There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

The New York Times should not be considered a reliable source of journalism.

The New York Times is one of the newspapers of record for the United States. However, it’s history of running stories with poor sourcing, insufficient evidence, and finding journalists with conflicts of interest undermines it’s credibility when reporting on international issues and matters of foreign policy.

Late last year, the NYT ran a story titled ‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7. Recently, outlets like The Intercept, Jacobin, Democracy Now! , Mondoweiss, and others have revealed the implicit and explicit bias against Palestine that’s apparent both in the aforementioned NYT story and in the NYT’s reporting at large. By obfuscating poor sources, running stories without evidence, and using an ex-IDF officer with no journalism experience as the author, the NYT demonstrates their disregard for common journalistic practice. This has led to inaccurate and demonstrably false reporting on critical issues in today’s world, which has been used to justify the lack of American pressure against Israel to the American public.

This journalistic malpractice is not unusual from the NYT. One of the keystone stories since the turn of the century was the NYT’s reporting on Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs: U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS, Defectors Bolster U.S. Case Against Iraq, Officials Say, Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert. These reports were later revealed to be false, and the NYT later apologized, but not before the reporting was used as justification to launch the War on Iraq, directly leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and indirectly causing millions of death while also destabilizing the region for decades.

These landmark stories have had a massive influence on US foreign policy, but they’re founded on lies. While stories published in the NYT do accurately reflect foreign policy aims of the US government, they are not founded in fact. The NYT uses lies to drum up public support for otherwise unpopular foreign policy decisions. In most places, we call that “government propaganda.”

I think reading and understanding propaganda is an important element of media literacy, and so I’m not calling for the ban of NYT articles in this community. However, I am calling for an honest discussion on media literacy and it’s relation to the New York Times.

turkishdelight ,

New York Times sold the lie that Iraq had WMDs.

That is all you need to know about the NYT.

DarkGamer ,
@DarkGamer@kbin.social avatar

The New York times is highly credentialed and has more pulitzers than any other newspaper.
Sure, sometimes they don't get it right, but that doesn't mean they're not a damn good source for journalism.

arquebus_x ,

I don't read the Times anymore. I get my news elsewhere. That said, there are a few things to consider here, when it comes to the relative shittiness of the NYT vs other major papers. We have this notion, unfounded, that the NYT "used to be" better, or more progressive, or what have you. Certainly compared to the other two "papers of record" for the country (Washington Post and Wall Street Journal), it's a raging pinko rag. But the fact remains that it was founded as a conservative-leaning paper, continued to be a conservative-leaning paper in the 20th century and, surprise surprise, remains a conservative-leaning paper. The lean is more Tower of Pisa than Man Vomiting on Sidewalk, but it's still conservative.

Many of its bad takes (and there are many) are squarely in line with mainstream views. At worst, its views lag behind the country by a few years. And like all major news corporations, it is incentivized to maximize its visibility (and therefore revenue). Given the options of 1) publishing something incendiary that will put the paper in the public eye and help in creating more news to print or 2) doing additional work with the anticipated result of the truth not being nearly as interesting and therefore not nearly as attention-grabbing, they're going to do the less work option.

Next, the NYT is a victim of the news cycle just as much as the TV networks, if not more so. While the website updates fairly regularly throughout the day, the paper comes out once every 24 hours, and must be prepped hours in advance. This means that breaking news suffers from two issues: 1) it has to be investigated at a speed faster than the TV networks because they paradoxically don't have the luxury of time and 2) they can't afford to be tentative when they don't know something. CNN and Fox especially can get away with saying "we'll report back when we know more" because that "back" is maybe 30 minutes from now. "Developing stories" exist on news networks. They do not exist for print papers. If you publish, you have to claim to be definitive, or people will stop reading. ("Why should I read the NYT when they just keep saying they don't know shit?")

Finally, and we should take some solace from this, it should be noted that the NYT, despite being one of the "papers of record" for the country, is basically screaming into the void. Almost no one reads it. Damned if they do, damned if they don't, they're not conservative enough for the people who can throw money at a news organization when there are free alternatives available, and they're not progressive enough for the rest of us to care. The number of eyeballs scanning the NYT is vanishingly small compared to the eyeballs staring at Fox News - or even CNN, for that matter. Basically, the NYT just doesn't matter anymore. They can say whatever the fuck they want. They're not influencing anyone who isn't already on the same (sorry) page.

I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for giving up on the NYT because of its journalistic errors. I certainly have. But we should neither be surprised nor shocked. This behavior is baked into the cake, and it has been since 1851, and got even worse after 1980 when CNN first went on the air. They didn't suddenly get stupid, and they never betrayed us. We have simply never been their intended audience.

brain_in_a_box ,

Honestly, after they published the Thomas Friekorps’ explicit call for genocide of the ‘parasitic wasps’, I think we should be past the point of quibbling about the ‘reliability’ of their reporting, in the same we don’t debate about the ‘reliability’ of Der Sturmer.

