O'Keefe took another scalp today, and this time it's from a senior staff editor with over 9 years of experience working at NYT. Looks like NYT took the "junior staffer" bait perfectly.
O'Keefe may leave a bad taste in one's mouth, but Baquet increasingly looks like a liar. NYT always had its biases, but under Jill Abramson, at least it had integrity. I can't be the only one who wants her back.
7
Why did you say, "right wing?" Do you identify your authors as "left wing?"
I used to love getting the NYT delivered to my door daily (a long time ago). Now however you frequently act like a public relations firm for the Democratic Party: do you recall when Maggie Haberman was shown by Wikileaks to have edited her story according to the Dems' specifications? Why does she still work for you after that lapse in journalistic ethics?
I applaud any journalist who exposes such a lapse.
6
Why did the NYT in its highly abbreviated reply raise only the fact that Mr. Dudich was unaware that he was being recorded. Does any think that if Mr. Dudich engaged in unethical behavior he would have been more forthcoming about his unethical behavior if he were on notice that he was being recorded?
Once again the NYT tries to evades the evidence of biases, by discussing the conditions of the evidence gathering and so far not the content.
No one right , left or center doubts what the times biases are, but only that they are "correct" and if they further the Progressive agendas. But not that they exist, or that the NYT culture actively supports the manipulation of news stories to a Progressive end.
7
I'm a journalist with many years experience in mainstream media as well as some alternative media.
O'Keefe's video is definitely newsworthy. At the very least it casts light on the fact that some journalists are not impartial. Everyone knows in their hearts that journalists are not impartial. They're human after all. It's worth remembering.
The main indicator of an entire media organisation's partiality or lack thereof can be seen in two ways. First,
bias in individual stories ("angle" or "spin") and second which stories are chosen to run at all. Worth noting that very few mainstream media outlets are covering this story...
Media owners are known to be partial also (see Murdoch esp). Their editors are unlikely to run stories that go against these publishers' views... also stories against the interests of advertisers and the worldviews of their readers - advertising works best in a context where readers'/viewers' worldviews are being reinforced, not challenged (you don't want to cause them cognitive pain. It's bad for business).
O'Keefe has an agenda here, sure. So does NYT. The answer for media consumers is not to believe one side or the other but to consider both sides and come to a critical conclusion. Ironically this had historically been the job of journalists - to see both sides of the story, and perhaps come to a conclusion.
I know what my conclusion is. The NYT has some biased journalists. This is not a surprise...
9
NY State law allows the recording of a conversation as long as at least one of the parties is aware that it's being recorded. So nothing illegal in what PV has done. It's the NYTimes, like CNN earlier this year, that has been been caught in dishonest practices. It owes its public an explanation to why it hired a former Antifa member who bragged on tape about committing assault. Someone who confessed to his "godfather" Comey, the head of the FBI at the time, being the one who had asked him to join Antifa. Someone who is clearly prejudiced again President Donald J. Trump and labels him as a "threat against everything". What is this journalist doing at the NYTimes?
5
It's a fantasy that any cpmmercial news outlet is purely objective these days.
The pressure to retain subscribers and some advertising revenue is forcing most to move towards a "point of view". If we are to preserve true freedom of the press, we have to be stop pretending that economics is not an influence on what gets published.
In other words, they have consult their lawyers and damage control team before responding.
1
This is a non-response.
They call Project Veritas right-wing to poison the well as they know most of their readers will conflate that with "alt-right" and then attempt to make it look like him not knowing he was being recorded(legal in New York) makes what he says invalid.
I have serious doubts we'll ever see a meaningful reply to this issue from them. They'll do what they do when they push a story too fast and it doesn't pan out for them:
1. Lie
2. Project
3. Double down
What's a shame is that the NYT was launched to combat the very kind of profit chasing yellow journalism it has become.
5
No need to translate NYT. It's pretty clear.
3
If the Times simply espoused impartial journalism, they would have nothing to worry about. 'Looks like O'Keefe has more up his sleeve. 'Sucks to be you, NYT.
7
O'Keefe always has more deliberately misleading garbage up his sleeve. It's how he makes a living. And the fact that he's not embarrassed by his garbage says all you need to know about him.
2
Matt, calling O'Keefe's work "deliberately misleading garbage" without any example, is not an argument.
1
"misleading" ?
Is not the entire NYT misleading?
