subscription because I was interested in much of any opinions, much less opinions from different viewpoints. I did it because I wanted to support a news organization that spends its money on gathering news, not hiring irrelevant columnists with nothing of value to say. I believe you could take the money you spend on columnists and give it to the news division, fire the vast majority of those columnists, and let the readers submit any opinion pieces. I highly doubt the quality of the writing would suffer significantly.
6
¨Honestly, except for Krugman, Blow, and maybe Kristof, none of your columnists are really worth a read.¨.
So, yoju have no interest in going outside your very small bubble. Krugman and Blow are interchangeable, by the way, so your bubble is even tinier than you think. And I am genuinely currious; when is a Kristof comumn not readable. But you are correct. The Times is not for you.
So, yoju have no interest in going outside your very small bubble. Krugman and Blow are interchangeable, by the way, so your bubble is even tinier than you think. And I am genuinely currious; when is a Kristof comumn not readable. But you are correct. The Times is not for you.
2
Although I agree Stephens has turned out to be a poor choice for a conservative voice, I dissent from your analysis of the remaining regulars. Nowadays, Brooks and Douthat are often the only reason I bother to look at the NYT at all beyond scanning the headlines. (That shouldn't be taken as an unqualified endorsement of any or all or most of their views.) OTOH, if I were to choose two columnists to pink-slip, it would be the two the NYT is least likely to let go - Dowd and Blow.
2
The Times is required to run Kristof's column forever. Just saying. He is our conscience, and I am not kidding.
As for the others, I seldom read Blow; his outrage is too predictable. Douthat drives me crazy, but I nonetheless read his columns, and his writing has mysteriously improved. Krugman is very smart, a beautifully coherent writer, and usually right. Maureen Dowd is like slowing to look at a car wreck; an ugly impulse. Gail Collins is delightful. Greenhouse and Egan are solid. Edsall is superb; I always learn something from him and look forward to his pieces. I read the public editor to check out the crotchety comments.
As for the others, I seldom read Blow; his outrage is too predictable. Douthat drives me crazy, but I nonetheless read his columns, and his writing has mysteriously improved. Krugman is very smart, a beautifully coherent writer, and usually right. Maureen Dowd is like slowing to look at a car wreck; an ugly impulse. Gail Collins is delightful. Greenhouse and Egan are solid. Edsall is superb; I always learn something from him and look forward to his pieces. I read the public editor to check out the crotchety comments.
Here's a scoop you can look into:
Julian Assange says it was a Democrat insider, not the Russians who gave him the emails that swung the election.
Julian Assange says it was a Democrat insider, not the Russians who gave him the emails that swung the election.
2
DB: "Julian Assange says ..."
You didn't cite a source for that claim. And if you do have a source, the Times won't have a scoop, because the Times would have been scooped by that source.
See "scoop" in a dictionary.
You didn't cite a source for that claim. And if you do have a source, the Times won't have a scoop, because the Times would have been scooped by that source.
See "scoop" in a dictionary.
4
The Atlantic's takedown interview with Liz Spayd is a must-read:
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/a-conversation-wi...
Atlantic's LaFrance points out that "Spayd’s critics have blasted her for her 'disastrous' defense of false equivalence, for sympathizing with 'readers’ chauvinistic gripes about the Times’ sports page,' for validating an alt-right 'fringe campaign' aimed at a Times writer, for her characterization of some Times journalists’ tweets as 'over the line' in a television appearance with the political commentator Tucker Carlson."
It reveals that Spayd only reads emails that her assistant selects for her to read. Does that mean that the PE's assistant is doing the same job as Trump's aides, filtering out emails that might upset her, or that are unduly critical?
Spayd shows her continuing contempt for readers, stating, "...the job as public editor is to collect and absorb the reader email. So that is the job."
Really? Yet she only deigns to read a fraction of the emails she admits it's her job to "absorb."
No wonder Slate's Will Oremus wrote that Spayd is "squandering the most important watchdog job in journalism."
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/a-conversation-wi...
Atlantic's LaFrance points out that "Spayd’s critics have blasted her for her 'disastrous' defense of false equivalence, for sympathizing with 'readers’ chauvinistic gripes about the Times’ sports page,' for validating an alt-right 'fringe campaign' aimed at a Times writer, for her characterization of some Times journalists’ tweets as 'over the line' in a television appearance with the political commentator Tucker Carlson."
It reveals that Spayd only reads emails that her assistant selects for her to read. Does that mean that the PE's assistant is doing the same job as Trump's aides, filtering out emails that might upset her, or that are unduly critical?
Spayd shows her continuing contempt for readers, stating, "...the job as public editor is to collect and absorb the reader email. So that is the job."
Really? Yet she only deigns to read a fraction of the emails she admits it's her job to "absorb."
No wonder Slate's Will Oremus wrote that Spayd is "squandering the most important watchdog job in journalism."
12
This was a good piece in the Atlantic. I don't know why Ms Spayd continues in her job: she shows contempt for readers and completely disregards thoughtful use of language. This isn't Facebook or a college dorm, the New York Times is supposed to be a newspaper of record. I'd like to see the bar raised here. I read conservative newspapers and magazines where the writing is better, the ideas thoughtful and, although I rarely agree, I am always engaged. This is rare when I read the NYTimes, including sadly Paul Krugman, who has left behind thoughtful number crunching and economic analysis for more slanted editorializing.
Now that I plowed theough all 55 comments posted Monday AM, there are conclusions to be drawn.
Once again, damp with excitement, Spayd has adopted the role of cheerleader and flack for the Times' PR department, rather than an objective internal critic.
The very large number of commenters slagging the Schmidt article for its reliance on anonymous sources range from conservative regulars to new to the page possible trollers.
When the Times found it necessary to convene a "Committee on Credibility" in the aftermath of the Judith Miller journalistic malpractice, it resulted in Bill Keller writing a memo to staff, made public, called "Assuring Our Credibility." Both Phil Corbett and Margaret Sullivan have assured me, in writing, that its strictures remain nominally in force. In the memo, searchable on google, Keller warns about overreliance on anonymous sources, hoping that by 2006, anonymously sourced articles would be the exception, not the rule. Under Dean Baquet, they ARE the rule. So anonymously sourced articles are only as credible as the least credible one allowed. See comments for why. That's why anonymous sourcing is supposed to be a "last resort." Sullivan's AnonyWatch had plenty of egregiously granted anonymity demonstrated.
Schmidt's credibility is further called into question by his two visits to the PE woodshed, with collaborator Matt Apuzzo, where anonymously sourced articles got it wrong. Here, confirmation is oblique, in the form of a Special Counsel appointed.
Once again, damp with excitement, Spayd has adopted the role of cheerleader and flack for the Times' PR department, rather than an objective internal critic.
The very large number of commenters slagging the Schmidt article for its reliance on anonymous sources range from conservative regulars to new to the page possible trollers.
When the Times found it necessary to convene a "Committee on Credibility" in the aftermath of the Judith Miller journalistic malpractice, it resulted in Bill Keller writing a memo to staff, made public, called "Assuring Our Credibility." Both Phil Corbett and Margaret Sullivan have assured me, in writing, that its strictures remain nominally in force. In the memo, searchable on google, Keller warns about overreliance on anonymous sources, hoping that by 2006, anonymously sourced articles would be the exception, not the rule. Under Dean Baquet, they ARE the rule. So anonymously sourced articles are only as credible as the least credible one allowed. See comments for why. That's why anonymous sourcing is supposed to be a "last resort." Sullivan's AnonyWatch had plenty of egregiously granted anonymity demonstrated.
Schmidt's credibility is further called into question by his two visits to the PE woodshed, with collaborator Matt Apuzzo, where anonymously sourced articles got it wrong. Here, confirmation is oblique, in the form of a Special Counsel appointed.
9
Why isn't Ms. Spayd boasting about some of WaPo's and NYT's other "scoops" related to Trump?
Like, for example, NYT's scoop that Comey had asked Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorny General, for additional funding and resources to investigate Trump-Russia collusion- a story sourced to Senator Dick Durbin and three other anonymous congressional Democrats. Were they in the room when Comey made the request? Who was THEIR source? Each other? NYT doesn't tell us.
Later, NYT reported that Andrew McCabe testified to a Senate committee that he was unaware of any such request. Rosenstein himself denied that the request was made. Who would know better than him?
So Ms. Spayd, did it happen? Or not?
Same thing with WaPo's reporting that Rosenstein threatened to resign, after his memo was named as the reason Trump fired Comey. Except that Rosenstein himself later denied that he ever made such a threat.
I don't see how anyone can fail to agree that these are both examples of fake news.
For a reader's guide on reporting about Trump by WaPo, read Hemingway's "Tips For Reading Washington Post Stories About Trump Based On Anonymous Leaks" in The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/16/tips-for-reading-washington-post-sto...
The Real Power of Journalism? Blockbuster Scoops?
I place more value on reliable reporting.
Like, for example, NYT's scoop that Comey had asked Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorny General, for additional funding and resources to investigate Trump-Russia collusion- a story sourced to Senator Dick Durbin and three other anonymous congressional Democrats. Were they in the room when Comey made the request? Who was THEIR source? Each other? NYT doesn't tell us.
Later, NYT reported that Andrew McCabe testified to a Senate committee that he was unaware of any such request. Rosenstein himself denied that the request was made. Who would know better than him?
So Ms. Spayd, did it happen? Or not?
Same thing with WaPo's reporting that Rosenstein threatened to resign, after his memo was named as the reason Trump fired Comey. Except that Rosenstein himself later denied that he ever made such a threat.
I don't see how anyone can fail to agree that these are both examples of fake news.
For a reader's guide on reporting about Trump by WaPo, read Hemingway's "Tips For Reading Washington Post Stories About Trump Based On Anonymous Leaks" in The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/16/tips-for-reading-washington-post-sto...
The Real Power of Journalism? Blockbuster Scoops?
I place more value on reliable reporting.
7
Remember, Watergate was a blockbuster because of reliable reporting...
Admittedly directed from the shadows by the No. 2 at the FBI for political reasons...Mark Felt hated Nixon...and personal,..Felt thought that HE should have been named director on the death of J. Edgar Hoover.
