There is something wrong at the New York Times

[marmar]

There is something wrong at the New York Times
From the paper’s presidential polling to noncoverage of Trump’s stumbles, things aren’t adding up at the Gray Lady

By LUCIAN K. TRUSCOTT IV
Columnist
PUBLISHED MARCH 5, 2024 9:01AM (EST)


(Salon) Two things…check that…three things appear to have gone off the rails at the paper we used to call the Gray Lady. First, whoever is in charge of the paper’s polls is not doing their job. Second, whoever is choosing what to emphasize in the Times coverage of the campaign for the presidency is showing bias. Third, the Times is obsessed with Joe Biden’s age at the same time they’re leaving evidence of Donald Trump’s mental and verbal stumbles completely out of the news.

Let’s start right there. At a rally on Saturday night in Virginia, Trump confused former president Obama, who left office seven years ago, with President Biden for the third time over the last six months. “Putin has so little respect for Obama that he’s starting to throw around the nuclear word,” Trump said, as his crowd of rabid supporters suddenly fell silent. “You heard that. Nuclear. He’s starting to talk nuclear weapons today.” You won’t find that verbal stumble and the crowd’s stunned reaction in the Times coverage of the campaign over the weekend. You’ll have to subscribe to the online version of The Guardian if you want to learn how Trump is losing his way mid-sentence at rallies and just mumbling incoherently.

The Times on Sunday, however, had this headline ready for your morning coffee: “Majority of Biden’s 2020 Voters Now Say He’s Too Old to be Effective.” It’s another grab from the New York Times/Siena College poll they published on Saturday that is so outrageously flawed, a cottage industry has sprung up to pick apart its methodology and point out its glaring contradictions and straight-up bias.

....(snip)....

The truly incredible thing is that the New York Times provides the evidence that would cause any other reasonable journalistic enterprise to question the accuracy of its own poll. The poll shows that Trump still has the support of nearly every Republican who voted for him in 2020 – this in the face of the fact that between 30 and 40 percent of primary voters have chosen another candidate than Trump. Those people are not poll respondents. They’re voters. The Times/Siena poll also somehow comes up with 12 percent support among Democrats for Dean Phillips, who has yet to get more than two percent of the vote in a primary. Even Phillips himself put out a tweet that said “When the NYT/Siena poll shows me at 12%, you better believe it’s flawed. Only 5% even know who I am.” The poll also shows that among respondents who described themselves as unhappy with both candidates, they favor Biden over Trump by 12 points. So, Biden has the utterly disaffected vote and carries independents by four points, and he’s losing to Trump by four points? ................(more)

https://www.salon.com/2024/03/05/there-is-something-at-the-new-york-times/

[Lovie777]

1. Agreed........................

They are mostly RW, and they hate Pres Biden and the Democrats.

[shrike3]

25. More like a business decision

As well as a narrative one. Narratives form in the media, and they're sticking with theirs.

[Flatrat]

34. Real journalists dont base their work on business decisions

Real news is news, not business decisions.

NYT is another example of everything Trump touches dies.

[DENVERPOPS]

35. Well said

I cancelled my online subscription last week......Should have done it years ago.

My opinion is that it is a Right Wing Rag, no different than a high %age of Print Media across the entire U.S.
Same with other media: Radio, Network TV, cable, etc etc etc......

[Hekate]

44. Real journalists write the columns, one hopes. But real corporate owners are beholden to shareholders...

And thereby hangs the tale of who sets narratives.

[multigraincracker]

2. Seems they are targeting those

that would never purchase or read their paper.

[Joinfortmill]

31. And losing the rest

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. I cancelled my subscription to the NYT back in 2016 due to the unfair coverage of Clinton

The NYT is determined to reelect TFG

[LittleGirl]

5. We cancelled last fall. Don't miss it. nt

[mountain grammy]

9. I miss the Sunday Times

But gave it up. The biased Bill Clinton coverage did it for me

[LittleGirl]

11. Hubby was a life long reader

And he’s really lost not reading it. The bashing of liberals was relentless and I stopped reading before he unsubscribed.