Microw ,

NYT definitely has issues in their reporting. At the same time, keep in mind that Mondoweiss and Intercept have their own biases.

brain_in_a_box ,

Everyone has their own biases, but unless you’re saying that Mandoweiss and the Intercept are lying about the facts, that doesn’t matter at all.

geneva_convenience ,

A bias is not the same as hiring an IDF soldier to write propaganda articles

friendly_ghost ,

The podcast You’re Wrong About reached a similar conclusion re: the Times’ coverage of trans issues: youtu.be/Fq5YmS1R63Q?si=e086MXq6pKfFo4ex

corsicanguppy ,

it’s history

This is where I stopped reading the commentary about poorly-written articles.

yogthos ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Topically, CNN did an article on that whole New York Times scandal, and they kept saying how there’s definitely a lot of evidence for that mass rape story. They just wish the NYT would report it better. And then they linked back to their own piece and The Guardian’s copy-paste job of the same hoax the NYT made up. 🤡

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/96d61c4f-f425-4286-bdec-b34bd711e76e.jpeg

Yolohobo1 ,

As much as it pains me to say this, 2003 was more than 2 decades ago.

ComradeChairmanKGB ,
@ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml avatar

What’s your point?

Blackout ,
@Blackout@kbin.run avatar

People change

ComradeChairmanKGB , (edited )
@ComradeChairmanKGB@lemmygrad.ml avatar

An important facet of examining any topic is establishing a patern of behavior for those involved, whether institution or individual. The NYT complicity in the Invasion of Iraq and the subsequent crimes committed there is entirely relevant to the topic of the NYT complicity in the genocide of Palestine.

Additionally it is laughable to pretend that Iraq is somehow ancient history when the occupation is still ongoing!

Linkerbaan ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Any western media outlet writing a pro israel or anti Palestine article citing “anonymous sources” or not providing evidence should instantly be deleted.

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

But muh Media Bias/Fact Check says it checks out!

mediabiasfactcheck.com/contact/

Dave M. Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.

Van Zandt is some hobbyist who was in the right place at the right time: the “post-truth” moment of Clinton’s loss to Trump and the string of Russiagate conspiracy theories and Kellyanne Conway’s alternative facts and the Cambridge Analytica hysteria.

The whole concept of the “left” or ”right“ “bias” being inversely correlated with factualness is garbage. These kinds of graphs, which try to convince us that centrism equals factualness, are garbage:

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/7dfc5791-c9a1-4952-a90c-b6c91314d0f7.jpeg

The core bias of corporate media is the bias of the capitalist class, but people like Van Zandt don’t seem to understand this.

The inner workings of corporate media were explained about forty years ago in Inventing Reality and Manufacturing Consent.
A five minute introduction: Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine

nekandro ,

Has he changed his blurb? It used to say:

This curiosity led him to pursue a Communications Degree in college; however, like most 20-year olds he didn’t know what he wanted and changed to a Physiology major midstream.

Implying that he changed to Physiology before graduating, and that his “higher degree” is a Bachelor’s.

f1error ,

I do the NY Times crossword, that Is my whole interaction with the NY Times. I find it enjoyable.

Varyk ,

Or a largely reliable news source with certain red flag issues

nekandro ,

The NYT is pretty good about domestic news. In fact, I’d say they’re one of the best for reporting US news. Internationally, they’re a fuckfest.

Varyk ,

Idk, I generally just gave an eyebrow raised whenever I read a political nyt article, I’m perpetually aware that the nuances or implications in the article too be important to pay attention to.

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

It’s not great on domestic news, either, in that it slants in favor of the employer class and in opposition to the working class.

nekandro ,

That’s representative of US interests domestically. The NYT is specifically slanted in favour of the financial class, which you might infer from it’s name.

zaphod , (edited )
@zaphod@lemmy.ca avatar

Also let’s just appreciate that the two examples cited by the poster are 1) a recent story that may genuinely be problematic (though I think it’s naive to believe either the Israelis or Hamas haven’t engaged in sexual violence given its prevalence in warzones), and 2) reporting on a manufactured war that’s now nearly 30 years old.

It’s absurd to think you can hold the current NYT to account for actions done so long ago that many of their current journalists wouldn’t have been borne yet.

That’s not to say the NYT doesn’t have it’s problems. It is absolutely a both-sidesism establishment paper. But if you’re gonna criticize it, at least do so with modern examples.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

It’s absurd to think you can hold the current NYT to account for actions done so long ago that many of their current journalists wouldn’t have been borne yet.

We call it a ‘newspaper of record’ based on actions done generations ago, the knife cuts both ways.

zaphod ,
@zaphod@lemmy.ca avatar

Then don’t call it that?

