I know everyone says "their reporters do great work" and that's true, but over the course of my life, the New York Times has institutionally had multiple points at which it was important to choose "be evil" or do the right thing and they've fucked it hard every time
When you consider that many of those journalists would do great work at a different publication or even on their own, it sorta feels like the great work props up a lot of evil, and only one of those things needs the other.
Most journalists I’ve seen looking for work seem to be in a bad spot, and independence is risky. I get what you mean, the NYT has been utterly appalling - but I wonder how much the labor market for journalists explains people staying.
Right, they obviously need food to be alive and write things, but if you gave these journalists a fixed income and let them do what they want, they’d do better reporting than they do at NYT. The only reason that NYT gets credit for any of their reporting is because they have money.
Yea it'd be really nice to see, idk, a WPA funding journalists with as few strings attached as possible so the well-capitalized papers have less sway. Journalism is a public work.
oh! there was a story...ugh. I'm going to be so vague about this. either one state or an even more local government set up public funds for local journalism. somewhere in the Northeast.
orrr maybe that was just in the works. anyway. I think maybe on the local level might be the best start.
No I'm no expert - I was trying to make a joke - but the # of journalism jobs has gone down steadily over time. Many causes - loss of ad revenue to Facebook and Google, poor ownership by Private Equity firms, general bad leadership by owners. www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/...
it is NOT a good time to be an unemployed journo. My best friend whose paper he gave 17 years to was shuttered, he's still searching for a steady gig a year later. I'm sure if I was a journo and I had a NYT gig I'd cling to it like a raft.
Their reporters also do a lot of just ripping off the work of reporters at smaller more local publications. It wasn't the nyt who was digging into George Santos for instance.
Not even the "course of your life"! They were evil during the Holocaust too! There is a whole century of fuckery with that newspaper; I don't think it can be reformed.
Their political reporters, particularly the ones covering the White House and presidential politics, do no great work at all. They do shit work, and nothing but.
I'd be willing to bet that because its "ruling family" intervenes and interferes with the running of the paper whenever it reports too much news or afflicts the comfortable a little too much...
I've often thought, in a "It's a Wonderful Life" scenario, that if the NY Times didn't exist, the US (and world) would be better off.
And that's accounting for a lot of great reporting and columns over the years. But their political coverage, war correspondence and editorials can be catastrophic.
So many moments to have swiveled public opinion. The Iraq War, Buttery Mails, Dubya getting presidency as a graduation gift...even Clinton vs. Hastert coverage. So much, before we get to the Marmalade Monarch's Haberman Hall Pass.
I can't in good conscience pay for it & I look down on those who do.
Reporters haven't done "good work" since Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley died... everything since then has been pandering to the corporate bosses and the media moguls who use the news for profit and propaganda....
They want us to kill each other. It releases the SSI to pay down the FED, and culls a lot of people that won't need benefits, redraw the lines and new constitution. One Team two side = Fake. Just adapt an off grid lifestyle. It's the eventual outcome anyways no matter who wins. 7billion people!💀
