NYT says CNN and MSNBC are being too partisan

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by raqball, May 31, 2019.

  1. raqball macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2016
    #1
    The NYT, one of the most liberal and partisan papers in the nation is calling CNN and MSNBC out for being too partisan... I guess there are no mirrors in their offices...

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/new-york-times-vanity-fair-msnbc-cnn

    *snip*

    The New York Times is reportedly blocking its reporters from appearing on liberal cable news programs such as MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” and “CNN Tonight” with Don Lemon because they’re “too partisan,” but critics think the Gray Lady needs to look in the mirror.

    Vanity Fair reported that Times' executive editor Dean Baquet is concerned that his reporters who appear on particular programs would be "perceived as being aligned" with the show's far-left politics.

    Media Research Center vice president Dan Gainor mocked the situation, essentially labeling the Times as hypocrites in the process.

    “This isn't a news story, it's a sitcom plot. The nation's most liberal paper is suddenly concerned that the wacky network filled on air with its employees might be too far left,” Gainor told Fox News. “The Times is liberal on the opinion and news pages on every major issue facing the nation -- from abortion to taxes. Yet, MSNBC is even further left? Does anyone at The Times read their own paper?”
     
  2. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #2
    Dean Baquet hands over his letter of resignation in 3....2.....
     
  3. hawkeye_a macrumors 65816

    hawkeye_a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    #3
    The cynic in me, thinks this is the NYT throwing a bone to conservatives to try and appear balanced to the public.

    With partisanship in the media, one would think it would be in the business interest of these organization, to appeal to 100% of the market (by being balanced) than to appeal to only ~50%.
     
  4. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    betwixt
    #4
    But if being balanced means that the leftier 25% dislikes you for being too accommodating to the righties, and the rightier 25% dislikes you for being too accommodating to the lefties, then you've still got only 50% you can appeal to. Those are example numbers only; it's entirely possible that the ends of the spectrum where you're disliked for accomodating The Other Team's views is 30% or more, leaving even less in the middle range.

    There's also the question of monetization. It might be unprofitable to intentionally compete for the center (which we can treat as 50% for the sake of the example), if the center's audience can triangulate by taking some from the rightish side and some from the leftish side, to get their desired range.
     
  5. Number-Six macrumors 6502

    Number-Six

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2013
    #5
    Integrity should be priceless.

    Right now, most media agencies have neither money OR integrity.

    Edit: by no money, I mean that I assume that they think they don't have enough.
     
  6. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    betwixt
    #6
    We certainly don't have that situation now. When I look at the history of journalism, particularly yellow journalism, I often wonder if we ever did, or whether it's always been tribal, just with bigger tribes (fewer outlets).

    If there really ever was a time when integrity was priceless, I think it was mainly in US broadcast media, and mainly due to the FCC's Fairness Doctrine. That was also a time when there was more Federal supervision over who could buy broadcast stations, and what they could transmit. Note that this rule only applied to broadcast media, not newspapers, magazines, or cable outlets. Still, that was a time when print magazines did try to appeal to a wide audience (Life, Time, etc.), and the barriers to entry were a lot more expensive to acquire and operate than an AWS virtual server running a LAMP stack.


    Oddly enough, they seem to have just enough integrity for their current viewerships / audience. Fracturing into narrower segments was inevitable, once cable and the internet demolished the entry barriers.

    On the money question, there's plenty of competition between outlets, but the monetizers are ads, so Facebook and Google are the money kingpins.
     
  7. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Location:
    Velvet Green
    #7
    You have to understand the market dynamic, though. Viewers/readers are not the media's market. Advertisers are. The audience are more like the cantaloupes and sausage that the media are selling to the advertisers. All they have to do is provide a decent quality product to the real customers.
     
  8. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #8
    Facebook's seizure of America's short attention span only reinforces partisanship on news stories. News stories written from the center are expressed either left or right by Facebook groups who rapidly share articles that match, and reinforce their opinions.

