Seven years ago, in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, media analysts rushed to explain Donald Trump’s victory. Misinformation was to blame, the theory went, fueled by Russian agents and carried on social networks. But as researchers, we wondered if fascination and fear over “fake news” had led people to underestimate the influence of traditional journalism outlets. After all, mainstream news organizations remain an important part of the media ecosystem—they’re widely read and watched; they help set the agenda, including on social networks. We decided to look at what had been featured on the printed front page of the New York Times in the three months leading up to Election Day. Of a hundred and fifty articles that discussed the campaign, only a handful mentioned policy; the vast majority covered horse race politics or personal scandals. Most strikingly, the Times ran ten front-page stories about Hillary Clinton’s email server. “If voters had wanted to educate themselves on issues,” we concluded, “they would not have learned much from reading the Times.” We didn’t suggest that the election coverage in the Times was any worse than what appeared in other major outlets, “so much as it was typical of a broader failure of mainstream journalism.” But we did expect, or at least hope, that in the years that followed, the Times would conduct a critical review of its editorial policies. Was an overwhelming focus on the election as a sporting contest the best way to serve readers? Was obsessive attention to Clinton’s email server really justified in light of the innumerable personal, ethical, and ultimately criminal failings of Trump? It seemed that editors had a responsibility to rethink both the volume of attention paid to certain subjects as well as their framing. (David Rothschild/Columbia Jounraliams Review 11/20/23)
In the few weeks after Musk took charge, dozens of top advertisers fled the site–apparently wary of his leadership–which has seen a slimmed down workforce and content moderation system. Musk has used the platform to push a conspiracy theory about Paul Pelosi, reinstate the accounts of Donald Trump and other right-wingers previously banned for promoting misinformation, and pettily strip The New York Times of its verified badge, among other things. NPR, along with its 52 affiliated accounts, has stopped tweeting after Musk inaccurately designated it “state-affiliated media,” and then later “government-funded,” even though the federal government is the source of 1 percent of NPR’s funding.
Fox, meanwhile, paid for a full-page advertisement in The New York Times on Monday headlined “Trusted Now. More Than Ever.”
A New York Times executive in charge of diversity at the Gray Lady has angered LGBTQ staffers by trying to silence them on an internal messaging channel dedicated to “raising employee concerns,” according to a published report.
Mar 31, 2023: Forward Kentucky: What Andy Beshear vetoed, & James Comer in the New York Times
This week Jazmin took us through all the legislation Andy Beshear vetoed, what he signed into law, and what became law without his signature. Then, Robert talked us through a feature on James Comer in the New York Times and the fallout that has ensued here in Kentucky, as well as a few other missteps by the 1st District Congressman.
Insiders say the workshops have happened for years. Indeed, legal refreshers are routine at major media companies—make sure you ask for comment, choose your adjectives carefully, attribute incendiary claims. But there is nothing routine about this moment in Fox News history. Every new legal filing in Dominion’s $1.6 billion defamation suit sets off a wave of coverage, criticism, and mockery, from the front page of The New York Times to the cold open of Saturday Night Live. More revelations came Tuesday, including Tucker Carlson saying of Donald Trump, “I hate him passionately,” and Rupert Murdoch saying “I hate our Decision Desk people”—the ones who accurately projected that Joe Biden had beat Trump.
A year ago, the New York Times prevailed against former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin after an editorial wrongly linked her advertisements from her political action committee to a mass shooting months later.
"Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to permit a wholesale inquiry into newsroom decisions as a whole, and also I include ownership as part of that inquiry," James Goodale, the legendary New York Times general counsel who advised the paper to publish the Pentagon Papers, tells NPR in an email. "Newsroom decisions, including ownership decisions as to news judgment, should be protected by the First Amendment."
The most egregious contextual errors include:
- The New York Times reported that the attack came “amid the deadliest period in years for Palestinians living in the Israeli-occupied West Bank,” but failed to mention that this period has also been one of the deadliest for Israelis.
- Both The New York Times and The Washington Post placed this attack within the context of the return to power of Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government, but failed to mention that this surge in Palestinian violence began last year under the more centrist Bennett-Lapid government (The New York Times mentions this as an aside in an infobox but not in the main article).
- Both newspapers create a false moral equivalence, with The New York Times blaming the escalation in violence on “the formation of new and increasingly active Palestinian armed groups and the election of a new Israeli government,” and The Washington Post ascribing Palestinian shooting attacks to “the proliferation of guns throughout the occupied West Bank among Palestinians and Israelis.”
- The Washington Post writes that “Israeli forces and settlers have killed more than 40 Palestinians in the occupied territory this year,” without mentioning that the vast majority of those killed are members of Palestinian terror groups who were engaged in violence against Israelis when they were killed. Similarly, it also writes that “The violence followed a spate of deaths in late January, when Israeli forces killed 10 people in the Jenin refugee camp … in what it said was a raid on a militant cell,” without informing the reader that the vast majority of those killed were known members of Palestinian terror groups who engaged Israeli forces in a gunfight.
- The Washington Post writes that “Over the past year Israel has conducted near-daily and often-deadly raids in West Bank cities and villages,” but makes no mention of the fact that these operations began as a response to a spate of deadly Palestinian terror attacks in early-to-mid 2022.