2
I don't know why any legitimate media organization like the NY Times should bother to respond to the criminal and thoroughly discredited right wing smear artist O'Keefe and his accomplices that operate the "Project Veritas" video stalking operation. Every single so-called "sting" video they have ever released purporting to expose wrong doings of their political enemies (consisting of the hard right's favorite punching bags - Democrats, liberals, voting rights advocates, Planned Parenthood, etc.) utilized dishonest and illegitimate tactics, including deceptive video editing ploys to deceive the viewer. They have no credibility outside of right wing propaganda outlets, such as Fox News and Breitbart. Everyone should just ignore them as they have already completely destroyed their credibility and are considered a laughing stock in the world of legitimate journalism - a concept that these criminal stalkers have never been the least bit interested in or capable of.
21
The Times is wise to check in with Dudich. I’m a strong Dem and detest O’Keefe and his ilk, but the Times has no other option. Any staffer, other than op-Ed columnists, expressing views that scream bias, and who allows those views to inform his published work, needs to be let go.
I’m a 20 year subscriber to the Times, and I await an update.
19
"utilized dishonest and illegitimate tactics" you may find the tactics disreputable but Dudich's responses call out for content responses. One that the NYT and some of the NYT's apologists who inhabit these pages seem loath to provide. Remember NYT's reporter with some political culturally complicity by NYTs staff (think Progressives or Communists) share in deceiving trusting NYT's readers about Stalin's genocide in the Ukraine.
2
the president is looking more and more like the voice of reason here.
11
Is there anyone on Earth who is surprised by these revelations? Every major newspaper and network in the lane (save for Fox News) has become a biased mouthpiece for the Democrat Party. If you didn't already know that, you need to wake up!
10
A "typical" non-apology from the gray lady.
7
Somebody forwarded the video to me. Dudich claims he's James Comey's godson, that he works for the FBI undercover, that he was a member of antifa, that his imprint is on all videos at the NYT, and practically puts air quotes around "objectivity."
They interview his parents who say they don't even know Comey.
Truly, the guy comes off as unhinged.
17
The people who work at the NYT want to change the world into a better place. and not just report the news.
1
Never took the time to check out Veritas before this, but I don't see why they're excited about thi. So some nobody at the Times was just lying about his job? So what? Propaganda sites and their indoctrinated audiences never cease to amaze
2
I agree -- I'm not surprised by the NYT.
1
Former Antifa member working at the NY Times..
7
When was Nick Dudich hired? Was it around the time that Comey started leaking to the NYT? If it was, was it a quid pro quo? Is the NYT part of a felony?
4
Why do you point out that he was in a junior position? Are there different standards for junior and senior level employees?
7
O'keefe is know for altering video's and may even still be on Trump's payroll.
1
And that has what to do with what ? Good try to deflect but no prize for you
3
Junior position with no involvement the creation or editing of videos? How strange - you VERY OWN Job Description says the opposite:
"Create best practices for programming and editorial content for the different platforms: "
"train producers and editors in crafting social headlines "
"build an editorial strategy for off-platform content"
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/audience-strategy-editor-at-the-new-y...
15
I'm waiting for "this deceptively edited Right wing video makes it's main points by taking things completely out of context"...
1
This is "old school" investigative journalism lacks the full disclosure and context that the NYT response provided. Trying to connect a junior level new hire at the times to James Comey and credibility of the times is in between irresponsible and dangerous. Project Veritas found a weak person and manipulated them to fit their narrative.
Full disclosure I only watched the entire video since my friend has worked with this outfit and posted the NYT response.
2
you clearly did not watch the video since it was Mr Duduch who made the claim about his connection to James Comey, not PV.
12
Typical left response, talk about everything but the content before the readers and the NYT.
3
This looks like 'old school' investigative journalism, the way 60 minutes used to report. Nothing wrong with him not knowing he was being recorded, as long as it was legal.
This doesn't surprise me at all. The Times is not even close to the pillar it once was, and as the results are clear. It's sad really.
Watch the Times admit to *some* wrongdoing while absolutely trashing the source of the video in 3.2.1. ...
21
Well, it's not solid investigative journalism if they didn't do any due diligence to verify that this staff member had the power/influence he claimed to have.
2
NYT already admitted to one of their employees violating the ethical standards of the company. I imagine this will result in Mr. Dudich being fired. However, it is important to realize that the source of this information is wildly one-sided. They do not do any research into Mr. Dudich's actual role at the Times and present him as having power over every single video produced by NYT.
Am I glad that someone with ethics like Mr. Dudich is being called out? Absolutely! But we cannot ignore that the PV video acted like he scripted and edited every single video that comes out of the NYT when in reality he simply syndicates them to multiple platforms without any control over the content or message.
Once again, PV hides a small amount of truth under mounds of misinformation.
10
how do you know they did not do their "due dligence" on his job description? I found it in 5 minutes online here - and if PV cannot beleive what this man said to be his purported job, then the NYT has hired a psychopath?
https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/audience-strategy-editor-at-the-new-y...
2