I’m not sure if it’s a case of the top dog getting all the scrutiny, but it’s crazy to me how a company with so many good journalists can seem to have so many bad.
Much criticism is not even new (Manufactured Consent, Judith Miller).
I believe his father took on a more old school approach to keeping the news as neutral as possible, while still having a bit of your usual slant.
I read NYTimes daily for a decade and it's sad to see it decline as it has. I understand now just how much effort that must take, especially in the age of social media. I respect any news org that avoids the pull and pushes back on that sort of thing. But they are increasingly rare.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger_Jr.
They've had good pieces but pretty much every publication other than tabloids got those, Playboy published a number of great interviews and articles.
Worse, assuming they did have a golden age they’re using that reputation in laundering the likes of Brett Stephens.
As was the Washington Post, which started publishing soon after the NYT (and managed to fight off the injuction NYT did not). It's possible that the Post only started publishing because the NYT had started, but the value of the NYT itself in the scheme was… limited.
Edit: minor typo
I actually kind of assume, in my prejudice about the past, that if there had been a DSM in the 19th century, "being tired of work" would have been in it.
This is ironically how the News works. It's new - novel, interesting, unique, temporary.
We will stand up for Scott - but it won't really change anything, and it will be temporary. It's naive to think that what we find important for a bit will have any impact on the real world and real lives. Especially as this is literally what the News does and has done for a hundred or so years.
there are other simple strategies that can be put into place to make any defence of a person harder and most people will look at the surface representation and move on to the next story. Eventually the story about the story will itself fade away.
Who hasn't? I mean, I see your point and it would be correct in many cases but if people can use this so easily to score points against the NYT, they aren't going to be deterred by that. The online culture that likes to label anything and everything as "racist and toxic" would only make their point stronger.
Given these concerns, I have no clue what benefit a supportive forum like this would be. We might all be cheering him on and thinking highly of him, but that wouldn't change any of his concerns.
It means: Pressure the NYT. Write a polite but firm email that this is not an acceptable attitude. If you happen to be subscribed, unsubscribe, and point to this as the reason.
I also imagine that if he was doxxed and wasn't able to make a living as a psychiatrist anymore, many people here would probably fund him through patreon, or purchasing books or whatever.
Newspapers are bankrupt, specially the NYT,that earns more money in real state(newspapers own properties in the center of cities that are very expensive) than with journalism.
Newspapers gold days are long gone.
So when someone buys it, it is not for making good journalism but for buying a propaganda channel for the owner's own interest.
The good journalist do not matter, if they say anything that the owner does not approve they are instantly fired. So they auto censor themselves.
Journalist are people too, they have families that need shelter and food. Being independent usually means almost starving. Young idealistic single people usually do that until they pick the comfortable alternative.
What's different now is that people have more access to primary sources. The story says that the boy was 11, because kids in that grade are usually 11 and the reporter was lazy, but the boy was really 12.
In the world where only one organization in the city has a printing press, the boy is now officially 11 years old because nobody who knows any better has the means to contradict it. In the world where your cat can get more hits on YouTube than there are people in New York City, the inaccuracies get publicized left and right, and then, rightly or wrongly, people lose faith in the news media.
This is kind of what we asked for. Give everyone a chance to speak to the world instead of only a privileged few and you get all the stories instead of only the rich man's story.
The problem now is instead of one party telling you a lie you didn't know was a lie, you have two parties saying contrary things and you know they can't both be right but the average person has no way to know who to believe and also doesn't have the capacity to verify everything personally.
So we end up with camps who are absolutely convinced that the other camp is nothing but angry malicious idiots who can't see the truth, even though that's what they think about you.
This is verifiably untrue. As a public company, their balance sheets are public, and almost 90% of their revenue is accounted for by subscriptions and advertising.
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/71691/000007...
I haven't looked at the NYT balance sheets at all recently, so it's possible that I'm off the mark here, but a one time sale of a headquarters does not make them a real-estate company in my mind. To do that, you would need to demonstrate to me that they are regularly engaging in the transaction of property and buildings, instead of a one time sale.
So it's no exacting hot new news, sadly.
Walter Duranty.