If the bar is “never made a mistake or published a questionable article in the entire history of the institution”, then there’s no such thing as a “newspaper of record” and I’m fine with that. Frankly, I never liked that idea as no one, no institution, no media outlet, no person, is totally free from bias, and no one should treat any one paper as universally authoritative.

But claiming the NYT is “unreliable” now, today, based on the actions of people who, if not dead are almost certainly retired today, is ridiculous.

queermunist ,
@queermunist@lemmy.ml avatar

They call themselves that, they get to suffer the consequences.

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

But claiming the NYT is “unreliable” now, today, based on the actions of people who, if not dead are almost certainly retired today, is ridiculous.

That’s true: The paper’s symbiotic & collusive relationship with the capitalist class and the government is over 150 years old, so I don’t think it’s any more or less reliable now than it’s ever been.

freagle ,

Cope harder. NYT has had CIA inside it’s operations for decades.

nytimes.com/…/cia-established-many-links-to-journ…

www.sciencedirect.com/science/…/0277939083900833

theguardian.com/…/correspondence-collusion-new-yo…

…wikipedia.org/…/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion

…wikipedia.org/…/List_of_The_New_York_Times_contr…

You are confused when you think of media companies as free standing independent entrepreneurial phenomena that might be temporarily corrupted by the government.

The press was originally a function of the government, an extension of writing originally being a function of the government-religion complex. By the time the colonies were being established in the Western hemisphere, the press was controlled mostly by the merchant class in England to influence public opinion towards their own enrichment, including inciting the public to demand military adventures and giving the military cover (see the Opium Wars).

The press has, for centuries, been a part of the ruling class’s governance suite because of both it’s historical basis and it’s function in society. It’s terribly easy for the government to destroy anyone publishing against them, especially in the early days of the newly formed American state, by using accusations of sedition and direct violent confrontation. After the initial violence of the revolution, the methods of control became a blend of fiscal and grassroots violence (e.g. the KKK). As the contradictions of capitalism continued to drive the emergency of liberatory ideologies into seats of power (like the media) control needed to become more subtle, so it grew to include military intelligence, culminating (to our knowledge) in COINTELPRO, but very obviously continuing with the establishment of the Five Eyes framework and the revelations of WikiLeaks, Manning, and Snowden.

The citizens of the USA are the most propagandized people in the entire world, and the NYT is part of that propaganda network.

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

Joseph Kahn, the managing editor of the Times, is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, as are the CEOs of NPR & PBS. And those are the ones I know off the top of my head: en.wikipedia.org/…/Members_of_the_Council_on_Fore…

The Council of Foreign Relations is a place where the government and the capitalist class hash out the media’s agenda. On its founding, Walter Lippman was its head of research. The title of Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman’s Manufacturing Consent came from a quote in Lippmann’s book, .

Bell ,

I think it’s naive to believe either the Israelis or Hamas haven’t engaged in sexual violence given its prevalence in warzones

The story wasn’t that there was sexual violence, but that it was systematic. The point being that it was ordered and encouraged from above.

WldFyre ,

Systemic sexism is when my boss explicitly tells me to be mean to coworkers who are women.

unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov ,

Alright, so while you’re totes cool with posting links to a “news agency” controlled by the Iranian government, you have a bone to pick with the NYT? C’mon man, either you need to touch grass or you’re actually on the payroll for Iran.

Gonna go ahead and label this user as “Iranian Propagandist” and move on with my life, and I suggest that others do too.

Coasting0942 ,

It’s a simpler: don’t trust strangers on the internet.

Your lemmy memories should be preceded by: I heard through Lemmy

intelshill OP ,

You’re saying… A member of BRICS is an unreliable source of news for news about BRICS membership?

Edit: That Venezuela and Iran, two nations who are undoubtedly friendly with each other, make inaccurate statements about what each others’ leaders are saying? This is Iran reporting on a statement by Maduro about joining BRICS. That is the news.

filoria ,

buddy read the article you’re posting

read it carefully

then ask yourself why an Iranian news agency might make sense for that news

snek ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Alright, so while you’re totes cool with posting links to a “news agency” controlled by the Iranian government, you have a bone to pick with the NYT?

But these things are irrelevant. They could still post “propaganda sites” and NYT could still also be wrong.

jordanlund ,
@jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

Like it or not, the New York Times holds the status of “Newspaper of Record”, which elevates them above traditional news sources.

Now, as such, it’s fair to say they should be held to a higher standard than, say, your local Fox affilliate. But by the same token you can’t just discount them despite their problems both past and current. Thinking specifically of this:

www.theguardian.com/…/pressandpublishing.usnews

theintercept.com/…/new-york-times-iraq-war-error/

intelshill OP ,

I agree on this. For better or for worse, the NYT is representative of US news media to the world.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines