NYTimes: The Quiet Magic of Middle Managers

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > NYTimes: The Quiet Magic of Middle Managers

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

the NYT has always been a lovely purveyor of fake news and this isn't a recent phenomenon
https://williamblum.org/chapters/killing-hope/introduction

quote:

By the end of 1919, when the defeat of the Allies and the White Army appeared likely, the New York Times treated its readers to headlines and stories such as the following:

30 Dec. 1919: �Reds Seek War With America�
9 Jan. 1920: ��Official quarters� describe the Bolshevist menace in the Middle East as ominous�
11 Jan. 1920: �Allied officials and diplomats [envisage] a possible invasion of Europe�
13 Jan. 1920: �Allied diplomatic circles� fear an invasion of Persia
16 Jan. 1920: A page-one headline, eight columns wide:

*"Britain Facing War With Reds, Calls Council In Paris."*

"Well-informed diplomats" expect both a military invasion of Europe and a Soviet advance into Eastern and Southern Asia.

The following morning, however, we could read:

*"No War With Russia, Allies To Trade With Her"*
7 Feb. 1920: �Reds Raising Army To Attack India�

11 Feb. 1920: �Fear That Bolsheviki Will Now Invade Japanese Territory�

Readers of the New York Times were asked to believe that all these invasions were to come from a nation that was shattered as few nations in history have been; a nation still recovering from a horrendous world war; in extreme chaos from a fundamental social revolution that was barely off the ground; engaged in a brutal civil war against forces backed by the major powers of the world; its industries, never advanced to begin with, in a shambles; and the country in the throes of a famine that was to leave many millions dead before it subsided.

In 1920, The New Republic magazine presented a lengthy analysis of the news coverage by the New York Times of the Russian Revolution and the intervention. Amongst much else, it observed that in the two years following the November 1917 revolution, the Times had stated no less than 91 times that �the Soviets were nearing their rope�s end or actually had reached it.�

just search through the book Killing Hope for New York Times for many egregious examples

# ¿ Jul 1, 2017 20:41

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 16:28

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Nebakenezzer posted:

Paul Krugman is cool and good

nah krugman is pretty lovely and spent many of his op-eds during the primary season smearing and attacking sanders and essentially being a surrogate of the clinton campaign

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/opinion/how-change-happens.html
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/wonks-and-minions
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/how-to-make-donald-trump-president/
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/27/health-wonks-and-bernie-bros/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/08/opinion/sanders-over-the-edge.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/15/opinion/the-pastrami-principle.html
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/the-truth-about-the-sanders-movement/
https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/720979353652367360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

taibbi wrote some sharp criticism of krugman's lovely takes when attempting to smear sanders
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-banks-should-be-broken-up-20160408

edit: taibbi is criticizing krugman's really absurd statement about the financial crisis here:

quote:

Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on 'shadow banks' like Lehman Brothers that weren't necessarily that big.

comedyblissoption has issued a correction as of 18:11 on Jul 8, 2017

# ¿ Jul 8, 2017 18:01

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

to be fair, you start to have to huff your own farts when you start with the premise that most peoples' economic station in life is justified and how the world should be

# ¿ Jul 13, 2017 04:52

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

just a reminder that thomas friedman is/was a regular columnist on the NYT

# ¿ Jul 15, 2017 02:37

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

NYT: Why Democrats Need Wall Street

quote:

Memories in politics are short, but those policies are vastly different from the program of the party�s traditional center-left coalition. Under Bill Clinton, that coalition balanced the budget, acknowledged the limits of government and protected the essential programs that make up the social safety net.

President Clinton did this, in part, by moving the party away from a reflexive anti-Wall Street posture. It�s not popular to say so today, but there are still compelling reasons Democrats should strengthen ties to Wall Street.

As the party has left behind that version of liberalism, it has also found its way to its weakest electoral position � nationally and at the state level � since the 1920s. Hillary Clinton�s lurch to the left probably cost her key Midwestern states that Barack Obama had won twice and led to the election of Donald Trump.

...

For the 2020 election, some of the party�s strongest potential presidential candidates � Senators Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris as well as Deval Patrick, the former Massachusetts governor � should not be dismissed simply because of their current or past ties to Wall Street.

If voters really hated ties to Wall Street and financial elites, Republicans would not enjoy such a commanding electoral position � or have elected a New York plutocrat president. Most voters� major problems with President Trump stem from his performance, not from his wealth or connections to Wall Street.

...

Fourth, demonizing Wall Street does nothing to bridge the widening gaps in our country. Wall Street has its flaws and abuses, which were addressed in part by the Dodd-Frank financial reform law. And yes, the American people are certainly hostile to and suspicious of Wall Street. But using this suspicion and hostility as the organizing principle for a major political party will consign Democrats to permanent minority status.

