I hope this is a joke. The New York Times Public Editor wonders aloud if their journalists should be reporting the truth.
Maybe he thinks the NYT should be more like a truth noodge?
Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? Are there other problems that The Times would face that I haven’t mentioned here?
The original form of the newspaper is diminishing. Kindles, iPads, and laptops have contributed to the print version of the papers demise. However, the New York Times is still the leading voice in journalism. This documentary explores its stature and difficult questions of the future of journalism…
Guys. They didn’t “shift the blame”. Evolving story, different author coming in and adding his stuff. Look at the byline. The teaser is different, but the demonstrators’ view is still in the text. Just a bit further down. You can see the evolving part in the change from dozens arrested to hundreds arrested as well. Scrutiny is good, but the information is still there, just further down. Read the article, not just the teaser.
It only takes 20 minutes for the NYT to shift the blame.After allowing them onto the bridge, police cut off and arrested dozens of Occupy Wall Street protesters.
becameIn a tense showdown over the East River, police arrested hundreds of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators after they marched onto the bridge’s Brooklyn=bound roadway.
Don’t let this simply vanish, people. Don’t let them get away with this. Force the NYT to own this, and accept responsibility for lying to their readers, to protect the 1%.
They’re terrified of us.
They know that we’re coming for them.
This is only the beginning.
(image via Reddit. Quote via Daily Kos)
Dated Thursday, September 18, 1851, the newspaper back then was known as The New-York Daily Times. (I love the hyphen.) It was priced at one cent.
I must have walked by that replica thousands of times before I finally paused for a closer look. It was made up mostly of blurbs, many of them just a few sentences long. None was more than five paragraphs. The international news consisted of dispatches from Turkey, Bremen, Bavaria and Prussia, in most cases summarizing local publications rather than offering original reporting. The local New York City reporting was quite chatty, with headlines like “Disturbance by Rival Blacksmiths,” “Run over by an Ice Cart,” and “Women Poisoned.”
Even non-news was news back then. A short dispatch titled “False Alarm” read: “Item gatherer failed to discover the first spark of the fire.” And I was taken with a brief from another edition: “Not Dead.-Mr. John Overho, of Prince street, who was reported to be beyond all medical skill on Saturday, from the effect of coup de soleil, we are glad to learn is likely to recover.”
But what struck me most that day, as I studied that front page, was a single thought.
This looks like a blog."
“As a very young man, I learned values during those months that have framed my entire career. Investigative reporting, and the role of journalism, is crucial to democracy and, if done well, has value to every American.” CIR Executive Director Robert Rosenthal (seen here with the original New York Times papers) reflects on being a young journalist at the NYT when they published the Pentagon Papers. Today, 40 years after the Times published parts of them, the Pentagon Papers have been declassified in full.
The New York Times is releasing 24,000 pages’ worth of emails sent by Sarah Palin and her staff during her tenure as Alaska governor.
Seeing as this is what most journalists would call “way too much fucking paper to wade through,” the Times is “inviting readers to point out items of interest.”
Translation: do our work for us.
Let’s not call this crowdsourcing, because it’s not. This is journalistic laziness at its worst. One would think that, less than 10 years after the Times showed its editorial ineptitude with Jayson Blair’s plagiarized “correspondence,” this newspaper would be more sensitive to how they look when they take shortcuts with the news. I mean, hire a dozen J-students for a summer internship, for christ’s sake, it’s not that hard.
To put it another way: I have a really hard time believing that Woodward and Bernstein would have put all of Nixon’s campaign finances online for the public to sift through. Or at least, had they done so, there’s no way in hell that Watergate would ever have happened.
These files deserve to be looked at by a critical but ultimately objective eye - the kind that trained journalists (apparently used to) have. I’m sure there are mountains upon mountains of evidence against a Palin presidency, but it shouldn’t be up to the public to find these gems just so that the New York Times can polish them later and call it journalism.
Bottom line: the Times editorial board should be ashamed of itself. Aim higher, people.