Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Nov 12, 2016.
Could you quote me the part where the Times admits such a thing?
"We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign."
Read better, not selecting. He's saying that they have to go back to report the world honestly without bias and fear.
Of course they're not going to write "we lied.", I expect them to be a bit smarter than that.
The NYT has lost any credibility they had left during this election.
**** that relic from the past.
They are hemmoraging subscribers
Why would you post a Fox article rather than linking to the actual letter? Your thread title is ********.
Because Fox is fair and balanced. Unlike the New York Times.
Because that's where I found the news, and since it includes the original letter there is no problem of evaluating the source. You can just read the original letter, and unless you mean that the same document on FOX is different than the same document on MSNBC, your reply is ********.
Gave up on it credibility wise when they were reporting Ellen Pao losing her case as a victory.
If they change their long-standing policy to one of reporting the news qua news; hooray. Don't know if it'll be any more profitable for them. People have grown accustomed to their style.
I suspect it'll be the same old, same old, and what this actually means, "He's saying that they have to go back to report the world honestly without bias and fear.", is that they'll go back to having an adversarial relationship with the Presidency after the current President leaves office, until one of their liking is again elected. There might be a few stories evidencing change, but I can't imagine they'll substantively change who they've been.
I don't know. I usually read, on an almost daily basis, the NYT, USA Today, WSJ, Financial Times (UK or Europe), and if I have time The Daily Express (UK), La Repubblica (Italy), Il Foglio (Italy), Libero (Italy) and others.
The NYT together with La Repubblica should be singled out as the worst newspapers in their electoral coverage. It was awful, blatantly biased, and missing news on purpose. All of them with the exception of Libero (Italy) were against or at least not-proTrump... even right-wing Il Foglio (Italy). Not even newspapers that were parts of the Italian Communist Party were that bad in their coverage.
That's not what "rededication" means.
Perhaps you might read this article in the New York Review of Books.
After reading it, you might better understand the role of journalism in a free society, and why a journalist might wish to symbolically reaffirm his commitment to seeking truth.
For clarification purposes, I'm not sure why you're saying "I don't know'. I think we're in agreement. Maybe you think they'll change?
To be fair, nearly every newspaper was against Trump. The vast majority of journalists were against Trump.
There were only 6 or so newspapers that endorsed Trump: National Enquirer, Rockland County Times, New York Observer, New York Post, Santa Barbara News-Press, and The Crusader.
Two are tabloids and one is owned by Trump's son-in-law. The last is a KKK newspaper.
I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem though to say the news was biased against Trump. I think an equally plausible explanation is that Trump is biased against journalists.
How could you not be biased against organizations that privately collude with the opposition and then call themselves media when in reality they are DNC propagandists?
Trump's campaign was absolutely anti-intellectual. No wonder newspapers were/are against him.
How could they not be biased against a candidate that privately colludes with foreign enemies and then alleges to have America's best interest at heart when in reality they he is a narcissist?
This is staggering in my opinion. The New York Times not only admitting that they blew it, but that their biases and dishonest reporting are to blame. Of course they did not say it in words so clearly, but it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines.
"...we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly..."
You don't have to "rededicate" yourself to something if it's what you've been consistently doing. It's like a habitual speeder saying he was going to rededicate himself to driving slower. He didn't say he was a speeder, right? But you get the idea. Think about what they are saying here. We are going to REDEDICATE ourselves to reporting HONESTLY.
It is good that the media, and the Left as a whole, are taking a good look in the mirror and seeing the problem. I think it's fantastic that the New York Times had to publicly admit that their integrity has been called to question and they need to get back to their "fundamental mission." However, I know what they are really saying. They are not apologizing to everyone. They are apologizing to the Left for possibly causing them the election. They feel that the completely dismissive way they handled their Trump coverage probably caused a lot of people to think this was a lock for Hillary and maybe not bother to vote. So, this apology may not be what some people think it is, but the result is the same: an ugly black eye for the New York Times and tremendous damage to their credibility. Through the wikileaks the media got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and they better start thinking about damage control strategies.
We're talking about Trump, not Clinton and her foundation.
Would they have made this pledge if Hillary had won?
That's the question. Their reporting up to the point of her losing was exactly what they are apologizing for now. So would they have realized their flaws while enjoying her victory? I seriously doubt it.
Provide a source? I only have this: http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/...eply-to-trump-comments-on-coverage-1.12612278
I think this is the key line in the letter ...
“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,”
The publisher—as publisher's often are—is more concerned with his newspaper's profit than its content.
I think we all know the answer to that one