Here�s what the Democrats need to do instead: develop a set of pro-growth, inclusive economic policies. Democratic leaders must prioritize entrepreneurship, small-business growth and the expansion of job-training and retraining programs.

...

The Democrats need to partner with the financial community on these issues. Most important, the Democrats have simply had an ineffective, negative and coercive economic message. Advocacy of a $15 minimum wage and further banking regulation does not constitute a positive, proactive agenda.

...

This was evident to Democrats in the 1990s. From 1996 to 2000, for example, Democrats led the way on two key economic legislative victories. First, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated the communications and cable industries, increased growth and enhanced market competition. Second, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 removed regulations placed on financial institutions by bureaucrats and expanded opportunities for Wall Street to engage in mergers and acquisitions, adding wealth to the retirement accounts and other investment portfolios of millions of middle-class Americans.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2017 18:17

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

dore on the insane NYT op-ed saying the dems needed more wall st cash
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvvjQsqNUDI

# ¿ Oct 20, 2017 16:30

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

oh my fuuuucking gooooooooooooooooooooooood

this is the loving headline and framing that the new york time does on the donna brazille story:
NYT Hillary Clinton Gets an Award and Tears Are Shed

they literally start off with people crying over hillary getting the " Democratic Woman of the Year".

then later on they bring up donna brazile and literally draw a false equivalency between hillary having a joint fundraising agreement that gives her full control over the party with the joint fundraising agreement that sanders signed.

they frame it as just "intraparty tension"

this is how the NYT is seriously covering this story

i mfuckin ded lmao

(x-shitposting)

# ¿ Nov 3, 2017 04:45

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

i'm c/ping the article because the NYT is known to significantly change a story after it is published:

quote:

WASHINGTON � Hillary Clinton received a Democratic Woman of the Year Award � who else would it be? � at the Women�s National Democratic Club on Thursday, and the first tears were shed about three minutes after she took the stage.

In a room full of purple suffragist sashes and elected officials, Nuchhi Currier, the president of the organization, choked up when she said the outcome of the election � 358 days ago � was �very different from what had been anticipated.�

As the first anniversary of President Trump�s election win approaches, frustration and sadness over the loss of the first woman to be nominated for president by a major party has only seemed to grow more palpable among her supporters. Mrs. Clinton has frequently channeled their anger over the past 10 months, since Mr. Trump took office, and the awards ceremony was no different.

�I got more votes than anybody except Barack Obama in 2008,� Mrs. Clinton reminded her rapt crowd.

Over 55 minutes, Mrs. Clinton criticized the Trump administration�s �cavalier� approach to its dealings with Iran, attacked the administration�s apparent willingness to embrace Russia amid accusations of meddling in the election, discussed her approval ratings, promoted her election memoir and lamented a toxic environment for women across industries, especially in her own.

�The double standard that applies to women in politics is alive and well,� Mrs. Clinton said in a so-called fireside chat with Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California. ��Ambitious� is a compliment for men and it�s not for women.�

Mrs. Clinton�s appearance signaled the continuation of the Democratic mourning process that has persisted since the election, even as drama continues to mark her campaign. On Thursday, Politico published a first-person article by Donna Brazile, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, who wrote that the Clinton campaign in 2016 controlled the committee and rigged the nomination process. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, made the same accusation on CNN on Thursday.

Ms. Brazile also wrote that the Clinton campaign had used a joint fund-raising agreement that would grant it control over strategy in exchange for raising funds. Ms. Brazile characterized the agreement as a �cancer� for the Democratic Party.

Through a spokeswoman, officials for the party disagreed.

�Joint fund-raising committees were created between the DNC and both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in attempt to raise the general election funds needed to win in 2016,� Xochitl Hinojosa, the communications director for the committee, wrote in an email on Thursday. �Clinton was the only candidate who raised money for the party through her joint fund-raising committee with the DNC, which would benefit any candidate coming out of the presidential primary process.�

But intraparty tension was not on the Democratic women�s club�s agenda. In the midst of stacks of copies of Mrs. Clinton�s memoir, �What Happened,� and a man outside the building selling T-shirts emblazoned with her photo and the caption �The People�s Choice,� Mrs. Clinton was more focused on the external forces she believed brought about her downfall.

�In terms of affecting the momentum of the race,� she said, a letter sent by James B. Comey, the director of the F.B.I. in 2016, �was the proximate cause.� The letter reopened an investigation into Mrs. Clinton�s emails days before the election.

Still, Mrs. Clinton also displays an edgy sense of humor. At a book tour stop in Chicago on Monday, she was asked what her Halloween costume would be.

�I think I will maybe come as the president!� she said to laughter from the crowd.