But wasn't Felt violating the rules of the FBI by feeding Woodward and Bernstein tips when they ran into roadblocks? It's possible that Felt was committing serious felonies by releasing confidential information to bring down a political foe that he did not like.
Is this really the type of journalism that should be encouraged?
I think not. I have no problems with a reporter putting together evidence as a result of hard work and shoe leather.
I do have problems with political vendettas played with the press as the pawns and The People and their rights as the victims.
Let's see more reliable reporting based on hard work and verifiable evidence. The credibility will take care of itself.
Credibility
Admittedly directed from the shadows by the No. 2 at the FBI for political reasons...Mark Felt hated Nixon...and personal,..Felt thought that HE should have been named director on the death of J. Edgar Hoover.
But wasn't Felt violating the rules of the FBI by feeding Woodward and Bernstein tips when they ran into roadblocks? It's possible that Felt was committing serious felonies by releasing confidential information to bring down a political foe that he did not like.
Is this really the type of journalism that should be encouraged?
I think not. I have no problems with a reporter putting together evidence as a result of hard work and shoe leather.
I do have problems with political vendettas played with the press as the pawns and The People and their rights as the victims.
Let's see more reliable reporting based on hard work and verifiable evidence. The credibility will take care of itself.
Credibility
2
Just remember, while Felt might have been breaking the law, he was exposing actual felonies leading to the first, so far only, sitting Attorney General to go to prison for felonies committed in office, John Mitchell. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, Liddy, etc. etc. A large number of Nixon's aides went to prison on felony convictions.
However impure Felt's motives, he helped expose felonious behavior right in the Oval Office. Today, he would likely be protected by whistleblower laws.
Nothing Mark Felt did changed the reality of the illegal behavior in the Nixon Administration, nor does any of it lessen the legal characterization of Nixon himself, an "unindicted co-conspirator."
However impure Felt's motives, he helped expose felonious behavior right in the Oval Office. Today, he would likely be protected by whistleblower laws.
Nothing Mark Felt did changed the reality of the illegal behavior in the Nixon Administration, nor does any of it lessen the legal characterization of Nixon himself, an "unindicted co-conspirator."
1
Liz, you must have struck a nerve. The troll posse is out flailing their rhetorical bludgeons.
4
Very disappointed by the quality, or rather lack of it, of the comments appended to this column. While I have my quibbles with the NYT, I'm increasingly suspecting that one of its problems is the reader base created by America's 'Big Sort'.
I wonder if the Times can afford another "Judith Miller moment"?
3
The Public Editor " doth protest too much".
Claiming that the "blockbuster scoops" are "incontrovertible" and "irrefutable" is baseless.
For example, two unnamed associates of Comey say that Comey said that Trump said is not fact based absent any quotation or names of sources.
Any criminal claim based on hearsay and unnamed sources would be dismissed immediately which is the opposite of "incontrovertible" and "irrefutable" evidence.
Claiming that the "blockbuster scoops" are "incontrovertible" and "irrefutable" is baseless.
For example, two unnamed associates of Comey say that Comey said that Trump said is not fact based absent any quotation or names of sources.
Any criminal claim based on hearsay and unnamed sources would be dismissed immediately which is the opposite of "incontrovertible" and "irrefutable" evidence.
8
IMO the NYT did a really good job of providing information for readers like me this week. Not only President Trump's actions but your coverage of trickle-down effects, like what the EPA is doing or how the continuous attempts to repeal the ACA are causing some insurers to already withdraw for 2018. Mr. Trump himself is such a tidal wave that many news events may be "Whatever; it's too much" to some readers now. But I'm going to put it out there: I hope the NYT might consider covering Bernie Sanders more in-depth.
Some insist the NYT ignored him in 2016 - but if the NYT had covered him in-depth, I bet many people wouldn't like what they saw. And that's important now because the Democrats can't fight President Trump when they're battling perceptions of the Bernie crew, who think this man has a halo.
Sen. Sanders and his wife are in the news now - but not in the NYT. It's in Vermont - but if Sen. Sanders wants to be national (and he thinks he should have tremendous influence going forward) why isn't a national newspaper covering his recent actions - which speak for themselves?
http://www.vnews.com/SANDERS-MISSES-ANOTHER-FINANCIAL-REPORTING-DEADLINE...
"U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., missed the May 15 deadline to submit documents detailing his finances during 2016...Sanders was granted a 20-day extension, and his disclosure is now due on June 4. ...Messages and emails left for three Sanders spokesmen seeking the reason he requested an extension were not returned."
Some insist the NYT ignored him in 2016 - but if the NYT had covered him in-depth, I bet many people wouldn't like what they saw. And that's important now because the Democrats can't fight President Trump when they're battling perceptions of the Bernie crew, who think this man has a halo.
Sen. Sanders and his wife are in the news now - but not in the NYT. It's in Vermont - but if Sen. Sanders wants to be national (and he thinks he should have tremendous influence going forward) why isn't a national newspaper covering his recent actions - which speak for themselves?
http://www.vnews.com/SANDERS-MISSES-ANOTHER-FINANCIAL-REPORTING-DEADLINE...
"U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., missed the May 15 deadline to submit documents detailing his finances during 2016...Sanders was granted a 20-day extension, and his disclosure is now due on June 4. ...Messages and emails left for three Sanders spokesmen seeking the reason he requested an extension were not returned."
5
It always makes me laugh when Bernie's posse rail about how little coverage he got. He got the amount of coverage the credibility of his candidacy deserved - in fact, he got more. And the mainstream media and NYT did him a favour by focusing on the 'horse race' instead of his platform positions, which didn't stand up to close inspection the few times they were submitted to any. Only Krugman, with whom I have many differences on other issues, bothered to delve, and for that I give him kudos. He was the Trump of the left.
2
Second part of a request for the NYT to not forget about the IMO increasingly divisive Bernie Sanders. (Look what happened when he campaigned for Omaha Democratic mayoral candidate Heath Mello and said Mr. Mello's anti-abortion legislative voting record wasn't important, which angered many Democrats; Mr. Mello lost, by the way.) According to two Vermont media sites Jane Sanders may be being investigated by the FBI about a loan that was granted to the college she ran, which unexpectedly closed last year. Former college employees, including the former dean of operations, confirmed they were interviewed by the FBI.
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2017/04/28/fbi-continues...
"While searching for information to aid the FBI's investigation, Holm said she had been 'unsuccessful in locating documentation of the gifts and pledges' O'Meara Sanders represented in the loan application she signed. Holm said the FBI assured her that the college itself was not the subject of its inquiry."
https://vtdigger.org/2017/04/27/emails-reveal-fbi-justice-probe-burlingt...
"The Vermont Agency of Education took possession of records left at the college in the wake of its sudden closure in May....Agency officials said they found the school’s records in disarray, in part because of an unsolved burglary. The state, as a result, took possession of nonacademic records as well as the student records it was required to take."
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2017/04/28/fbi-continues...
"While searching for information to aid the FBI's investigation, Holm said she had been 'unsuccessful in locating documentation of the gifts and pledges' O'Meara Sanders represented in the loan application she signed. Holm said the FBI assured her that the college itself was not the subject of its inquiry."
https://vtdigger.org/2017/04/27/emails-reveal-fbi-justice-probe-burlingt...
"The Vermont Agency of Education took possession of records left at the college in the wake of its sudden closure in May....Agency officials said they found the school’s records in disarray, in part because of an unsolved burglary. The state, as a result, took possession of nonacademic records as well as the student records it was required to take."
4
I believe that this article is spot on.
I cant tell the difference sometimes in all news sources beteen facts and opinion. Ive gotten used reading the same story by 6 or 7 outlets before I can figure out just what the facts are.
Now I know that checking multiple sources is a good thing, its also extremely difficult, time consuming, and requires a huge level of knowledge about history and current events.
I fear that people who dont have the time to read the same story 6 waus, will believe that opinions are facts, and will then not make properly informed decisions. This is mostly a problem.on places like Breitbart, but all outlets left and right are guilty to some form of degree about this.
I cant tell the difference sometimes in all news sources beteen facts and opinion. Ive gotten used reading the same story by 6 or 7 outlets before I can figure out just what the facts are.
Now I know that checking multiple sources is a good thing, its also extremely difficult, time consuming, and requires a huge level of knowledge about history and current events.
I fear that people who dont have the time to read the same story 6 waus, will believe that opinions are facts, and will then not make properly informed decisions. This is mostly a problem.on places like Breitbart, but all outlets left and right are guilty to some form of degree about this.
1
Yes, Ms Spayd, the perception of civilized, fair reporting is important. Maybe as important as the public's perception of civil servants complying with ethics regulations.
I revisited your standards: http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics/. Yep, still there. As a commenter, I'm reflecting. Done.
So, the 45th President complains about getting the most unfair treatment. So, his supporters focus on that. So what?
His supporters can play his game, "reflexively stand up to the left.." as Mr Peters points out, and vote for him in 2020. Go have more "Lock Her Up" parties, if it still floats your boat.
The free press has proven to be the linchpin of this democracy, especially when one party controls the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Trump supporters can't see that nor that Trump is roasting himself upon his own pile of Tweets.
Respectfully agree, Sir, the perception of fairness is as important as actual fairness. But, in this break-up, "it's not me, it's you".
I revisited your standards: http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics/. Yep, still there. As a commenter, I'm reflecting. Done.
So, the 45th President complains about getting the most unfair treatment. So, his supporters focus on that. So what?
His supporters can play his game, "reflexively stand up to the left.." as Mr Peters points out, and vote for him in 2020. Go have more "Lock Her Up" parties, if it still floats your boat.
The free press has proven to be the linchpin of this democracy, especially when one party controls the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Trump supporters can't see that nor that Trump is roasting himself upon his own pile of Tweets.
Respectfully agree, Sir, the perception of fairness is as important as actual fairness. But, in this break-up, "it's not me, it's you".
4
I wonder how many of Times employees have ever completely read the standards that govern them.
I think they might be appalled to discover how poorly they have reflected the ideals in the very first paragraph, not to mention how poorly they have adhered to some of more specific restrictions.
