[Calvin02]

This doesn't surprise me.

I grew up reading NYTimes on the weekend with my parents. I held them in extreme high regard when it came to their news and journalistic integrity. Over the years, I've shifted to think of them as another data point. For the industries that I'm most familiar with (Tech, Finance, and Pharma), I find their reporting often shallow, lacking in nuance, or intentional/unintentional misreporting. And I often wonder if their reporting of other areas is similarly lacking.

Now, they are just another data point, which is sad.

[sho]

Same story with me. To be clear, I am a subscriber, though I tend to hold out for the ultra-cheap last ditch retention deals they through at you. But I take them with a grain of salt these days. They have a narrative like anywhere else, and they don't let the full facts get in its way.

Michael Crichton said it best:

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

[Pay08]

Honestly, they have never been particularly trustworthy. People go on about the "newspaper of record" title, but as far as I can see, those are mainly handed out on the basis of age, not actual quality and journalistic integrity.

[pram]

The NYT (and Judith Miller) was one of the most shameless shills of the Iraq War, laundering complete bullshit and lies. It’s not completely bad, there have been outstanding individuals, and the election coverage is still the best imo, but there is no reason to believe the organization has higher integrity than the rest of the MSM.

[bonsai_spool]

> The NYT (and Judith Miller) was one of the most shameless shills of the Iraq War, laundering complete bullshit and lies. It’s not completely bad, there have been outstanding individuals, and the election coverage is still the best imo, but there is no reason to believe the organization has higher integrity than the rest of the MSM.

Very respectfully, as pre-teen at the time, I recognized that there was no real reason for going from 9/11 to Afghanistan or Iraq... based on my then daily reading of NYT. And I am sure there were opinion articles in that same paper that said we were rushing towards something that demanded deeper reflection.

Fundamentally, I don't think the job of a newspaper is to think for us.

All the absurdities of that time were, in fact, news. What wasn't present at the time was a link to justify the inane war we began. And that link is still absent, which we are all collectively realizing.

[genewitch]

the General Wesley Clark 7: https://youtu.be/Eo6u9DpASp8?t=69

"7 countries in 5 years; Iraq Syria Lebanon Libya Somalia Sudan and finishing off with Iran"

well here we are 25 years later finally getting around to that last one...

[DANmode]

> based on my then daily reading of NYT

and if you’d only read the first headlines on the frontpage during that time?

or…less?

Like the majority of voters?

[bonsai_spool]

> Like the majority of voters?

I wasn't voting as a 12 year-old!

> and if you’d only read the first headlines on the frontpage during that time?

But I was reading the entirety of the articles :-)

[DANmode]

But nobody else was, unfortunately.

My point was: that’s how they get away with manufactured consent.

Technically they reported on every nuance: but on page G8 lol