At the Women�s National Democratic Club, Mrs. Clinton received a standing ovation as she left the room.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2017 06:04

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

lol @ the NYT being willing to print an op-ed about capitalism causing the destruction of mankind
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/opinion/climate-capitalism-crisis.html

# ¿ Nov 21, 2017 08:29

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Main Paineframe posted:

https://twitter.com/urbanophile/status/934883687677792256

thank heavens that the nyt avoids chomsky and instead chooses to voluntarily print nazi apologetics

# ¿ Nov 28, 2017 22:06

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

i understand why people are defending franken but i also dont understand it at the same time

does anyone else have this same feeling

# ¿ Nov 28, 2017 23:43

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

keeping franken there actually serves the purpose of making it easier for a republican in the future to take a historically safe blue seat

# ¿ Nov 29, 2017 09:33

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

~demographics are destiny~

~coalition of the ascended~

# ¿ Dec 5, 2017 05:03

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/killeveryhetero/status/940291914926034944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCVdQ8xXBfk

# ¿ Dec 12, 2017 21:24

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/944915611251101697

# ¿ Dec 26, 2017 16:58

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

GoluboiOgon posted:

Personally, I felt like the Times was a decent newspaper for a while because I was comparing their coverage of the lead up of the Iraq war to that in the Tulsa World, which was even worse than the Times. It's easy to gloss over the bad stuff when you are used to much worse coverage.

the NYT was sounding the trumpets of war and was very pro-Iraq War leading up to the invasion

they had front-page above the fold headlines pushing for the Iraq War

it doesn't matter that they had more ~decorum~ when pushing conservative state mouthpieces uncritically

# ¿ Dec 28, 2017 15:37

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

the NYT has never been good when it comes to foreign policy

if you want to disabuse yourself of the notion that the NYT has ever been good, look at any references to them from Chomsky or William Blum. a good Blum book for this is Killing Hope

# ¿ Dec 28, 2017 15:39

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

you should tell them that these aren't chinese factories. these are multinational american factories. the policies have nothing to do with some great malicious china stealing american jobs. the policies are the greed of american capitalists who don't care about their countrymen and also ultimately the economic system.

the policies are also not trade. it's only trade if you think ford shipping parts between wisconsin and michigan to build cars entirely inside of their own command economy counts as trade. changing the borders to another country for cheaper labor while still employing under a ford-owned plant doesn't suddenly make the situation trade.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2017 12:33

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

the bitcoin of weed posted:

what even is the point of this newspaper

manufacturing consent

# ¿ Jan 3, 2018 22:06

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Jose posted:

The NHS needs and requests vastly more money than the Tories are willing to give it

https://twitter.com/BretStephensNYT/status/949178042286354432

Chronic underfunding of the NHS just shows the moral bankruptcy of liberal ideology. What is the point of winning a concession if you have to stay eternally vigilant and indefinitely fighting capitalists to maintain your concessions?

# ¿ Jan 7, 2018 21:10

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

capitalism wants you to believe in the false dichotomy of authoritarian soviet state capitalism and american oligarchic private capitalism

# ¿ Jan 8, 2018 19:31

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

NYT: Everyone Is Getting Hilariously Rich and You�re Not

neoliberal cumrag posted:

�HODL when everyone has FUD,� Mr. Hummer said quietly, to explain why he still lives in a dorm room. �This will change civilization. This can 100 x or more from here.�

He knows this is strange.

�When I meet people in the normal world now, I get bored,� Mr. Hummer said. �It�s just a different level of consciousness.�

The tone turns somber.

�Sometimes I think about what would happen to the future if a bomb went off at one of our meetings,� Mr. Buttram said.

Mr. Hummer said, �A bomb would set back civilization for years.�

# ¿ Jan 15, 2018 01:12

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

liberals have been openly contemptuous of democracy for basically forever

# ¿ Jan 26, 2018 16:17

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/03/opinion/sunday/china-surveillance-state-uighurs.html
:ironicat:

# ¿ Feb 9, 2018 19:39

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

https://slate.com/culture/2018/02/i-am-the-very-model-of-a-new-york-times-contrarian.html

# ¿ Feb 12, 2018 18:16

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Shear Modulus posted:

im baffled that we havent yet had disgruntled nyt reporters anonymously bitching to other outlets about how the editorial section is dragging the credibility of the paper through the mud

dont worry the news section is doing that just fine on its own

# ¿ Feb 14, 2018 10:41

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

anime was right posted:

the greatest trick ever pulled was making journalism wages to low and housed in centralized places that are impossible to afford rent in, that only the wealthiest people alive can afford to become journalists because they'd rather "have a conscious" than run a hedge fund.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RPKH6BVcoM&t=402s

# ¿ Feb 15, 2018 22:43

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Shear Modulus posted:

trump and...who? mcmuffin? the only identity politics i recall from the hillary campaign were the identities of hillary clinton and some make-believe nonexistent moderate republican

Earlier this year, at a union rally in Henderson, Nevada, Hillary Clinton introduced a new theme in her stump speeches.