And sadly, as I have discovered on another matter, Masthead Editor for Standards Corbett has real problems enforcing the standards that the Times, itself, has set for its own performance.
One really has to ask why this is the case.
If the standards are not going to be enforced, on the Times' pages and web site, where are the standards going to be enforced?
If the Times' is not going to enforce their own standards, why have them in the first place, or. for that matter, go to the expense of having a "masthead Editor for Standards"?
I think they might be appalled to discover how poorly they have reflected the ideals in the very first paragraph, not to mention how poorly they have adhered to some of more specific restrictions.
And sadly, as I have discovered on another matter, Masthead Editor for Standards Corbett has real problems enforcing the standards that the Times, itself, has set for its own performance.
One really has to ask why this is the case.
If the standards are not going to be enforced, on the Times' pages and web site, where are the standards going to be enforced?
If the Times' is not going to enforce their own standards, why have them in the first place, or. for that matter, go to the expense of having a "masthead Editor for Standards"?
Everyone who knows me knows I was not so much happy that Trump won as I was relieved that Clinton lost. To say it another way, I’m pleased Trump won, but there are others I would have preferred.
I appreciate that NYT has made it it's mission to hold Trump accountable. What bothers me is that during the 8 years preceding Trump's presidency, it seemed to not want to hold the president accountable. IOW, NYT is eager to hold a Republican president accountable, but a Democrat, not so much.
Ms. Spayd is headlining WaPo's reporting on Trump's revealing some awesome piece of intelligence to the Russians during his meeting with them. Good for WaPo. But where were they, and NYT, when Obama's minions, not able to keep from bragging, were telling the world about the Stuxnet and Flame viruses that set back the Iranian nuclear program months if not years. And about the details about how the US tracked down Bin Laden.
Some poor devil who helped us find Bin Laden is rotting in a Pakistan prison because of their braggadocio. And the leaking of our secrets was bad enough that Robert Gates famously told Tom Donilon, one of Obama's national security advisors, to "shut the f--- up."
If one does an internet search on that piece of news, you'll find items by The Weekly Standard, The Daily Beast, Talking Points Memo, Politico, ABC News, and others.
But not WaPo. Or NYT. Why not, Ms. Spayd?
And if Clinton had won, would NYT be just as diligent in its reporting?
One can’t help but wonder.
I appreciate that NYT has made it it's mission to hold Trump accountable. What bothers me is that during the 8 years preceding Trump's presidency, it seemed to not want to hold the president accountable. IOW, NYT is eager to hold a Republican president accountable, but a Democrat, not so much.
Ms. Spayd is headlining WaPo's reporting on Trump's revealing some awesome piece of intelligence to the Russians during his meeting with them. Good for WaPo. But where were they, and NYT, when Obama's minions, not able to keep from bragging, were telling the world about the Stuxnet and Flame viruses that set back the Iranian nuclear program months if not years. And about the details about how the US tracked down Bin Laden.
Some poor devil who helped us find Bin Laden is rotting in a Pakistan prison because of their braggadocio. And the leaking of our secrets was bad enough that Robert Gates famously told Tom Donilon, one of Obama's national security advisors, to "shut the f--- up."
If one does an internet search on that piece of news, you'll find items by The Weekly Standard, The Daily Beast, Talking Points Memo, Politico, ABC News, and others.
But not WaPo. Or NYT. Why not, Ms. Spayd?
And if Clinton had won, would NYT be just as diligent in its reporting?
One can’t help but wonder.
13
You wrote: "If one does an internet search on that piece of news, you'll find items by The Weekly Standard, The Daily Beast, Talking Points Memo, Politico, ABC News, and others."
Not one source you mentioned covered the Gates thing in real time. Every single one of them was quoting from the book "Consent and Conceal" by David Sanger which noted the incident. Your complaint that all these news sources covered the leaking (which the didn't) and the NY Times and WaPo didn't is based on your deliberate presentation of incomplete information.
One can't help but wonder if the rest of your comment is equally as biased.
Not one source you mentioned covered the Gates thing in real time. Every single one of them was quoting from the book "Consent and Conceal" by David Sanger which noted the incident. Your complaint that all these news sources covered the leaking (which the didn't) and the NY Times and WaPo didn't is based on your deliberate presentation of incomplete information.
One can't help but wonder if the rest of your comment is equally as biased.
8
Simple answer, if Hilary had won, they'd bring back Jodi Cantor and Amy Chozick for their slobbering and girl power stories of Hilary. Hilary could have continued Obama's destruction (and she would have) of this country and the Times would have cheered her on.
Blockbuster scoops? Of what? How many scoops of Ice Cream Trump gets?
Scoop of Comey now saying he figured out Trump was trying to sway him, After he was fired, as if he knew it earlier, he was obligated by law to report it to the DOJ, but didn't.
Scoop of Trump giving away secrets to Russians according to former officials who weren't in the room despite General McMaster (who has exponentially more credibility than the NYT or WaPo combined) being in the room saying it never happened.
Scoop of Spicer hiding in the bushes? Withdrawn by WaPo.
Scoop of collusion with the Russians? Still not one bit of evidence of collusion (liberals, please look up the definition before you argue the point).
Scoops? Exemplary journalism? There were biased journalists in the past, but they were far, far more often journalists first. What's laughable is that that they don't know they're laughable.
Scoop of Comey now saying he figured out Trump was trying to sway him, After he was fired, as if he knew it earlier, he was obligated by law to report it to the DOJ, but didn't.
Scoop of Trump giving away secrets to Russians according to former officials who weren't in the room despite General McMaster (who has exponentially more credibility than the NYT or WaPo combined) being in the room saying it never happened.
Scoop of Spicer hiding in the bushes? Withdrawn by WaPo.
Scoop of collusion with the Russians? Still not one bit of evidence of collusion (liberals, please look up the definition before you argue the point).
Scoops? Exemplary journalism? There were biased journalists in the past, but they were far, far more often journalists first. What's laughable is that that they don't know they're laughable.
10
Um, in yesterday's visit to the Sabbath Gasbags, McMaster demurred when given the opportunity to deny Trump talking Comey with the Ru$$ians.
After his first day statement of "it never happened," he walked that back, too, when he took to the Spicy podium.
Maybe it is McMaster who wonders if there is an Oval Office taping system...
After his first day statement of "it never happened," he walked that back, too, when he took to the Spicy podium.
Maybe it is McMaster who wonders if there is an Oval Office taping system...
1
CU: "Blockbuster scoops? Of what?"
A "scoop" is a story first published by a particular newspaper. The word "scoop" in that sense is over 100 years old.
"The Great Scoop" is a book from 1903 about a newspaper reporter. The book also refers to "fake" news (p. 83) and "a libel suit" (p. 76).
The Great Scoop
by Molly Elliot Seawell
L.C. Page, 1903
https://books.google.com/books?id=CPsTAAAAIAAJ
See, also, the Wikipedia article: "Scoop (news)".
A "scoop" is a story first published by a particular newspaper. The word "scoop" in that sense is over 100 years old.
"The Great Scoop" is a book from 1903 about a newspaper reporter. The book also refers to "fake" news (p. 83) and "a libel suit" (p. 76).
The Great Scoop
by Molly Elliot Seawell
L.C. Page, 1903
https://books.google.com/books?id=CPsTAAAAIAAJ
See, also, the Wikipedia article: "Scoop (news)".
I'm sorry, but I'm regrettably old enough to know the meaning of the word, but not quite alive at its inception. I trying, obviously in vain to some, to make a joke of the intended use with the recent liberal tirade on how many scoops of ice cream Trump received. BTW, Roosevelt always got more too.
NYT & WaPo: You are both doing a fabulous job.
Add staff. Increase hours. Stock up on coffee.
And keep digging.
Add staff. Increase hours. Stock up on coffee.
And keep digging.
11
Keep digging? That's so yesterday. WaPo and NYT don't dig anymore.
These days, journalism consists of waiting for the phone to ring, and relaying the story from an anonymous leaker, who of course has omitted any parts of the story not furthering his/her agenda.
These days, journalism consists of waiting for the phone to ring, and relaying the story from an anonymous leaker, who of course has omitted any parts of the story not furthering his/her agenda.
3
All based on anonymous sources...
5
Right on. Readers who don't have a liberal worldview need to be reached. Adversarial reporting can only make that more difficult.
2
Self serving spin. Anonymous bureaucrats are supplying the Democrat media and political class with evidence free allegations meant to distract, slander and depose an elected president of the opposing party. Trump has no way to confront his accusors or rebut any actual evidence. A modern star chamber.
5
Karma for 5+ years of birther nonsense.
Can dish it out, but can't take it. Poor little snowflake.
Can dish it out, but can't take it. Poor little snowflake.
1
Is this satire? If so, Ok! Otherwise, my God.
5
Trump has been disastrous and incompetent. However, I will have to quibble with this statement--"What stands out about these stories is how authoritative, forceful and incontrovertible they are. You can tell the reporters knew the power of what they had — letting the facts speak for themselves without need for flourish,"-- as they are not statement of facts, but opinions of anonymous sources. There are two types of use of anonymous sourcing: those quoted directly and those paraphrased. The latter is where reporters seem to be inserting their own conjectures, especially when they use of adjectives to embellish opinions of anonymous sources. They can only be incontrovertible if they are established facts. They may very well be factual, but at the moment they have not been established. For example, when McMaster says that he thought the sharing of information was "wholly appropriate", reporters cannot dismiss it just like that. When asked was the information "classified", he said he cannot confirm or deny, but he was clear that keeping the clasdification aside the sharing was appropriate. Now if we look at how anonymous sources, mostly former officials, talked, the reporters ascribed the information as highly sensitive or highly classified. Now here we have a dispute over fact of classification. One claim is from the NSA and the other seems to be from partisan former officials.
5
Given that McMaster went from "it never happened" to "it was wholly appropriate" in just one day, it seems like the putative adult in the room stepped on a credibility landmine.