[spooky3]

12. I cancelled a few weeks ago. Straw that broke the camel's back

Was four opinion pieces focusing on Biden’s age—on the same day.

I think part of the problem goes beyond NYT, and it’s that top positions are held by older upper middle class white men (not all men disclaimer here). This is the only demographic group that substantially favored Trump in both previous elections (see Pew). They are so privileged that they can’t see how their world views and perspectives differ from those of the rest of us, and feel no responsibility to get out of their bubble.

The same problem exists on SCOTUS majority.

[Martin Eden]

33. And before that the NYT helped spread GW's bogus case for war in Iraq

Judith Miller acted like a stenographer for the false claims about WMD.

[RainCaster]

4. I cancelled my subscription to the NYT in 22

I'd finally had enough of their Russian bias. I still pay for the Guardian, a fair paper with a global reach

[Lonestarblue]

6. I suppose we should not be surprised. The Times clearly helped elect Trump in 2016 with their Clinton bashing.

They have been harping on Biden’s age for more than a year now. I wrote on another OP that the Times today has stooped to a new low in Biden Bashing by dragging out Reagan’s Alzheimer’s and how Nancy Reagan should have prevented him from running for a second term, instantly drawing a unstated parallel in the reader’s mind that Biden has Alzheimer’s and Jill Biden should be doing something to convince Joe to drop out of the race.

I still have a subscription because outside of politics the Times is still a decent paper. On politics, they’re almost as bad as Fox.

[claudette]

7. I never read

the New York Times. Any paper that would hire Magat Habermann is off my list

[mn9driver]

8. Agreed.

Their editorial policy has become pretty plainly right wing.

To be fair, they have been slowly progressing to this point for quite a long time. Witness the propaganda cheerleading they published in the leadup to the Iraq war, featuring Judith Miller’s false reporting.

I used to think that publishing right slanted garbage was part of their effort to be balanced. I no longer believe that. Their editorial decisions are being made explicitly to boost right wing politics; to make something legitimate that has never been legitimate. Fuck them.

[intheflow]

10. They were ever thus:

https://www.vox.com/2015/2/11/8016017/ny-times-hitler

Basically, the same playbook as “Trump’s rhetoric is just bluster” as he talks about hunting dissidents and being a dictator on day one.

[Ray Bruns]

13. Just more "Hillary Clinton's email" bullshit. Cancel if you have a subscription

[bsiebs]

14. I cancelled a couple months ago..

I kept the subscription for decades as a way to support print media…. But they proved they did not deserve that support. I am happy with my Los Angeles Times subscription…

[SergeStorms]

48. The Washington Post....

is still tethered to reality. They're my "go to" newspaper, but I'm on the east coast. We're all slightly parochial when it comes to choosing our paper of choice, I believe.

[bsiebs]

50. Agreed... My brother is in Baltimore, and he subscribes to the WaPo... He references it often..

If I go with another paper along with the LATimes, I definitely will subscribe to the WaPo.

Actually you got me thinking about it.. I am going to subscribe to the WaPo at least through November... and maybe beyond that. Thanks.

[bsiebs]

51. Ah.. cannot get the printed version daily..just digital.. Well that works for me.. only $40 for the entire year..

[SergeStorms]

52. Good for you!

It's always nice to get reporting from a few different journalists, in my opinion.

I get the Post and The Guardian (both digital). I also get ProPublica, which is free, but I contribute monthly just to keep them going (hopefully).

And then there's DU, the best of all, because we get a mashup of everything!

[50 Shades Of Blue]

15. I canceled years ago. Only wish i could cancel again! NYT made it real hard

To cancel too. I had to CALL and talk to somebody - who gave me a real hard time about canceling.

[RocRizzo55]

16. It has been

for a very long time.

[nikatnyte]

17. This Sunday's edition did it for me

I got fed up with blatant bias and unbalanced reporting. I cancelled my subscription on Monday morning.

[Mr. Evil]

18. The New York Times is the Nikki Haley of Ted Cruz's.

He insults them (or their families) incessantly and yet, they praise him and/or vote for him. Remember how many times he called them "the failing New York Times?"

