I'm trying to wrap up the New York Times bashing thread but they keep giving me so much material

Written on 7/29/2024.

Lots to criticize here (the embarrassing "code switching" article alone would be good for a couple posts), but I am going to try stay on topic, and use the Harris 2020 headline to illustrate how the NYT is manipulated and how you can spot it. Keep in mind is that arrogant people are the easiest on and, with the possible exception of a Harvard physics professor, no one is more arrogant than a New York Times editor. They are the ideal marks. 

Are there notable disconnects between how prominent a story should be based on newsworthiness or interest and how prominent it actually is? Has a big story been buried or omitted entirely? Is a relatively trivial and boring story featured on the first page of the website and above the fold in the print edition while bigger stories are pushed aside? 

If you do see one of these disconnects, the next question you should ask yourself is who would be happy to see the minor stories played up big? Who would be relieved when the buried or omitted stories are forgotten? 

If you see a pattern of odd editorial choices favoring one side, you have intimidation and/or bias regardless of what the stories themselves actually say. No matter how good the articles happened to be, simply by putting those that favor one side on A1 and those that favor the other on A13 the damage is done. Of course, if the headline is inaccurate (and remember those are normally written by an editor), that makes the bad even worse. 

Look at what the New York Times considered the top election story of 7/29/2024, and ask yourself: 

1. Is this really the most important political development of the day? Is it what people most want to talk about? If you were editor, would you have put this above the Republican candidate promising to establish a national bitcoin stockpile, the increasingly intense demands from Democrats that Trump debate Harris, or this? 

 

1b. Were progressive ideas the primary focus of the Harris 2020 campaign or was it more about ability to challenge Donald Trump?

Here's a powerful Harris ad from the 2020 primary: pic.twitter.com/QDKTlSn6LJ

— Simon Rosenberg (@SimonWDC) July 21, 2024

 2. Who would be happy to see the conversation shift to Harris's more liberal positions four years ago? Who would've been unhappy to see the conversation concentrate on Trump's crypto announcement, JD Vance's historically bad VP debut, or the fact that the Republican pulled out a schedule presidential debate?

3. Is there a pattern? I've been following the NYT with a critical eye for years now and I'm confident that I could easily write virtually this same post two or three times a week with examples as or more egregious than this. The New York Times has created a deeply flawed and self-serving code of ethics and they somehow manage to violate even that on a regular basis. They been bad for years and they continue to get worse which is not behavior we can afford from the paper of record.