#derelictionofduty
#derelictionofduty
2
Blockbuster scoops? Are we talking about news or scooping up after your dog? No real evidence just hearsay quotes from disgruntled government officials who are anonymous cowards. A leaker said that Comely was about to ask for more resources for the Russian investigation before Trump fired him but the new acting director said the Comely didn't ask for more resources and none are required. A anonymous source said that Comely has a hand written memo showing that Trump pressured him to stop the investigation yet no memo as been has materialized despite for multiple congressional requests. More importantly no real evidence of Russian collusion with Trump's campaign staff has been leaked because no evidence exists. What we have is "blockbuster fake news" scooped from the muck of the Washington swamp.
7
Good journalism must be such a balancing act. But it seems to me that fidelity to the truth is what you're after. I was tempted to say that we live in an age when "truth" itself is in question. But I am reminded that over 2000 years ago, in an important trial, Pilot asked: "What is truth?" And maybe that's your task at the Times, even today: to keep asking that very question. To make it clear to your readers, at least in news stories, particularly when you are breaking news, that your reporters have a dedication to uncovering and reporting the unvarnished truth. The simple truth.
So many of us have a newfound appreciation for the work of reporting. Of digging. Going deeper and deeper into a story. Giving us an assurance of your devotion to your role as a watchdog of our democratic republic. What a privilege you have! And what a responsibility.
You owe that not just to your readers, but to those who may be on the front lines of the story itself. Those who unwittingly, perhaps, find themselves in the uncomfortable position of holding vital information which they feel dutybound to disclose, who are at risk when they disclose it, and do so for the good of that very Truth journalists too must hold to.
Thank you, Times, for your dedicated task at this frought moment. Blessings upon you as you thread that needle every day.
Carry on!
So many of us have a newfound appreciation for the work of reporting. Of digging. Going deeper and deeper into a story. Giving us an assurance of your devotion to your role as a watchdog of our democratic republic. What a privilege you have! And what a responsibility.
You owe that not just to your readers, but to those who may be on the front lines of the story itself. Those who unwittingly, perhaps, find themselves in the uncomfortable position of holding vital information which they feel dutybound to disclose, who are at risk when they disclose it, and do so for the good of that very Truth journalists too must hold to.
Thank you, Times, for your dedicated task at this frought moment. Blessings upon you as you thread that needle every day.
Carry on!
4
Stating that your reporters and editors are dedicated to the truth does not establish it as fact. Indeed, the more the it is heralded, the more the listener gets the impression that the reporters and editors are not.
Dedication to the truth is established by settling for nothing less than the truth...and leak or a hear-say document may or may not be truthful and the are FAR from being ADMISSIBLE as evidence in any court of law.
Dediction to the truth also recognizes the essence of our legal system...the accused is innocent until he is proven guilty.
No proof? No guilt.
And the truth is best served by not letting the story get ahead of the facts.
Dedication to the truth is established by settling for nothing less than the truth...and leak or a hear-say document may or may not be truthful and the are FAR from being ADMISSIBLE as evidence in any court of law.
Dediction to the truth also recognizes the essence of our legal system...the accused is innocent until he is proven guilty.
No proof? No guilt.
And the truth is best served by not letting the story get ahead of the facts.
1
The Times printed headlines of the "wiretaps" on Trump, then changed them later to take out that word after Trump used it.
The Washington Post has been worse, but both papers have been virulently anti-Trump since at least his inauguration.
The Washington Post has been worse, but both papers have been virulently anti-Trump since at least his inauguration.
6
This column creates the straw man: "when The Times looks as if it has joined the resistance, or when it excavates facts without prejudice." Fair coverage of the last two weeks shows "excavating facts without prejudice" reveals a lawless administration.
The facts have revealed a prima facie case of obstruction of justice and reckless disclosure of information to a hostile government that just intervened for one side in our election. The problem is reality today cannot possibly "speak to all sides" in a debate about the Trump administration.
Spayd praised the Times for it's dispassionate and irrefutable stories that don't "take sides," but the right still sees those stories the same as stories that go farther. To them, reporting the facts dispassionately = joining the resistance.
The Times still wants to appeal to these people. The night of the Russian secrets story, Jeremy Peters said on MSNBC "So there is this alternate series of facts that is out there." He is giving deference and respect to these "alternate facts" even though they are false.
In the campaign, the Times' deference to "alternate facts" caused them to partner with a Breitbart writer to publish false, misleading and inflammatory stories about, e.g., the Clinton Foundation.
It is more critical than ever the Times avoid doing this now, when aberrant behavior precludes deference to those who promote "alternate facts."
The facts have revealed a prima facie case of obstruction of justice and reckless disclosure of information to a hostile government that just intervened for one side in our election. The problem is reality today cannot possibly "speak to all sides" in a debate about the Trump administration.
Spayd praised the Times for it's dispassionate and irrefutable stories that don't "take sides," but the right still sees those stories the same as stories that go farther. To them, reporting the facts dispassionately = joining the resistance.
The Times still wants to appeal to these people. The night of the Russian secrets story, Jeremy Peters said on MSNBC "So there is this alternate series of facts that is out there." He is giving deference and respect to these "alternate facts" even though they are false.
In the campaign, the Times' deference to "alternate facts" caused them to partner with a Breitbart writer to publish false, misleading and inflammatory stories about, e.g., the Clinton Foundation.
It is more critical than ever the Times avoid doing this now, when aberrant behavior precludes deference to those who promote "alternate facts."
9
Could be, PJ, that the facts presented by the NY Times are the facts that are false or, at best, misleading.
The political biases of the reporters, it would seem, precludes any effort to disprove the assumptions. And, that leads to a prosecutorial approach without the presumption of innocence which is the bedrock of our legal system.
How would you, sir, like to be tried by in the press by innuendo and hear-say?
The political biases of the reporters, it would seem, precludes any effort to disprove the assumptions. And, that leads to a prosecutorial approach without the presumption of innocence which is the bedrock of our legal system.
How would you, sir, like to be tried by in the press by innuendo and hear-say?
1
some terrific journalism during a very busy news week, that's for sure!
at the same time, the Times and most other media are being played by the Great Grifter, who is determinedly monopolizing the lede left and right, squeezing out other stories about what's going on in the world and what is being done TO Americans by their own government... while they are being distracted by antics in the White House. How could the editors not recognize this? how do they continue to fall for it?
the man has bitten the dog enough times in the last five months that it has ceased to be headline worthy. now, if he does something sane or benevolent for a change, THAT would be a scoop!
at the same time, the Times and most other media are being played by the Great Grifter, who is determinedly monopolizing the lede left and right, squeezing out other stories about what's going on in the world and what is being done TO Americans by their own government... while they are being distracted by antics in the White House. How could the editors not recognize this? how do they continue to fall for it?
the man has bitten the dog enough times in the last five months that it has ceased to be headline worthy. now, if he does something sane or benevolent for a change, THAT would be a scoop!
3
Does calling Trump names further the discussion, Pottree?
I am surprised that your remarks survived the moderators since name-calling does not meet the minimum standards for acceptance by the Times.
Your interest in inflicting your cell-phoneitis on the rest of the world is disturbing. I doubt that you are "best buddies" with anyone commenting hear, and I find your failure to observe the common protocols of writing in the English language a selfish degradation of the dialogue.
I am surprised that your remarks survived the moderators since name-calling does not meet the minimum standards for acceptance by the Times.
Your interest in inflicting your cell-phoneitis on the rest of the world is disturbing. I doubt that you are "best buddies" with anyone commenting hear, and I find your failure to observe the common protocols of writing in the English language a selfish degradation of the dialogue.
1
"Does calling Trump names..."
This from a supporter of the master of name calling projection: "Crooked Hillary, Lying Ted, Low Energy Jeb, Failing New York Times, Crying Chuck Schumer..."
Can dish it out, but can't take it? Poor little snowflake...
This from a supporter of the master of name calling projection: "Crooked Hillary, Lying Ted, Low Energy Jeb, Failing New York Times, Crying Chuck Schumer..."
Can dish it out, but can't take it? Poor little snowflake...
2
I was remarking about your serial disregard for the standards to which the NY Times allegedly holds its commenters and the disregard of the standards that the moderators hold that allowed them to pass you comment to publication.
News coverage in The Times, Post etc. has to devote to double checking as many times necessary to be assured that once the decision is made to publish that the stories sources are authentic with facts checked to the highest standard.
To me then, it is up to opinion writers to project through the process of continuing investigations, congressional, special counsel, that normal procedures be followed and that these sources do not attempt to move facts into the area of disputed opinion.
Thus the press becomes the agent of truth once uncovered and taken through normal channels of legal fact finding, the above investigatory procedures.
Politicians and slanted media coverage to one side or the other are not necessarily concerned with truth. They are concerned of getting what they want regardless of what the actual discovered and checked facts already tell.
We call that spin. And no, we don't need spin taken seriously and need the legal and Constitutional process to be utilized to move on with a normal investigation process.
Leaving the process of checks and balances firmly in place to safely carry on the true intent of Democracy now and in the future.
Individual and group rights can only be maintained in this manner, not over run by political and personal agendas that lead to the path of absolutisms.
To me then, it is up to opinion writers to project through the process of continuing investigations, congressional, special counsel, that normal procedures be followed and that these sources do not attempt to move facts into the area of disputed opinion.
Thus the press becomes the agent of truth once uncovered and taken through normal channels of legal fact finding, the above investigatory procedures.
Politicians and slanted media coverage to one side or the other are not necessarily concerned with truth. They are concerned of getting what they want regardless of what the actual discovered and checked facts already tell.
We call that spin. And no, we don't need spin taken seriously and need the legal and Constitutional process to be utilized to move on with a normal investigation process.
Leaving the process of checks and balances firmly in place to safely carry on the true intent of Democracy now and in the future.
Individual and group rights can only be maintained in this manner, not over run by political and personal agendas that lead to the path of absolutisms.
1
The power of journalism is gone. The only people that read the New York Times and Washington post & Los Angeles times are radical liberals that live in those three cities.you saw how that worked out for you in the last election. Nobady cares about what you think and have fun wiping the egg off your face when Trump wins anorther four years.
