Derrell Durrett: I think a plausible defense for Kahn here is that he demands readers be more than "casual" consumers of the news. It's not a smart take, IMO, but it's defensible: We don't write for you to skim it, we write for you to *read* it. It's not smart because it calls your readers dumb or lazy.

I think a plausible defense for Kahn here is that he demands readers be more than "casual" consumers of the news. It's not a smart take, IMO, but it's defensible: We don't write for you to skim it, we write for you to *read* it. It's not smart because it calls your readers dumb or lazy.

NYT editor Joe Kahn's interview with @semaforben.bsky.social is a bizarre exercise in evasion about the very real problems the media faces with Trump. It completely misrepresents the serious liberal critique and does a disservice to his own stated mission. My take: newrepublic.com/article/1813...

Top New York Times Editor Offers Stunning Defense of Coverage of Trumpnewrepublic.com Why asking our media to get it right on Trump’s threat to democracy is not remotely the same as being in the tank for Biden

you would also think that they would write more accurate headlines, less eye grabbing, more honest and not keep changing them throughout the day if this were the case

I will admit it's a tenuous, if not tendentious, defense. And certainly their willingness to change the headline in response to criticism suggests they know they miss the mark regularly. That alone ought to prompt more reflection.

there could only be more reflection

The AB Testing of headlines is absolutely exhausting. I remember hearing them talk about how they were starting to do it on the Daily and having a conniption fit in my car.

One reason why some might be "casual" consumers of the news is because too many articles DO NOT GET TO THE FUCKING POINT! I got shit to do, please respect my time. I'm not here for an emotional journey, I'm here to learn what's happening. It's not everything, obviously, but damn it's aggravating.

It does seem rather demanding to expect someone to devote nearly as many hours to news consumption (of a single topic) as they do to things like exercise or other forms of personal care. Folks have lives, and expecting them to put that on hold so you can tell nuanced stories is quite precious.

also the NYT is famous for using headlines and first paragraphs to tell one story and then only on page A485 the next to last paragraph mentions something which totally would've interrupted the propaganda line being pushed in the first part

I think it's here that their willingness to obscure facts in favor of their preferred interpretation is most indefensible.

There was an entire progressive publication dedicated to monitoring, highlighting, and combating the particular forms of distortion and propaganda of the NYT. web.archive.org/web/20130911...

About Loot | Lies Of Our Timesweb.archive.org

"preferred interpretation" is one thing. Simply platforming statements uncritically is another as well. I wish so much that I had saved this, but I remember some news exec stating that the duty of the news IS to be an uncritical bullhorn for statements from people. I swear that happened, and is nuts

I think it's a fair criticism of @nytimes.com that they often allow their priors to front-run the truth and so fail to grasp the import of new information. Also, old information.

Then they just declared their business model unnecessary and we can replace them entirely with PR releases from various politicians and companies. If a news company says their job is simply to print what people say, without evaluation, they offer no *value added* over public relations blogs.

NYT style is to bury the lede, and/or use passive tense so it's not even clear what the f happened. My grandpa recently complained he couldn't understand the NYT anymore and I told him why and that it's not because of him or his reading, I have the same issue. They write obfuscating nonsense.

If that's the case then they really need to ditch their Wordle-first business strategy.

Ah, but see only smart people can succeed at Wordle, ipso facto this proves their strategy is sound! /s

But they know that's not how it works -- why would they write headlines, promote certain stories in social media and emails or have a front page in that case? Plus the inverted pyramid, where you're not expecting your reader to read more than a little, is what they teach day 1 of j-school classes

As I said, I think it's only barely defensible, and it doesn't strike me as a particularly winning strategy.

@nytimes.com knows damn well that the vast majority of people read only headlines, so they cater to that (often lower-education) audience with inflammatory headlines & then try to excuse themselves with reference to the reasonable reporting they laid out in a story’s 13th paragraph.

They seem to be saying that everyone should put on their Critical Reading hats every time they pick up the NYT (which, fair enough, I do). But most people want something more dispassionate and objective, that they can take at face value, without having to push back and question every statement.

To my mind their demand goes deeper still, in that they expect you to have read and fully incorporated all of the stuff they've written that pertains. Which, IMHO, is a demand too far.

Post