She tweets: “The
@nytimes
hasn’t said anything since their “journalist” got busted for irresponsible & dishonest reporting. The Times is worse than Fox & Ember is worse than
@BretStephensNYT
bc everyone knows that they have an ideology & bias.
@melbournecoal
& Times pretend to be objective”
I mean, come on.
I don’t mind any of this: just disclose it in your piece which is after all about bias, having an agenda, and conflicts of interest.
Pretty interesting article. NYT seems to have quality reporting on the surface, but I personally started questioning their bias over the past couple years and eventually cancelled my subscription.
One of the things I’m not sure about are their editorials/investigations against tech companies. While I strongly believe in regulating the Facebook and Googles of the world, my cynical side is convinced NYT publishes these investigations not simply because these are honest journalists looking for the truth but because these media outlets are legitimately under threat and don’t know how else to compete. And I mean legitimately under threat as in these tech giants are competing with companies such as the NYT. They’re simply looking out for their personal interests.
> questioning their bias over the past couple years
It’s not new. They hired an ombudsman in 2003 after warranted criticism for their unquestioning support of the Iraq war, but they got rid of that position two years ago.
This article certainly represents NYT in a much more positive light, focusing on what innovation is possible using 5G. I’m curious why post this here and not in its own thread. My skeptical side thinks you’re trying to present NYT more favorably and wanting to distract from the original topic.
This can't possibly be what the front page of HN is for. As the primary season gets into full swing, an all-pairs mapping of candidates to media outlet grudges will generate a story like this several times a week; the front page will have US horse-race politics pegged to it continuously.
I am not from the US, but this article "gratified my intellectual curiosity"[1] by demonstrating a clear pattern where it shouldn't exist, and, therefore, I upvoted it.
It's not about a particular news medium, political party, or politician. The article highlights a much deeper issue in general. That's why I found it to be an interesting read.
Nobody doubts your ability to connect the dots from horserace politics to intellectual curiosity (or, for that matter, from cat pictures and image memes to same). But garden-variety politics are off-topic for HN; you can use the search bar to see the mods repeatedly pointing that out.
I found this article to be not about politics, but about journalism. Otherwise, I would have probably flagged it myself. I understand, that for some people it might be hard to see beyond the politics of their own country.
https://katiehalper.com/tag/bernie-sanders/
https://www.twitter.com/kthalps
She tweets: “The @nytimes hasn’t said anything since their “journalist” got busted for irresponsible & dishonest reporting. The Times is worse than Fox & Ember is worse than @BretStephensNYT bc everyone knows that they have an ideology & bias. @melbournecoal & Times pretend to be objective”
I mean, come on.
I don’t mind any of this: just disclose it in your piece which is after all about bias, having an agenda, and conflicts of interest.