3
This is a carefully modulated position by the Public Editor that is admirable. Understated and intelligent. However, it is impossible to read any issue of the New York Times without being knocked over by the blasts of anti-Trump and pro-liberal propaganda from all directions. Twas ever thus, and Trump feeds the journalistic frenzy from the left extraordinarily well. When the Times makes an overt effort (and it is clearly an effort) to portray "the other side" politically, the reader is forced to consider that there may be civilizations on distant planets.
4
"Pro-liberal propaganda" that disparaged Bernie Sanders with. Marked preference for Center Right Corporatist Hawk Hillary Clinton?
I don't think "liberal" means what you think it does.
I don't think "liberal" means what you think it does.
4
One needs only look at the outcry coming from the "readers" of the NY Times with the hiring of Mr. Bret Stevens.
The rabid left EXPECTS the Times not to cover opposing views because of the micro-aggressions that they will suffer because they are exposed to differing concepts.
What is really sad, it that almost all of the time, the NY Times supplies the left with all that they need to remain outraged at anything that the Trump administration might say or do.
The rabid left EXPECTS the Times not to cover opposing views because of the micro-aggressions that they will suffer because they are exposed to differing concepts.
What is really sad, it that almost all of the time, the NY Times supplies the left with all that they need to remain outraged at anything that the Trump administration might say or do.
1
Owl, I'm of two minds regarding the new right-wing columnist. On the one hand, I applaud their effort to bring in more diverse viewpoints across the ideological spectrum. However, especially compared to their other two house conservatives, David Brooks and Ross Douthat, the newbie doesn't measure up. Whether I agree with Messrs. Brooks and/or Douthat on any given point is irrelevant. What matters is that they write in good faith and with sincerity. Whereas I think Mr Stephens knowingly plays 3-card monte with language, facts, and ideology.
1
What a load of horse pucky. Only in a liberal bubble are these stories "authoritative, forceful and incontrovertible". "He's a good guy; I hope you can let this go" is light years away from asking Comey to shut down the investigation. As per usual, we don't have the full memo to look at things in context, and the sources are once again anonymous. So far the only source on record who was in attendance at Trump's meeting with the Russians contradicts the Wa Post's anonymously sourced story. I find it far more plausible that Trump's detractors are blowing this way out of proportion than that McMaster is covering for his boss. At the end of the day you are just spouting anonymous innuendo and to push your preferred narrative. If this is "exemplary journalism" then I guess Fox News deserves credit for being the only agency to properly cover the Obama administration.
Good journalism reports facts from named sources in context and leaves it up to the readers to determine the narrative.
Good journalism reports facts from named sources in context and leaves it up to the readers to determine the narrative.
7
This is so right, it's not the tune it's the tone. Give us what your reporters know, not what they think. Clearly label opinion pieces. Don't speculate, don't predict. News is what has happened, not what may. And run from adjectives.
The Times is a great newspaper and grows taking the direction Liz Spayd reveals here.
The Times is a great newspaper and grows taking the direction Liz Spayd reveals here.
2
"It can begin to look like a campaign..." Ask people who say this "which of his tweets, statements, backtracks, or policy reversals shouldn't have been covered"
How do you not cover this? All this spectacle might have been good for a campaign in producing elephantine news coverage, but even Mitch McConnell is tired of it, asking for "less drama." Note where the emphasis is, he didn't say "less reporting", because you can't *not* report what the most powerful man on the planet says and does.
How do you not cover this? All this spectacle might have been good for a campaign in producing elephantine news coverage, but even Mitch McConnell is tired of it, asking for "less drama." Note where the emphasis is, he didn't say "less reporting", because you can't *not* report what the most powerful man on the planet says and does.
3
How you cover it is the problem that the press has yet to solve.
Trump is talking over the heads of the media to the people. The media doesn't like that one bit. They think that they are ENTITLED to the information even though there is nothing in the Constitution that holds that the media is entitled to anything other than the respect of the government for the freedom of the press.
Trump is talking over the heads of the media to the people. The media doesn't like that one bit. They think that they are ENTITLED to the information even though there is nothing in the Constitution that holds that the media is entitled to anything other than the respect of the government for the freedom of the press.
that President Trump revealed highly classified information in a meeting with top Russian officials. By the next day, The New York Times fired back in spectacular fashion with a damning report that Trump asked the F.B.I director, James Comey, to shut down his investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. More scoops kept coming
Need any more be said?
Need any more be said?
2
First, neither accusations are crimes. Secondly, both have been contradicted by people that are credible and are not anonymous disgruntled officials. This is not good journalism, it's propaganda.
1
Yes...
Prove it. Evidence that is admissible in court is what you need, not anonymous leaks, conjecture, innuendo, and projection.
Go for it, mgaudet...if you can.
Prove it. Evidence that is admissible in court is what you need, not anonymous leaks, conjecture, innuendo, and projection.
Go for it, mgaudet...if you can.
1
The power of journalism is inextricably intertwined between the business of entertainment and the profession of enlightenment for both the public good of the people and the private owners of the journalists.
1
I must agree with the P.E. here, though I'm sure a great many readers will say otherwise. There is a place for outright advocacy journalism, for the Village Voice and Mother Jones and the New York Review of Books and their kin, and also for the National Review, Commentary, and Reason and their cohort. The NYT, however, is a different animal, or should be. (As should the Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, etc.)
I don't even 'hunger' for tips on organizing my sock drawer, as the NYT's 'Smarter Living' section assumes. I'm even less comfortable when I suspect I'm being nudged - or pushed outright - toward a particular conclusion. Moreover, Nixon still has his partisan defenders who insist he was unfairly hounded from office; how much more so will Trump have, if the line between advocacy and factual journalism disappears completely, as it's often threatened to do over the past several months?
As Joe Friday always said, Just the facts, ma'am.
I don't even 'hunger' for tips on organizing my sock drawer, as the NYT's 'Smarter Living' section assumes. I'm even less comfortable when I suspect I'm being nudged - or pushed outright - toward a particular conclusion. Moreover, Nixon still has his partisan defenders who insist he was unfairly hounded from office; how much more so will Trump have, if the line between advocacy and factual journalism disappears completely, as it's often threatened to do over the past several months?
As Joe Friday always said, Just the facts, ma'am.
3
My objection to Nixon being tried in the press was that much of it was orchestrated by Mark Felt, the No. 2 man in the FBI.
He used his position, motivated by political differences with Nixon and a burning resentment that he was not promoted on Hoover's death, to interfere with the elected administration of the nation. His leaks to Woodward and Bernstein guided them in the search, leaks which were not the type authorized by FBI organization and operational policy.
Nixon made his on bed, and if Trump is found to have violated the law, the Congress will decide whether or not the violation achieves the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. (Note that he precedent set in the Clinton impeachment was that violation of the perjury laws were not of the category implied by the Constitution.) If he is impeached, Trump will have made his own bed.
Right now, there is no smoking gun. There is no impeachment. There is only innuendo and political talk, none of which is helping the governance of our nation.
There is currently a special prosecutor assigned to look into these matters. It is best to let him get on with the job, and no one, NO ONE should on his own take on the role prosecutor until the facts are known.
And the same holds for every media outlet in the country.
And remember, under our system of justice a person is presumed to be innocent until PROVEN otherwise.
He used his position, motivated by political differences with Nixon and a burning resentment that he was not promoted on Hoover's death, to interfere with the elected administration of the nation. His leaks to Woodward and Bernstein guided them in the search, leaks which were not the type authorized by FBI organization and operational policy.
Nixon made his on bed, and if Trump is found to have violated the law, the Congress will decide whether or not the violation achieves the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. (Note that he precedent set in the Clinton impeachment was that violation of the perjury laws were not of the category implied by the Constitution.) If he is impeached, Trump will have made his own bed.
Right now, there is no smoking gun. There is no impeachment. There is only innuendo and political talk, none of which is helping the governance of our nation.
There is currently a special prosecutor assigned to look into these matters. It is best to let him get on with the job, and no one, NO ONE should on his own take on the role prosecutor until the facts are known.
And the same holds for every media outlet in the country.
And remember, under our system of justice a person is presumed to be innocent until PROVEN otherwise.
"Nixon tried in the press?"
He participated in a criminal conspiracy. It was on the tapes.
Does the phrase "unindicted co-conspirator" not ring a bell?
Not to mention a racist, anti semite, and a war criminal, not necessarily in that order.
He participated in a criminal conspiracy. It was on the tapes.
Does the phrase "unindicted co-conspirator" not ring a bell?
Not to mention a racist, anti semite, and a war criminal, not necessarily in that order.
2
Owl, you talk about how Nixon should have been tried 'in the courts', not 'in the press'; but had it not been for Deep Throat, Nixon would probably have gotten away with his dirty tricks.
I'm reminded of episode after episode of 'Law and Order', in which a defence attorney cross-examines a witness and implies or gets him/her/it/them to admit outright that they may have mixed or less than idealistic motives - a bitter ex-lover, a bilked business partner, a co-conspirator offered a reduced sentence or other inducement to flip on his partner in crime. What the defence attorney never points out is that even if that is true, it doesn't, in itself, mean the witness isn't telling the truth. So maybe Mark Felt was not Francis of Assisi. He was telling the truth, as events proved.
I'm reminded of episode after episode of 'Law and Order', in which a defence attorney cross-examines a witness and implies or gets him/her/it/them to admit outright that they may have mixed or less than idealistic motives - a bitter ex-lover, a bilked business partner, a co-conspirator offered a reduced sentence or other inducement to flip on his partner in crime. What the defence attorney never points out is that even if that is true, it doesn't, in itself, mean the witness isn't telling the truth. So maybe Mark Felt was not Francis of Assisi. He was telling the truth, as events proved.
2
"Times...preference for strict independence..."
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
ARE YOU SERIOUS?
4
Please explain to me how calling a lie a lie is prosecutorial or spin? Seems pretty much like straight up reporting.
7
It's when they use hearsay to extrapolate and insinuate a felony, it surely is both prosecutorial and spin.
You ask
The question is which approach is more effective — when The Times looks as if it has joined the resistance, or when it excavates facts without prejudice?
Why shouldn't the Times continue doing both?