- The Washington Post mentioned the ongoing domestic Israeli debate over judicial reform three separate times (including two paragraphs at the end of the piece) even though this is of no relevance to the car-ramming attack in Ramot.
- While appearing to provide context for the Ramot car-ramming, both The New York Times and The Washington Post failed to inform their readers of continuing incitement against Israelis and Jews in Palestinian society, including pay-for-slay or the Gazan celebrations that broke out in response to the attack.
Last month, the New York Times published a front-page story by Peter Baker, the paper’s chief White House correspondent, headlined, “Biden’s Errors On Files Blur Trump’s Case” (the online version of the story ran with the headline, “Biden’s Handling of Secret Documents Complicates the Case Against Trump”). On Twitter, Baker matter-of-factly stated that “Democrats will now have a hard time using Trump’s mishandling of classified papers against him, even though the particulars of the two cases are markedly different.”
The liberal media watchdog the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) published a wide-ranging retrospective of the media's Russiagate coverage that examined several news organizations and their various roles throughout the Trump-Russia saga, leveling the most criticism toward The New York Times.
A New York Times analysis of hundreds of Truth Social ads showed that the social media platform’s strategy for scraping by is taking ads from just about anyone. Currently, the platform, which was founded by former president Donald Trump, is attracting ad dollars from “hucksters and fringe marketers” who are peddling products like Trump tchotchkes, gun accessories, and diet pills, the Times reported.
A Consumer Product Safety Commission spokesperson told the New York Times the agency would begin seeking public comment on the hazards related to gas stoves and harm reduction, but that process hasn’t started yet. Commission chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric told the Times the group is “not looking to ban gas stoves.”
The coalition includes The New York Times, The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, The Press Democrat, CNN, Fox News, CBS, ABC, NBC and KQED, an NPR-member radio station in San Francisco.
I asked five educated pro-Israel people: “How many first-section, hardcopy articles about Israel and Judaism do you think The New York Times published in the last six months of 2022?”
They answered, “Probably around 30 or 40, maybe less.”
Shockingly, the answer is at least 127. Yes, I carefully counted them. This averages five negative articles every week in just one section. Given that Israel is the size of the state of New Jersey, the Times seems pathologically obsessed with it. Although they very occasionally publish a neutral or positive piece, at least 95% of their first section articles fixate on Israel’s alleged imperfections and falsely magnify them into “atrocities.”
The paper, whose staff had been hearing rumors of various Santos concoctions for a while, followed up with that stinging editorial calling him a fraud.
Then . . . nothing happened. No other media outlets pursued the story. Not the six local TV stations or WNYC, or Politico, New York, the Times, the Daily News. Not even Newsday, the formerly-august news source for Long Island. Grant Lally, the publisher and owner of the North Shore Leader, told me he didn’t get a single call from another publication inquiring about it. “If this had run 25 years ago, it would have been gobbled up,” he said. “There’d have been 20 follow ups from Newsday and other publications and the weeklies.”
A Newspaper in Long Island, New York (North Shore Leader) posted serious revelations about George Santos before the state and national elections which made it pretty clear that there was something wrong about the info Santos was telling people about him. The national press, not even the New York Times, picked up the information. I find this disturbing because the national press has such a megaphone that I have to wonder where they were getting the information they were espousing. Or were they just too busy chasing after whatever wind came their way about Santos....and by "whatever wind" I mean what will draw attention to them, gain clicks on the internet or watchers for pundits.
Personally I read a lot of news...maybe too much. But if something is reported that sounds odd or unbelievable I research a bit before I push it. But I have noticed that one of the more credible news sources for anyone is their local newspaper or TV station. They tend to be involved in local stories and the reporters and writers generally live within the community or general area that their news is reported to. It is not foolproof, of course, as no one source hits 100% right all the time...but the odds are in their favor.
All the major networks and news agencies, of course, are reporting everything that is wrong with George Santos now......but they should have been out there several weeks ago before the election. The information was there.
January 15, 2023
January 15, 2023
The online literary community is slamming Pamela Paul, publishing kingmaker turned opinion columnist, after she wrote a piece in the New York Times criticizing language that is inclusive of transgender and nonbinary communities. And at least one critic is alleging that she used her longtime perch as the head of the paper’s books section to tone down transgender advocacy.
In the United States, this “spirit of ferocious intellectual intolerance,” as my friend, New York Times’ columnist Bret Stephens, calls it, reached a crescendo last week with the resignation (or forced-firing) of New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet, a distinguished journalist with impeccable liberal credentials, who did nothing wrong except publish an op-ed by a sitting American senator expressing what turned out to be a mainstream view.
June 22, 1941: The New York Times published an abridged English translation of the German declaration of war on the Soviet Union.
December 1, 1896: The hyphen in the city name was dropped.
April 21, 1861: The New York Times began publishing a Sunday edition to offer daily coverage of the Civil War.
September 14, 1857: The newspaper officially shortened its name to The New-York Times.
September 18, 1851: The New York Times was founded as the New-York Daily Times. Founded by journalist and politician Henry Jarvis Raymond and former banker George Jones, the Times was initially published by Raymond, Jones & Company.