@JamesGleick From a guy who teaches journalism at MIT:
https://balloon-juice.com/2024/08/09/the-new-york-times-is-an-arm-of-the-trump-campaign/
@bertwells @JamesGleick All of the corporate “news” entities are. He makes great copy. Plus, I think that the owners are just like the other billionaires—they think that despicable excuse for a human being will be “better” for their financial fortunes.
@JaneinNJ @bertwells @JamesGleick
The idea that one candidate is clearly better than the other is anathema to the mainstream media. It's just not a narrative they will countenance; they seek false balance, even counterbalance, at every turn.
While the right wing media has no such problem. That one candidate is the only acceptable one is their baseline position.
This does rather create an imbalance in reporting, and I don't know how to fix it.
@pieist @bertwells @JamesGleick @ProPublica (More) In the olden days, in the news media, editorial was separated from revenue and protected from having to be part of the product. The product was sales of what the commercials were about. Today, the equation is different and “eyeballs” drive revenue. Very different rationale for making editorial decisions.
@JaneinNJ @pieist @JamesGleick @ProPublica I personally find the "for the clicks/eyeballs" argument unpersuasive. Waves of folks have unsubscribed and boycotted them since 2016, to zero effect, and in fact they responded to public backlash by eliminating the position of Public Ombudsman /Editor in 2017. It could not be more evident that they are not doing it for the clicks, because the clicks keep going down, but the editorial bias, in their news section, continues unabated. The NYT pattern of support for Trump and oligarchic interests generally is well established by now.
The owners of the NYT are in the "oligarch" class of folks, and act in league with the class interests of oligarchs.
It is that simple. The NYT is a propaganda shop posing as a "center-left" source of journalism. It is no longer a matter of unsubscribing and click-boycotting them to change them, it is now simply a matter of doing it to keep one's head from being polluted by propaganda.
@bertwells @JaneinNJ @pieist @ProPublica “Waves of folks” is a little vague, you’ll admit. Do you have any knowledge of how many people have unsubscribed or boycotted because (like me) they are angry about the political coverage?
The Times does have some knowledge of that, and I guarantee they have exact knowledge of how much attention every article, of part of article, receives.
@JamesGleick @JaneinNJ @pieist @ProPublica Respectfully, it is no more vague than asserting that they are "doing it for the clicks" without data to support that assertion.
The owners of the Times do not share economic interests with either the middle or lower classes of New York or the United States at large. Their ownership of the NYT has been curiously immune to economic upturns and downturns over the last century. I find that odd, given the incredible churn ownership of media have experienced over that very large time span.
I realize that you and I lack the data that would allow us to settle the issue. But to me, Occam's razor in this case, along with the evidence of my eyes (the following two reviews of nyt "journalism" are just two among multitudes I could cite) leads me to believe that their bias is not "for the clicks". They are not fascists, they are a propaganda shop for oligarchs, who sometimes align themselves with fascists whenever it is in their interests to do so.
https://defector.com/if-kevin-roose-was-chatgpt-with-a-spray-on-beard-could-anyone-tell
https://balloon-juice.com/2024/08/09/the-new-york-times-is-an-arm-of-the-trump-campaign/
@bertwells @JamesGleick @pieist @ProPublica Clicks are part of the basis for computing the effectiveness of online content. I’m sure there are additional criteria, but they are in addition, not instead of.
@JaneinNJ @bertwells @pieist @ProPublica Yes, once you think you’re producing “online content” and measuring its “effectiveness,” news judgment is no longer relevant.
@JamesGleick @JaneinNJ @pieist @ProPublica But that explanation would predict a bias toward sensational content. I do not see that in NYT's output. They do not, in my experience, bias toward sensational output at all.
What I do see, in very large quantities, is narrative bias. I am not referring to nominally "editorial" output. It is the Time's nominal "news" content that is weirdly heavily infused with narrative, as opposed to fact-based reporting.
The NYT is not practicing journalism, from what I can see.
@bertwells @JaneinNJ @pieist @ProPublica But that’s exactly what I see. Trump is the epitome of “sensational content.” Was there any news in his “news conference”? One tidbit, almost by accident: that Trump gave in and agreed to the ABC debate. Yet they covered it ad nauseam. As always.
Horse-race coverage. Polls. Click-bait.
@JamesGleick @JaneinNJ @pieist @ProPublica I dont deny the point you make, but I think it misses the more important bias.
Case in point: Trump's deranged gabble in his "press conference" v Bidens terrible debate performance. Both "sensational" content. But in Bidens case, we got weeks of "mental fitness" narrative reporting from the Times. Trump's totally batshit nutty performance, doea not earn such narrative treatment somehow.
I dont think "for the clicks" explains this type of narrative bias.
@bertwells @JaneinNJ @pieist @ProPublica I agree with all that and said so at the time. More than one thing can be true.
@JamesGleick @JaneinNJ @pieist @ProPublica Agreed. I don't intend to argue with you. And for what its worth, I do not believe the nyt has made the overt choice to be "Fascist" either.
They are simply wholly aligned with Wall Street and the Oligarch class in America. Which has, unfortunately at this point in history, made the distinction "Fascists or merely Tools of Fascism?" a bit difficult for folks like me to give a damn about.
@bertwells @JamesGleick @pieist @ProPublica They definitely should be embarrassed. In the meantime, we, the public, must ensure that the fascists don’t take over our country.
@pieist @bertwells @JamesGleick Easy way to address it: corporate owners free their staff from servicing the bottom line. Our society has become very dangerously corporatized, with shareholder/owner profits as the yardstick for success. News reporting should be objective, not biased according to the ownership’s agenda. Nonprofits like @ProPublica are doing this, but many people these days still buy into the false equation that $$$=good.