The question is which approach is more effective — when The Times looks as if it has joined the resistance, or when it excavates facts without prejudice?
Why shouldn't the Times continue doing both?
1
Because you cannot do both. At least, not in the news pages.
1
This conservative wishes they would.
But, it is really necessary for the Times to start distinguishing between the two when material is published.
I read the NY Times BECAUSE it has a liberal slant to its opinion pieces. I do not read the NY Times for facts, because, as noted in a goodly number of these comments, what is being offered is basically anonymously sourced hearsay...
And THAT is far from being fact.
But, it is really necessary for the Times to start distinguishing between the two when material is published.
I read the NY Times BECAUSE it has a liberal slant to its opinion pieces. I do not read the NY Times for facts, because, as noted in a goodly number of these comments, what is being offered is basically anonymously sourced hearsay...
And THAT is far from being fact.
Last Christmas, my husband asked me what I wanted and I told him," a New York Times subscription". Never has journalism been more important (Watergate excepted). And what the NYT, Washington Post and other newspapers are delivering is the greatest journalism I've ever read.
The agreeable and collegial competition among journalists is heartening, as well.
The agreeable and collegial competition among journalists is heartening, as well.
2
"This past week marked a watershed for the Trump administration and the journalists who cover it." So of course "Maureen Dowd is off today." She has contributed a total of three columns since March 25. Don't subscribers deserve to know why she's gone so often?
4
Writing for other outlets...
On the other hand, I don't miss her.
On the other hand, I don't miss her.
3
You describe irrefutable evidence re Comey memo. Yet you never produced it. The article implied that the discloser had it in hand as he "read passages" from it but your reporter never asked to see it? And, as always, an anonymous source. Further, you characterized it as Trump telling him to stand down. That is not what was said. Is this any different than Obama announcing, before the investigation was complete, that Hillary Clinton committed no crime? If what Trump is alleged to have said, "I hope you don't..." is intending to shut down an investigation, what Obama said was even more so.
3
Heartfelt thanks to all the journalists working so hard right now to bring the truth to light. This article is spot on. Reporting the facts so that all sides can reach consensus is critical. We need to work to find common ground and move forward as a united nation to solve our myriad problems.
As the WP declares " democracy dies in darkness".
As the WP declares " democracy dies in darkness".
3
It's worth remembering that we've had a journalist arrested in West Virginia for being uppity.
5
All I wanted to do is *read* the comments, but the NYT software will not show them to me until I post.
Kudos to the news organizations who covered a tremendous amount of breaking stories over the past 10-14 days. Personally I can't recall a time when I watched news feeds so intently.
But I do believe the long investigative stories about what the political situation and administration is doing to the American citizens is equally important. They may not have the dramatic "breaking" story line, but knowing the impact of the prescription drug crisis, the pending changes to the ACA, what people feel at home as they talk to friends and families also needs coverage.
While it may be a "war" between the NY Times and Washington Post, it's a war we all win as these events unfold in much more "real time" than they did before online news. This has been some of the best reporting I can recall, and if it's "Just the facts, ma'am (or sir)" we still grasp the scope and depth on our own.
But I do believe the long investigative stories about what the political situation and administration is doing to the American citizens is equally important. They may not have the dramatic "breaking" story line, but knowing the impact of the prescription drug crisis, the pending changes to the ACA, what people feel at home as they talk to friends and families also needs coverage.
While it may be a "war" between the NY Times and Washington Post, it's a war we all win as these events unfold in much more "real time" than they did before online news. This has been some of the best reporting I can recall, and if it's "Just the facts, ma'am (or sir)" we still grasp the scope and depth on our own.
3
Scoops, is NOT journalism, it is gossip, like little housewives, that have nothing better to do then talk about the neighbors and watch soup operas. Anonymous sources is another trick you use along with your, "Those in Beltway are talking about".....Has your lives gotten so boring, that all you write about is gossip, where is your worldly views about how Trump just land the biggest highly paid Jobs contract with the Saudi's, and his plans with the Silk Road.
Funny thing is, that is so comical about you at the NYT is where were you when Comey was a hand picked FBI top cop because he was a top dog at HSBC, Hillary's Foundation Bank, and that Comey's brothers firm does her taxes ? OH, I see, that is news that you hide under the rug, now if that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't what to say, but of course Comey is going to squash any kind indictment of the person that gothim the Job in the first place.
Funny thing is, that is so comical about you at the NYT is where were you when Comey was a hand picked FBI top cop because he was a top dog at HSBC, Hillary's Foundation Bank, and that Comey's brothers firm does her taxes ? OH, I see, that is news that you hide under the rug, now if that isn't a conflict of interest, I don't what to say, but of course Comey is going to squash any kind indictment of the person that gothim the Job in the first place.
1
I will need to verify your statements in your second paragraph, stonehillady, but your first paragraph neatly summarizes the way that the press is operating these days.
The "scoop" is far more important than having it correct. And if it comes from someone "inside", then it just HAS to be true.
I remember back in the early days of the copier when Xerox had the lock on the market...
If it was printed, it had to be true. But if it were printed AND Xeroxed, the material HAD to be Gospel.
The "scoop" is far more important than having it correct. And if it comes from someone "inside", then it just HAS to be true.
I remember back in the early days of the copier when Xerox had the lock on the market...
If it was printed, it had to be true. But if it were printed AND Xeroxed, the material HAD to be Gospel.
As my personal contribution to the war on fake news, in addition to my years long subscription to NYT, I am now a subscriber in Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post.
2
Facts are slippery things. The "facts as dead fish" school of journalism has much to recommend it but we should take heed of how things we once thought true have morphed in the lens of history. Eighty years out and economists still debate the cause of the Great Depression. Today, many rage against terrorism while denying vastly greater deaths from weapons cherished under the Second Amendment. Some scream about abortion as murder of the innocent and stand ready to execute anyone in prison for a capital crime.
Perhaps we need just to understand the human tendency to sift facts for those that support our foundational beliefs and preconceptions. Government can offer the balm to ease the pain of the least among us. Government is not the solution to our problems; it is the problem. Journalist as advocate; journalist as archivist. "All the news fit to print" vs. "All the news made fit to print".
Picking a lane is never easy. Constantly picking the same lane is not always right or even most effective.
Perhaps we need just to understand the human tendency to sift facts for those that support our foundational beliefs and preconceptions. Government can offer the balm to ease the pain of the least among us. Government is not the solution to our problems; it is the problem. Journalist as advocate; journalist as archivist. "All the news fit to print" vs. "All the news made fit to print".
Picking a lane is never easy. Constantly picking the same lane is not always right or even most effective.
1
Actually, Doug, the old Mad Magazine...an icon of satire...had it right when it put in a block at the top of their page"
"All the news that fits, we print."
No need to change what is already an aptly cynical view of the content of the NY Times.
"All the news that fits, we print."
No need to change what is already an aptly cynical view of the content of the NY Times.
Both press releases, the meeting with Russia, and Comey by the President were easily viewable on Fox news with no bluster on their part. Why? No wiggle room, just hard facts and a level of detail that left no room for argument.
This is just the kind of investigative journalism we need by the Times and Post. No fluff, no hearsay, nothing but facts supported by impeccable sources. Both papers are widely respected around the globe and Trump can say "fake news" all he wants it won't matter. Facts are facts and the reader will know the truth when he or she reads it.
Great reporting by both Papers.
This is just the kind of investigative journalism we need by the Times and Post. No fluff, no hearsay, nothing but facts supported by impeccable sources. Both papers are widely respected around the globe and Trump can say "fake news" all he wants it won't matter. Facts are facts and the reader will know the truth when he or she reads it.
Great reporting by both Papers.
3
When a partisan insider leaks damning information, it is plenty newsworthy.. But why the Public Editor thinks it is indisputable is beyond me. Particularly with respect to FBI-related matters, there is no verification or denial as a matter of policy-- the FBI refuses to comment on such leaks as a matter of confidentiality. So there is no way to know whether the leak is truthful or not. And whether Trump requested shutdown of the Flynn investigation remains uncertain. That's business as usual. There was nothing extraordinary about this disclosure.
2
I think one can infer if the Comey memo(s) was wrongly reported, or entirely a fiction, Rod Rosenstein would have had that knowledge in hand. His appointment of Mueller as Special Counsel militates toward Schmidt having the story right.
3
The NYTIMES does act as a censor when it shuts down
the comment section for readers after a few hundred
comments. And sometimes it misses the story. A case in
in point: The name and position of the woman
interpreter working with Trump in Saudi Arabia. Op-ed writers
should have their e-mail addresses published. Considering Trump is
70 years old, a medical geriatric specialist could describe the
possibilities on Trump's health. The Woodrow Wilson case could provide
a comparison. The NYTIMES is proving an historic guidance to challenge
Trump, and its strategies are working but it does make mistakes.
the comment section for readers after a few hundred
comments. And sometimes it misses the story. A case in
in point: The name and position of the woman
interpreter working with Trump in Saudi Arabia. Op-ed writers
should have their e-mail addresses published. Considering Trump is
70 years old, a medical geriatric specialist could describe the
possibilities on Trump's health. The Woodrow Wilson case could provide
a comparison. The NYTIMES is proving an historic guidance to challenge
Trump, and its strategies are working but it does make mistakes.
After about the first 150 comments, you can be pretty sure no one's going to read yours anyway.
2
et tu, Liz Spade? On a column about objectivity in reporting you write two accusations in the first paragraph that have not been substantiated in any way. There is no example of what "classified information" was revealed or how the "leaker" got that info or who he is. No source=fake news.
That Trump "asked" Comey to "shut down" his investigation is the result of one "reporter" having heard, not seen, notes from Comey's personal memo. Another side of the Objective reporting would contest that "bombshell" as being news at all.
No spin here? Anonymous sources are going to get the Pulitzer. How will they be dressed when marched to the podium to get their award? In monks robes with eyeslits so they ccan drop another "Blockbuster" next week about how Ivanka asked a Prince to open up more stores for women in Saudi Arabia?
No mention of the mutual benefits of the arms deal or how Kushner helped negotiate a huge package to help Saudis against Iran. No mention of Trump's huge success as representing a whole new image of the U.S. in the Middle East.
