No doubt many R voters and some Ind. voters will say “they’re delinquent? Really? I didn’t know that, maybe Trump has a point…” etc
Do you see any issue with NYT headlines that give Trump’s preferred framing presumption of legitimacy? Is putting “delinquent” in quotes good enough? Compare frames>
More broadly is the NYT making itself a part of the story, as it did in 2016? Many journalists with decades of experience think so, maybe they are onto something
There are thousands of word choices made daily. Someone could cherry pick from them to show many things. The intent is fairness but we are not perfect. Editors in the newsroom monitor reader comments and adjust and correct errors and so forth. But we have no role in the opinion section.
did I say NYT newsroom has any role in the opinion section? I don't believe I did
are you accusing me of cherry picking? I will post a few screenshots *from news section* for you + anyone else reading
I'm curious if the intent is ever "be partisan *for* survival of our democracy?"
Rebecca O’Brien in news, not opinion, marveling at Trump’s amazing youthfulness and stamina
How much daylight between this *news* article and Ronny Jackson?
Not enough
btw Peter Baker right now 📺 repeating the talking point from his NYT news analysis that Biden campaign is somehow “changing the subject” by daring to raise issue of Trump’s threat to disregard our treaty obligations
That’s not neutral framing unless you presuppose that Biden’s age is what matters
I am responding to the first skeet in the thread that implies that the person is still involved in newsroom coverage. Beyond that I have nothing to say about the rest of your critique of the news report. You're entitled to your opinions.
And the NYTime is entitled to its opinions - shitty ones by assholes like Healey, Stephens and Douthat, to be sure. But, it would be nice if opinions were relegated to that section and not be found in, what used to affectionately be called, journalism.
The issue is that both-siding, and a general lack of critical thinking, results in reporting that’s opinion by default. Not to mention misleading headlines.
It shouldn't be both. That's the whole problem. If one is a piece of shit rapist and wanna-be dictator, why in the world would that person deserve fairness?
That column is an opinion section piece, not part of news coverage. Commentary is a different type of journalism, sometimes intentionally provocative. I thought it was being misread but ultimately it is not part of our news report. Most journalists understand this.
I understand but nevertheless there is a high wall between the two staffs. Whether it is a writer on the left, right, center (they publish a range), a discerning reader ought to be aware. Our splintered social media experience creates misperception and cognitive bias. No outlet can control that.
It’s not such a high wall. Mr. Healy has been able to move over it, as have many others. While he may like the conceit that he’s explaining how all voters think, he’s really showing us how he thinks. And though he’s now in opinion, he led the NYT’s political news coverage for much of the Trump era.
Bingo. While the Times may ostensibly have real separation between the two on a day to day, there is a unanimity of purpose across all editorial. And that purpose ain't anything as lofty as truth, or even journalism. At best, that purpose is to be obtuse when necessary. At worst, the purpose is evil
I have heard the rational that there’s a wall for years yet, when I ask folks, they are not aware of this. Yet journos continue to give the same excuse. Like if an editor told you some sentence you tend to use is confusing but you insist it’s fine because you know what it means.
I have no doubt the staff of one doesn't have much to do with the staff of the other, but all of their writing ends up in the same paper. And the READER doesn't see the separation. The opinion and news pages bleed together to everyone except those inside the building.
the Healy hed was indeed intentional provocation
my objection was to habitual NYT framing *in news reporting* that gives Trump undue deference with heds that use his phrasing, such as "delinquent," without bothering to apply the truth sandwich approach
not to mention slobbering over his "stamina"
the high wall at the NYT as I understand it is between management and staff, who when they have these and related concerns are told they must keep them internal or else will be disciplined, but if they raise their concerns internally, they’re ignored or even deleted from internal comms
I'm not even on the same fucking continent and I can see you lying ALL THE WAY FROM ACROSS THE OCEAN.
Quit your fucking bullshit, nobody believes a single word of that.
"If you agree to understand and parse this situation exclusively through one specific view of journalism rules and norms, this is good actually" is not a very convincing argument to most people outside the walls the New York Times