    Partisan-seeming articles get far more shares, and clicks than analysis, and deep-dive articles get short shift compared to quickly-understood articles.

    So, for the money guys, partisanship tends to make more money, and it's an act of real willpower to keep a paper out of an increasingly partisan culture.

    And, and the Vanity Fair article—the actual source of this story, not the dim ravings from Fox News complete with a quote from the grifters at the "Media Research Center"—notes, the Times' guidelines are well-established on these issues:

    “In deciding whether to make a radio, television or Internet appearance, a staff member should consider its probable tone and content to make sure they are consistent with Times standards. Staff members should avoid strident, theatrical forums that emphasize punditry and reckless opinion-mongering.”

    So, did Maddow become "theatrical?" I tend to think yes. And, let's note that while Fox News makes great hay out of some Times' reporters refusing to be on Maddow, there's little defense for the psychotic ravings of Ingraham or Hannity.

    I'd also note that the Vanity Fair article is sourced as well as other VF articles that Fox News apparatchiks have dismissed as "fake news" because they used unnamed sources at the White House.
     
  9. pl1984 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    #9
    We must be in the twilight zone! The far left calling others too far on the left! Wow, just wow!
     
  10. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68030

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #10
    The story, as I understand it, is not that the editorial staff has to steer clear of these shows, only the straight newspeople. In a world where the media is (in some cases rightfully and in some cases not) being painted as far too partisan I think it is a great idea for the people out there reporting the news to make sure there is no way for them to be construed as for a particular side. Not as a way of throwing a bone to conservatives, but instead as a way of carving out a niche of being a news source that is not in the fray of the bickering from either side.

    Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell...they are extremely partisan in the same way Sean Hannity is extremely partisan. They aren't shy about this and that's fine. But I understand the NY Times' desire to try and at least take away this particular ball and bat that critics can have in blanket labeling the whole organization has being left tilted. Glad to see someone like Don Lemon get looped in with this as well. Just not a lot of good sources out there of legitimate "fair and balanced news" these days on the TV side.
     
  11. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #11
    Right. Except for non-profit media, which can sell its product directly to consumers, advertising relies on metrics. However, those metrics tell us that people mostly like hyper-partisan stories or celebrity news, and it takes real effort to focus on hard-news even when that often sees the least clicks.

    A Game of Thrones listicle will get far more clicks than a 10,000-word in-depth story about climate change, and so, news agencies are under real pressure to continue producing hard news, and the collapse of subscriber bases has tended to make the remaining subscriptions more expensive.

    Overall, big outlets like the NYT are doing quite well, but the current business model is killing the middle, wiping out metro dailies, and leaving a lot of communities in news deserts where the partisanship of D.C. doesn't matter as much as what's happening in the local school district, or how an oil refinery might have poisoned the local watershed.
     
  12. hawkeye_a macrumors 65816

    hawkeye_a

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    #12
    @ugahairydawgs
    Does this change your perception of the NYT being overwhelmingly left-leaning? It's a start I suppose, but it's just a small step towards being balanced (and being perceived as balanced).

    FWIW & IMHO it's no longer journalism and news, it's 'Jerry Springer' in written word form.

    Note: They can be as biased and non-balanced as they wish.
     
  13. Huntn macrumors P6

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #13
    If this is legit it sounds like a stab at controlling perceptions because of what the Right Wing thinks about shows like Rachel Maddow, but what, is the Left Wing agenda now telling the Truth, lol? The NYT reports on Trump’s latest Whopper, and Rachel Maddow repeats it, and oh my what a difference, she is so much more radical! :)
     
  14. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Location:
    betwixt
    #14
    I read that as "testicle", and wondered which episode I'd missed.
     
  15. Fancuku macrumors 65816

    Fancuku

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Location:
    PA, USA
  16. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #16
    Three things: 1. The Vanity Fair article has some legitimate points. 2) Fox news commenting on the partisan nature of other news networks is a little ironic. 3. How is anything, especially a news network, too far left? Have you noticed other Countries?
     

Share This Page

15 May 31, 2019