Your choice of "stories", the unfettered use of unnamed sources, and then covering up the shoddy journalism by writing that WAPO "broke the news" that some shadowy figure told another shadowy figure something way unproven. This is not "news" even when the "Public Editor" begrudgingly says it is. This really is ...Fake News.
That Trump "asked" Comey to "shut down" his investigation is the result of one "reporter" having heard, not seen, notes from Comey's personal memo. Another side of the Objective reporting would contest that "bombshell" as being news at all.
No spin here? Anonymous sources are going to get the Pulitzer. How will they be dressed when marched to the podium to get their award? In monks robes with eyeslits so they ccan drop another "Blockbuster" next week about how Ivanka asked a Prince to open up more stores for women in Saudi Arabia?
No mention of the mutual benefits of the arms deal or how Kushner helped negotiate a huge package to help Saudis against Iran. No mention of Trump's huge success as representing a whole new image of the U.S. in the Middle East.
Your choice of "stories", the unfettered use of unnamed sources, and then covering up the shoddy journalism by writing that WAPO "broke the news" that some shadowy figure told another shadowy figure something way unproven. This is not "news" even when the "Public Editor" begrudgingly says it is. This really is ...Fake News.
4
Point of view is essential in journalism as in everything else. It's pointless to argue otherwise since refusing to admit to a point of view is both self delusional AND adopting a point of view. investigators must start with a point of view about what the law is, and they look to see if the found conduct conforms to it. Without standards there can be no testing. Hence that wonderful old saying that exceptions prove the rule (prove in this case retaining it's old sense as test, as in assayer's proof).
1
It's amazing that this question even needs to be asked.
Yes, impartial, aggressive, spin-free, please!
Taking sides hurt the Times' credibility among its own readers during the primaries and the general election last year.
Moreover, the clear belief in the Times newsroom that Clinton would and, more critically, SHOULD be the next president, blinded them to the obvious warning signs... her own struggles against a party outsider, Trump's win as a party outsider, and the record low approval ratings of both candidates.
So please, just the facts please. We'll interpret them. Thanks.
Yes, impartial, aggressive, spin-free, please!
Taking sides hurt the Times' credibility among its own readers during the primaries and the general election last year.
Moreover, the clear belief in the Times newsroom that Clinton would and, more critically, SHOULD be the next president, blinded them to the obvious warning signs... her own struggles against a party outsider, Trump's win as a party outsider, and the record low approval ratings of both candidates.
So please, just the facts please. We'll interpret them. Thanks.
7
Liz Spayd has created a false dichotomy -criticism of the Times' far too common stenographic coverage of administration talking points isn't a demand for partisanship but only better journalism. In her coverage here, Spayd, like Bret Stephens, still thinks that a cute phrase is a substitute for substance.
When the Times mindlessly picks up the talking point that Jarod and Ivanka are a moderating influence on Trump, who's voice are we hearing? The Times own articles couldn't cite even a single example where either player changed any outcome, only claims that they wanted something different.
When the Times lauded Ryan's supposed budgetary wisdom and political savvy, where did they get that idea? We see no the reality that was always Ryan - a disastrous Healthcare abomination and hustled vote that will likely have to be repeated at still greater political cost after the CBO report. That should be an interesting story.
The recent leaks clearly required anonymous sources because those sources are taking real risks but sources echoing administration points should never have be off the record. Don't use recent good work as cover for failures before and after the election or as an excuse to normalize the bizarre that is Trump. A column on good things to say about Trump - like treason is funny.
Stop patronizing your readers and start doing your job and listening; you are not a publicist.
When the Times mindlessly picks up the talking point that Jarod and Ivanka are a moderating influence on Trump, who's voice are we hearing? The Times own articles couldn't cite even a single example where either player changed any outcome, only claims that they wanted something different.
When the Times lauded Ryan's supposed budgetary wisdom and political savvy, where did they get that idea? We see no the reality that was always Ryan - a disastrous Healthcare abomination and hustled vote that will likely have to be repeated at still greater political cost after the CBO report. That should be an interesting story.
The recent leaks clearly required anonymous sources because those sources are taking real risks but sources echoing administration points should never have be off the record. Don't use recent good work as cover for failures before and after the election or as an excuse to normalize the bizarre that is Trump. A column on good things to say about Trump - like treason is funny.
Stop patronizing your readers and start doing your job and listening; you are not a publicist.
14
I would enjoy seeing a column as to just who...approximate position-wise...these leakers really are..
Are they hold-overs from the Obama administration? Are they law-enforcement or security official leaking the details of on-going investigations? Are they low-level clerks and functionaries skimming data that crossing their desks an leaking to establish their bona fides as "movers and shakers" in the administration?
Tell us please, with whom are you dealing?
I am reminded of the Woodward-and-Bernstein days where two enterprising reporter broke a story and worked it unto the resignation of the President of the United States.
What people forget is far more chilling a thought.
Woodward and Bernstein were guided step-by-step by selective leaks from the No. 2 man in the FBI using information that Felt, aka Deep Throat, learned from the FBI's investigations.
Felt's leaks were contrary to the policies of the FBI regarding investigations and were motivated by personal and political animosities. Felt, a product of the J.Edgar Hoover FBI, didn't support Nixon's policies, and was obsessed with the idea that HE should have moved up to Director on the death of Hoover.
Felt decided, on his own, that Nixon should be prosecuted in the press not through the legal processes of indictment and trial.
That Nixon deserved to be drawn over the coals is irrelevant. The fact that Felt used the power of the FBI as a weapon against a sitting president is.
That's Hoover-type scary.
Are they hold-overs from the Obama administration? Are they law-enforcement or security official leaking the details of on-going investigations? Are they low-level clerks and functionaries skimming data that crossing their desks an leaking to establish their bona fides as "movers and shakers" in the administration?
Tell us please, with whom are you dealing?
I am reminded of the Woodward-and-Bernstein days where two enterprising reporter broke a story and worked it unto the resignation of the President of the United States.
What people forget is far more chilling a thought.
Woodward and Bernstein were guided step-by-step by selective leaks from the No. 2 man in the FBI using information that Felt, aka Deep Throat, learned from the FBI's investigations.
Felt's leaks were contrary to the policies of the FBI regarding investigations and were motivated by personal and political animosities. Felt, a product of the J.Edgar Hoover FBI, didn't support Nixon's policies, and was obsessed with the idea that HE should have moved up to Director on the death of Hoover.
Felt decided, on his own, that Nixon should be prosecuted in the press not through the legal processes of indictment and trial.
That Nixon deserved to be drawn over the coals is irrelevant. The fact that Felt used the power of the FBI as a weapon against a sitting president is.
That's Hoover-type scary.
True. But all the ongoing, immaterial noise also being reported dilutes the factual reporting.
1
cont.
It is the 'real' fourth estate that may very well save your democracy. I was horrified by your coverage of Bernie Sanders, I think you did the country a real disservice, please do not 'normalize' dt* or call his deficiencies and those of his appointees anything other than what they are. That is how you will lose your credibility, to the detriment of your nation.
It is the 'real' fourth estate that may very well save your democracy. I was horrified by your coverage of Bernie Sanders, I think you did the country a real disservice, please do not 'normalize' dt* or call his deficiencies and those of his appointees anything other than what they are. That is how you will lose your credibility, to the detriment of your nation.
3
Sometimes it is scoops and sometimes it is dogged leg work. I particularly appreciated the work of David A. Fahrethold of the WP and his expose of dt*'s 'charitable' giving. It exposed him for one of things he is. NYT's Pulitzer Prize winners among others won for the same reason.
"Should the media engage in open opposition to the White House and take sides in a political battle? Or should it report aggressively but dispassionately in hopes of retaining credibility with the broadest audience?" I can understand your dilemma, however,
"Some readers, alarmed over a Trump presidency, want the newsroom in full combat mode. They want editors to adopt a blunt vocabulary — regularly calling a lie a lie, for example — and resist any interpretation of events that could “normalize” Trump. They see The Times as no place for voices that dissent from liberal orthodoxy."
I don't think it is 'political orthodoxy' to report lies as anything but lies, or obstruction of justice as any other thing. Yes, there is a segment of your citizens who will never read the NYT's of the WP or the UK Guardian. There is nothing you can change about that. Please be aware however, that other outlets, some of them local, may well reprint these articles. I was astonished to see an article by E. J. Dionne reprinted in the local Las Vegas paper a few weeks ago.
To be cont.
"Should the media engage in open opposition to the White House and take sides in a political battle? Or should it report aggressively but dispassionately in hopes of retaining credibility with the broadest audience?" I can understand your dilemma, however,
"Some readers, alarmed over a Trump presidency, want the newsroom in full combat mode. They want editors to adopt a blunt vocabulary — regularly calling a lie a lie, for example — and resist any interpretation of events that could “normalize” Trump. They see The Times as no place for voices that dissent from liberal orthodoxy."
I don't think it is 'political orthodoxy' to report lies as anything but lies, or obstruction of justice as any other thing. Yes, there is a segment of your citizens who will never read the NYT's of the WP or the UK Guardian. There is nothing you can change about that. Please be aware however, that other outlets, some of them local, may well reprint these articles. I was astonished to see an article by E. J. Dionne reprinted in the local Las Vegas paper a few weeks ago.
To be cont.
6
Why did the New York Times fabricate the thoroughly debunked and discredited lie and crackpot conspiracy theory that James Comey had "asked" for "more resources" to "investigate" the crackpot "Trump colluded with Russia!" conspiracy theory?
2
Here's where you have a slight problem, Mz. Spayd:
The Shorenstein Center of Harvard's Kennedy School disagrees with you, and disagrees with you in spades...
The media, for whatever reason, has produced far more negative articles and video pieces on Trump than positive ones.
Can you explain to us why this is the case? It appears to all who are being objective about this subject that the Fourth Estate is picking a fight with Trump,
Is it because he has found a way to go over the Press and speak to the people directly?
Is it because of the unequivocal rejection of the "without favor" ethic that all journalists, not just the Times should hold?