The New York Times is after all, 172½ years old. Couldn't THEY be a bit too old?

[PortTack]

19. B4 digital I used to read the times almost cover to cover. I dropped my digital subscription several years ago

And will not go back.

They fill the pages with a lot more RW opinion rather than factual news.

[drumpfsucks]

20. DONE!!!!

Just Cancelled subscription. They don't need anymore of my few, hard earned dollars.

[modrepub]

21. They're Algorithm Chasing

As is most of the M$M. Publishing to attract attention, not necessarily to reflect any truthful discourse.

Take this Biden angle. It generates a reaction in the pro-Biden camp and the anti-Biden camp. Is it "true" or better yet a valid discussion point to engage folks in cyber space? Who cares, it gets the eyeballs, likes/dislikes and justifies their utility to advertisers.

In a sense, algorithm chasing is an abandonment of the fourth estate. The Press's responsibility to call "bullsh-t" when those in power are trying to manipulate the situation to their advantage. When all that matters is $, we are all going to suffer.

[orthoclad]

22. Who owns the NYT?

Maybe knowing this could dispel some of the mystery.

Should we call it the Gray Oligarch?

[elleng]

26. ownership info here:

AG Sulzberger is chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of The New York Times.>>>

https://www.nytco.com/person/a-g-sulzberger/#:~:text=AG%20Sulzberger%20is%20chairman%20of,news%20organization%20in%20the%20world.

[orthoclad]

36. Interlocking board?

Chairman of the company inplies a board of directors. Interlocking boards of directors are a key feature of corporate dominance.

"...he is the sixth member of the Ochs-Sulzberger family to serve The Times as publisher since the newspaper was purchased by Adolph Ochs in 1896."

Hereditary property.

[elleng]

37. Yes hereditary, been in the family for ages.

[elleng]

45. NYTimes Board of Directors:

Last edited Thu Mar 7, 2024, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.nytco.com/board-of-directors/

[orthoclad]

55. A capitalist who's-who

Google. Alphabet. GoDaddy. Etsy. Realtor.com. AIG. Forbes. Venture capital. Microsoft. Mutual funds (Ariel). Meta (Zuckbook).

To quote "O Brother, Where Art Thou": "Is you or is you not my constituency?" (Klan politician).

Thanks again.

[live love laugh]

23. It couldn't possibly be that it's Republican owned.

[elleng]

24. Yes. Glad being noticed and published. Info about ownership below:

'AG Sulzberger is chairman of The New York Times Company and publisher of The New York Times. With a journalism operation of more than 2,000 people reporting from around the globe, The Times is the most influential and award-winning English-language news organization in the world.

As publisher and chairman, Mr. Sulzberger oversees both newsroom and company operations, and is the principal steward of the independence, ambition and excellence of Times journalism. During his tenure, Mr. Sulzberger has invested heavily in investigative journalism, pushed The Times to expand into new digital formats like audio and multimedia, and has been an outspoken defender of the free press in the United States and abroad. A key architect of the company’s digital transformation and business strategy, he has helped grow The Times’s digital subscriber base to more than nine million, from 800,000 in 2014, the year he authored the Innovation Report.

Before becoming publisher, Mr. Sulzberger worked as a reporter and editor. He began his career at The Providence Journal and The Oregonian before joining The Times as a metro reporter. He later served as a national correspondent, assistant metro editor, associate editor for newsroom strategy and deputy publisher. A graduate of Brown University, he is the sixth member of the Ochs-Sulzberger family to serve The Times as publisher since the newspaper was purchased by Adolph Ochs in 1896.'

https://www.nytco.com/person/a-g-sulzberger/#:~:text=AG%20Sulzberger%20is%20chairman%20of,news%20organization%20in%20the%20world.

[CTyankee]

27. Bruni and Krugman are regular columnists. They are liberals.

I read them regularly. If the NYT is so slanted, why are they there? Is there a plot I don't see?

This puzzles me and kinda has me worried...

[underpants]

28. Saw CNN going on and on about this an new it was BS

I forget which group it was - Wonen or college educated- but they had Biden’s support gap going from 46 to 6. I didn’t even look into the details of the poll.

