The Exploitation of Paris
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
And the Guardian as usual did not disappoint: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/14/paris-a...
And the left-wing media not long ago had little difficulty exploiting the drowning death of a migrant child due to his father's involvement in human trafficking to justify mass immigration of Muslim economic migrants--at least some of whom we now know were involved in the horrific attack on Paris: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/14/us-france-shooting...
Consequently, the author's complaints of exploitation ring hollow.
Quite the contrary, they only corroborate it.
Two out of ~1 million. Two that were NOT actually part of those refugees, but instead just pretended to be refugees - perhaps because it made getting to France _just a little_ easier or perhaps even to incite hatred against the refugees which will then make for a wonderful group to recruit from.
This should be a call for peace, not war.
I'll take this seriously when the NTY introduces a moratorium on all breaking news and stops jumping on things when it fits their agenda but jump against it when it goes against their agendas.
To be sure, concealed carry etc. is anathema to European society and also isn't the answer... Just look at iraq lots of weapons by civilians, it does not stop terrorism..But I have to laugh at their indignation of opportunism.
Do you have any? The fact that many repeat it, especially inside an ideological echo chamber, doesn't make it likely to be true.
1) I see nothing substantive, only nit-picking over wording. In particular, the NR critic often just comes up with a different way of writing the same thing, something anyone can do with any piece of writing. Much is wording that could go either way, and some depends on what the reporter actually saw. For example, maybe the reporter can't identify who threw the rocks and so can't say anything about them. Maybe the reporter saw a scuffle and not a riot; the NR critic doesn't offer evidence that the statement is in error. In general, it's an old propaganda technique: Just keep up a flood of criticism and people will think that some of it - just a little! - must be true. It's not. Professionals in the field of political maniuplation really do pull this stunt on a regular basis. Look how they demonize every Democratic leader, for example (Bill Clinton, Hillary, Obama). (Left-wingers do the same, but they have far less influence than platforms like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, and Rush - all the most popular in their industries.)
2) The National Review has an avowed agenda of pro-conservative, anti-everything else commentary. This isn't the best source; they are going to find a way criticize the NY Times no matter what, true or not. Perhaps something from a study of journalism would be better (not that I realistically expect you to have that at your fingertips).
3) Reading the Israeli papers Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, I find that if the NY Times has any bias on any issue, it's not covering the bad things done by Israelis. The Israeli papers paint a much harsher picture of their own country. But I'm not sure I can make sense of it; of course the New York Times is not going to cover Israel in the same details as Israeli papers, so perhaps that explains the difference.
There are banal explanations for problems with coverage—reporters are in a hurry, editors are overloaded and distracted. These are realities, and can explain small errors and mishaps like ill-conceived headlines, which is why such details don’t typically strike me as important or worth much analysis. Some say inflations and omissions are the inevitable results of an honest attempt to cover events in a challenging and occasionally dangerous reporting environment, which is what I initially believed myself. A few years on the job changed my mind. Such excuses can’t explain why the same inflations and omissions recur again and again, why they are common to so many news outlets, and why the simple “Israel story” of the international media is so foreign to people aware of the historical and regional context of events in this place. The explanation lies elsewhere.
It's also pretty well documented that far more journalists are Democrats than Republicans, if that makes a difference.
What does it have to do with the New York Times though? I searched the article for references to them, and there is only one that isn't relevant to what we are talking about.
> It's also pretty well documented that far more journalists are Democrats than Republicans
And I assume that applies to NY Times reporters too. I agree it's a concern, but I don't think it necessarily affects people doing their jobs as professional journalists and we still need some evidence of it. Also, as I mentioned, the leading platforms in cable news, business news, and talk radio are heavily Republican; there's hardly a lack of balance.
Thanks again for the link.
My point is that even these "minor" nitpicks add up, and if they consistently point a particular way, that means something. The original NYTimes article referenced clearly played down one side, you don't get such awkward phrasing by accident.
I agree it's a concern, but I don't think it necessarily affects people doing their jobs as professional journalists and we still need some evidence of it.
See http://journalism.indiana.edu/general-news/news/press-releas...
* Also, as I mentioned, the leading platforms in cable news, business news, and talk radio are heavily Republican; there's hardly a lack of balance.*
The example you gave of business news is the WSJ, which http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/M... finds to be more liberal than the NYTimes in news articles.
I disagree on both counts, but I think I'm about to repeat myself ...
> the WSJ, which http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/pdfs/M.... finds to be more liberal than the NYTimes in news articles.
Interesting, but that study is from before the News Corp (i.e., Rupert Murdoch, Fox News proprieter) bought it.
Second, I don't follow memes, some of my views will fall left, some will fall right. It's irrelevant to me where they 'fall' their classification. I only care that they are my views. A shorthand would be I consider myself non-aligned. No one is going to come to your recue in your time of need, ideology nor anything else.
If not, you could do worse than just reading the column of the New York Times' public editor, who's responsible for handing questions from readers and issues of journalistic integrity. Often, when coverage is particularly slanted, some acknowledgement of that will eventually show up there. For instance, here's what she wrote on the New York Times' Benghazi coverage:
Here’s my take: The angry criticism of The Times on Benghazi has been based largely on politics, not journalism, and fomented by Fox News. (The conspiracy narrative goes like this: The Times is a liberal newspaper unwilling to take on a liberal president and his administration.) In fact, what’s been written in The Times has been solid. But my sense is that, starting last fall, The Times has had a tendency to both play down the subject, which has significant news value, and to pursue it most aggressively as a story about political divisiveness rather than one about national security mistakes and the lack of government transparency. Many readers would like to see more on that front, and so would I.
This can cut both ways, of course - I recall how she recently found the NYT's coverage was being regrettably dismissive of Bernie Sanders.
> Would you really be convinced by any critique of the New York Times coming from a conservative source? There are many of them and they're not hard to find.
My point (maybe made to someone else) is lots of bullshit is a just a big pile of bullshit. Lots of lies don't make for truth. Of course the Times is a target of conservative sources, the same that say climate change is in doubt, but does lots of repetition by them make it true? Did it make the Iraq War turn out any better?
I would like to read some more scholarly sources. Unforunately, while I don't object to conservativism at all, so much of it is wrapped up in ideology (which I do object to) that it's hard to find a good source. Do you know one that isn't ideological?
Czech rep. has concealed carry
... I prefer these conspiracy nuts to the pundits; they have a better excuse. But that itself is quite sad.
Please, stop that disinformation campaign, the guy who creates that video isn't totally neutral [1].