Seems to me, ma'am that, you are far too close to being part of the biased "Fourth Estate establishment" to be willing to admit that the press has been more then willing breathlessly to reveal the latest with, at best, hear-say, and often far overblown assessments that fit nicely with the ways that your ideological bent reinforced?
Did the letter from Publisher Sulzberger and Executive Editor Basquet have ANY meaning to the newsroom? Did the letter from Publisher Sulzberger on the taking on a conservative columnist have ANY meaning to the newsroom?
Perhaps you may want to start with the Shorenstien Center's report as a baseline and give us an analysis with in the context of their findings?
It might be refreshing for a change for you to take up the readers concerns instead of blindly following the collective attitude du jour.
The Shorenstein Center of Harvard's Kennedy School disagrees with you, and disagrees with you in spades...
The media, for whatever reason, has produced far more negative articles and video pieces on Trump than positive ones.
Can you explain to us why this is the case? It appears to all who are being objective about this subject that the Fourth Estate is picking a fight with Trump,
Is it because he has found a way to go over the Press and speak to the people directly?
Is it because of the unequivocal rejection of the "without favor" ethic that all journalists, not just the Times should hold?
Seems to me, ma'am that, you are far too close to being part of the biased "Fourth Estate establishment" to be willing to admit that the press has been more then willing breathlessly to reveal the latest with, at best, hear-say, and often far overblown assessments that fit nicely with the ways that your ideological bent reinforced?
Did the letter from Publisher Sulzberger and Executive Editor Basquet have ANY meaning to the newsroom? Did the letter from Publisher Sulzberger on the taking on a conservative columnist have ANY meaning to the newsroom?
Perhaps you may want to start with the Shorenstien Center's report as a baseline and give us an analysis with in the context of their findings?
It might be refreshing for a change for you to take up the readers concerns instead of blindly following the collective attitude du jour.
3
Liz Spayd is right about the dangers of overreach. The Times is not as objective as she would like to believe, and has found it on occasion irresistible to avoid a giddy gleefulness over Trump's gaffes. Likewise for the op-ed page, which has fewer restrictions of course, but has resorted even so to too much listing of Trump failings rather than constructive suggestions about our reactions.
3
I respect the Public Editor’s viewpoint, but could not disagree more about the Schmitt Comey memo article.
The Public Editor just waves her hand at the extensive reliance on anonymous sources for the article. It is enough that the article said “Comey associates” so “their motives were transparent.”
We have often been told that the Times should grant anonymity only in exceptional cases; and then spell out the reasons for anonymity. The article refers to “one of Comey’s associates,” has then two different references to “two people who read the memo;” then “two former confidants;” then another “one of Mr. Comey’s associates,” a different one this time. Unnamed sources are used not only with respect to the claimed contents of the memo, but to bolster the credibility of a document which is hearsay.
It is not enough to support anonymity in the Schmitt article because motives were transparent. The reliability of these specific sources may go way beyond motives. Without knowing who the sources are, we can make no judgment as to reliability. No excuse is offered, moreover, for why the article did not specify the reasons for anonymity, as Times policy requires.
Nor did the Schmitt article “let the facts speak for themselves” The Public Editor must have missed, “The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.”
The Public Editor just waves her hand at the extensive reliance on anonymous sources for the article. It is enough that the article said “Comey associates” so “their motives were transparent.”
We have often been told that the Times should grant anonymity only in exceptional cases; and then spell out the reasons for anonymity. The article refers to “one of Comey’s associates,” has then two different references to “two people who read the memo;” then “two former confidants;” then another “one of Mr. Comey’s associates,” a different one this time. Unnamed sources are used not only with respect to the claimed contents of the memo, but to bolster the credibility of a document which is hearsay.
It is not enough to support anonymity in the Schmitt article because motives were transparent. The reliability of these specific sources may go way beyond motives. Without knowing who the sources are, we can make no judgment as to reliability. No excuse is offered, moreover, for why the article did not specify the reasons for anonymity, as Times policy requires.
Nor did the Schmitt article “let the facts speak for themselves” The Public Editor must have missed, “The existence of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia.”
2
Lauding the Times, Spayd missed an important issue.
"Some of this coverage is necessary & justifiable. But when it arrives by the barrel on the home page and A1 it can start to look like a campaign."
Unlike her interview in the Atlantic, here Spayd actually mentions anonymous sourcing, but she missed the importance reflected in her quote above. Schmidt's article hit the rules putatively required for conferral of anonymity on a source: "reliable, newsworthy & (in this case likely) that can not be reported in any other way. I held my breath, because Schmidt has been steered wrong by anonymous sources before, in both July & Dec., 2015. But the appointment of a special counsel seems to indicate he got it right here.
But on the same digital front page as that, was this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/white-house-staff.html?hp&acti...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
This one, redolent of Rona Barrett, Cindy Adams or Liz Smith, continues a pattern of the White House Gossip columnists Glenn Thrush & Maggie Haberman: Anonymous sources muttering about Trump's dark mood, today Thrush sans Haberman mooting WH aides heading for the lifeboats. Speculative opinionating of motives and feelings. The worst of that genre from both was January, putting Trump padding alone in his bathrobe, and aides who couldn't work lights or doorknobs.
Spayd needs to learn the difference. The latter devalues the former.
"Some of this coverage is necessary & justifiable. But when it arrives by the barrel on the home page and A1 it can start to look like a campaign."
Unlike her interview in the Atlantic, here Spayd actually mentions anonymous sourcing, but she missed the importance reflected in her quote above. Schmidt's article hit the rules putatively required for conferral of anonymity on a source: "reliable, newsworthy & (in this case likely) that can not be reported in any other way. I held my breath, because Schmidt has been steered wrong by anonymous sources before, in both July & Dec., 2015. But the appointment of a special counsel seems to indicate he got it right here.
But on the same digital front page as that, was this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/white-house-staff.html?hp&acti...®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
This one, redolent of Rona Barrett, Cindy Adams or Liz Smith, continues a pattern of the White House Gossip columnists Glenn Thrush & Maggie Haberman: Anonymous sources muttering about Trump's dark mood, today Thrush sans Haberman mooting WH aides heading for the lifeboats. Speculative opinionating of motives and feelings. The worst of that genre from both was January, putting Trump padding alone in his bathrobe, and aides who couldn't work lights or doorknobs.
Spayd needs to learn the difference. The latter devalues the former.
3
I just don't know what happened to the Public Editor's page. Here again we have a column that sounds as if it came word for word from the public relations department. It also has the feel of yet another condescending reprimand to readers about what real journalism is. Scoops are great, but is anybody really surprised they are to be had with this particular president, which the media most definitely helped to elect? There will be more scoops, as anyone who has been reading about Trump since the 70's well knows. The really important ones should have come much sooner, but that would have been better for America and not so great for the media's bottom line.
18
More shameless shilling for Times management by the person who is supposed to be the paper's internal critic.
The Times should be embarrassed.
The Times should be embarrassed.
13
Though the Times should avoid adopting a ' prosecutorial tone ', it is equally important that it never pretend what djt is doing resembles normality, and that the focus is kept on what he and his appointees are doing.
This comes into particularly high relief when looking at Sinclair Broadcasting's attempt to acquire Tribune Media, so that 1 corporation would own 200+ TeeVee stations, reaching 70% of Americans, keeping in mind the 'must run' slanted editorials from Baltimore-based Sinclair during djt's campaign, which prompted the protests by KOMO's staff:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-broadcast-kom...
It is not a ' prosecutorial tone ' to daily document what should not become normalized, just because there is a bilge surfeit requiring documenting; it is a hallmark of radical rightists to try to overwhelm the systems and mechanisms of normality by sheer volume, which is something that has to be anticipated and ramped-up for by those systems and mechanisms.
A singular reason we are so glad to see our Times subscription monies being consistently put to good uses :)
This comes into particularly high relief when looking at Sinclair Broadcasting's attempt to acquire Tribune Media, so that 1 corporation would own 200+ TeeVee stations, reaching 70% of Americans, keeping in mind the 'must run' slanted editorials from Baltimore-based Sinclair during djt's campaign, which prompted the protests by KOMO's staff:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-broadcast-kom...
It is not a ' prosecutorial tone ' to daily document what should not become normalized, just because there is a bilge surfeit requiring documenting; it is a hallmark of radical rightists to try to overwhelm the systems and mechanisms of normality by sheer volume, which is something that has to be anticipated and ramped-up for by those systems and mechanisms.
A singular reason we are so glad to see our Times subscription monies being consistently put to good uses :)
27
Could you please define "normalized" in the context of presidential action?
Seems to me, that that term has a touch of the prosecutorial in it, bias for sure, and at the very least a gratuitous editorialization.
An you accuse(d) the right of using dog whistles...and here you are blowing your lungs out.
Seems to me, that that term has a touch of the prosecutorial in it, bias for sure, and at the very least a gratuitous editorialization.
An you accuse(d) the right of using dog whistles...and here you are blowing your lungs out.
1
Owl - In the context of presidential action, basic things such as not lying about objective facts like the size of a president's inaugural crowd, or saying he has a secret plan to defeat ISIL/ISIS, or that he has a healthcare plan, which everyone knows to not be true; they are lies because they are intentionally misrepresented facts which undermine not just his own credibility, but that of his office as well as that of the country.
Serious things here.
Normalized isn't a term of editorializing, just a descriptor of how any administration should be ranked against its peer group, instead of being allowed to set its own standards; the same peer group measuring criteria which is used in most of American life from Wall Street down to the local school-house.
Serious things here.
Normalized isn't a term of editorializing, just a descriptor of how any administration should be ranked against its peer group, instead of being allowed to set its own standards; the same peer group measuring criteria which is used in most of American life from Wall Street down to the local school-house.
2
Were Times reporters acting out of desperation when they allowed themselves to be used as Jared Kushner's mouthpiece on Friday? Their "reporting" that Jared was focused on Syria when he approached the Russian Amb about establishing a secret line of communication was based on "three people with knowledge of the discussion."
Who were those "three people"? Ivanka? Spicer? Jared himself? At the very least, those sources should have been vaguely identified as Kushner's spokespeople!