[eppur_se_muova]

29. Striving to be "The Whitewash or Record". nt

[Joinfortmill]

30. NYT has drunk the koolaid

[enigmania]

32. Translation:

President Biden's not willing to throw 99% of Americans under the bus.

[2naSalit]

38. And more publications...

Should join in calling them out too.

[onetexan]

39. Glad Salon is calling the gray lady out

[Hermit-The-Prog]

40. The NYT was obsessed with "clouds and shadows" and Hillary's emails.

[Sogo]

41. When Biden wins in a landslide, NYT will be standing naked on the stage of their own making.

Why are they sacrificing their status as "the newpaper of record" to buttress Trump? It will take some good investigative journalism to uncover that...

[Eyeball_Kid]

43. It's quite likely that billionaires and oligarchs (is there a difference?)...

cross paths with NYT executives at the same parties and charity functions. There hasn't been a blossoming fascist movement anywhere, any time, without the fervent support of oligarchs and the very wealthy. And Trump is still the oligarchs' and fascists' poster boy. Oh, and Trump's oatmeal brain doesn't discourage these people one bit. They are hell-bent on perpetuating his brand. His actual functionality doesn't matter. Trump's effectiveness could match an image of him on a cardboard cut-out and they'd vote for the goon.

[hadEnuf]

42. Find out who is in these positions that allows this type of reporting. (or non-reporting)

Chances are they are MAGATs who have infiltrated their way in there.

[dalton99a]

46. It is hard to see a pattern here

etc. etc.

[drmeow]

47. For decades they have been

systematically working to break the Editorial-Business wall. I seem recall in the 90's a leaked memo suggesting there should be no such wall. Advertising profit trumps everything else - everything else. I haven't trusted the corporate media for about 30 years - and the NY Times in particular. Their coverage of leftist topics and positions has NEVER coincided with my personal leftist views - except sometimes on specific social issues that are popular in NYC. I've never been willing to support them, especially because they have had what I consider a false reputation for being liberal. Even their status as middle of the road now is, IMO, based on a truncated spectrum where the true left is not even represented.

[usaf-vet]

49. To call NYT the shills for the republican party and it's policies would be a laughing matter...

...... if it were not so outrageously true.

The NYT and Judith Miller shilled for the Bush (W) administration to drag use into a war in Iraq to look for WMD which WHERE never found.

A war to retaliate against Osama bin Laden and his attack on the Twin Towers from his stronghold in Afghanistan.

To refresh your memories and establish new ones, watch the movie wherever you can find it.

https://www.amazon.com/Shock-Awe-Woody-Harrelson/dp/B07F37YQXR

[Aussie105]

53. There is bias in all the media.

/Lecture warning!

Ask yourself some questions:

Am I being told what should be important/concerning to me?
Why is this topic revisited repeatedly?
Why are some topics of interest to me ignored or covered superficially?
Why are those specific words and phraseology used?

English (and most other languages) are subtle tools.
Often the way questions and topics are discussed have wrapped up in them the answer or response you are supposed to come up with.

A good indicator that you are being 'guided' in a direction you don't like:
Do you feel squeamish or uncomfortable after watching or reading specific media information?

Seek more comforting media, in that case.
But remember, there is bias there too - it's just that you approve of it.

/end lecture.

[Mr. Mustard 2023]

54. ABC News w/ David Muir Last Night...

....Declared Deadbeat Donald the Traitor was beating President Biden in "ALL BATTLEGROUND STATES BY 6 POINTS!".

So they want us to believe that after:

Beating the Republicon Deadbeat in 2020.
Dems winning nearly every election after 2020.
Dems winning the midterms in 2022.
Ohio voting to protect abortion rights.
The Deadbeat shrinking his base by kicking out all non-believers.
The Alabama IVF ruling.
Never Trump Republicons.
Haley receiving 25%-30% of votes in nearly every primary.

Want us to believe that the country, or battleground states at least, have suddenly decided to switch back to the Republicon Deadbeat Traitor?

Sure.....