"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow," Clinton asked, "would that end racism?"

# ¿ Feb 16, 2018 21:21

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Nebakenezzer posted:

So what are the rules of the NYT?

1. The USA never does wrong intentionally

2. Always support war

# ¿ Feb 16, 2018 21:23

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Nebakenezzer posted:

Watch us - The NYT, probably

"What we need instead of more money for roads is billions going to silicon valley"

capitalism invites parasitic rent-seeking instead of obvious braindead solutions to infrastructure problems

American society can very easily afford infrastructure if you understand material wealth comes from labor not money and that we have a huge army of involuntarily unemployed people.

# ¿ Feb 19, 2018 01:59

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

projecthalaxy posted:

Was the nyt always this bad? Like they've been around forever, were there op eds in the 40s about how actually maybe the Jews deserved it?

William Blum's Killing Hope is filled with references to the New York Time spreading lies and smearing others throughout the cold war to promote america's terrible foreign policy

# ¿ Feb 22, 2018 04:30

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

the NYT and other propaganda papers do shape public opinion

mass censorship and mass propaganda, lying, and smearing was necessary on the part of the NYT and their ilk to push for example the iraq war

# ¿ Feb 23, 2018 02:35

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

the media gave trump an estimated $6 billion worth of air time

# ¿ Feb 23, 2018 02:47

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

https://twitter.com/pareene/status/968195053935095809

BERNIE SANDERS WROTE FOR US ARE YOU SATISFIED YOU LITTLE SNOTS???

not mentioned: the nyt's overwhelmingly negative coverage of sanders during the 2016 primaries in both its news section and op-eds

# ¿ Feb 27, 2018 04:24

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

R. Guyovich posted:

fyi this isn't unusual for media outlets at all. most papers owned by a big company like gannett or tribune (i refuse to call them tronc) mandate a No Opinion Zone in reporters' social media presence, with obvious exceptions for people whose job it is to have opinions

wapo recently mandated you are not allowed to talk negatively of wapo sponsors in public

# ¿ Feb 27, 2018 04:26

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Shear Modulus posted:

it used to be they could just ignore everyone's feedback except other columnists at other papers and the handful of letters to the editor they decide to print but now all their critics are able to see that other people agree with them and there's enough plebs agreeing with each other that they have to respond at its just not fair!!!

the NYT probably preferred it when they could just do tight close-in shots of the iraq war protest

# ¿ Feb 27, 2018 04:48

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

GalacticAcid posted:

Paul Krugman is def a Keynesian lol

a keynesian who writes op-eds about how wall st didn't contribute significantly to the 2008 crash lol
https://twitter.com/adam_gillund/status/968325580541386752

# ¿ Feb 27, 2018 04:50

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Nebakenezzer posted:

One of the things the news used to do was to both report and contextualize what was going on. This got eroded over time, both by the "we don't have an interest" objectivity horseshit, and by "We report both sides!" even if one side believes the moon is made of rock, and the other side says it is made of cheese, and the center obviously thinkings the moon is some sort of milk-solid, maybe cheese curds and yogurt

Comedy news shows became popular in part because they felt very free to say the things reporters used to, like "this person is an imbecile, ironic considering their racist beliefs"

As Hunter S. Thompson once said: �So much for Objective Journalism. Don't bother to look for it here--not under any byline of mine; or anyone else I can think of. With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.�

objective journalism to the NYT means instead of pushing a rightwing narrative outright, they quote the heritage foundation pushing a rightwing narrative

# ¿ Feb 27, 2018 04:51

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

GalacticAcid posted:

I said he was a Keynesian, I didn�t say he was good

I didn't mean to accuse you of anything of the sort. Just putting what keynesian at the NYT means in context.

# ¿ Feb 27, 2018 04:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 16:28

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Main Paineframe posted:

lately i get mad whenever i see someone talking unironically about the "culture war" to describe things like "whether women have rights" or "whether it's legal to discriminate against LGBT people"

it's basic loving human equality. boiling it down to "culture" is too detached, like you're arguing about what tv show is good

this is the purpose of euphemisms and indirection in political discourse

it's also why politicians talk about entitlement reform instead of gutting medicare, medicaid, or social security

or segregation instead of racial apartheid

# ¿ Mar 3, 2018 09:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > NYTimes: The Quiet Magic of Middle Managers

«‹›21 »