Has the NYT lost its journalistic integrity/credibility?
It seems to me that Wall Street and Silicon Valley folks are becoming increasingly skeptical of the New York Times. I think before the Trump administration it used to be viewed as a more neutral paper, but it's definitely shifted significantly to the left to the point where it's no longer readable to some extent. Before the last election, they published Trump's tax returns that were obtained illegally from a disgruntled IRS employee. The hit pieces against Ray Dalio and Bill Ackman this past year seem to push speculative narriatives with very little conclusive evidence to support them. It seems the line between the editorial and actual news sections is becoming increasingly blurred and the headlines are incredibly baity sometimes. Elon recently called it the "New Woke Times" in a tweet and there was a convo between Suhail(startup guy) and Paul Graham talking about this on Twitter too. At least with the WSJ, they don't editorialize in the other sections. Is anyone else troubled by the amount of people that continue to rely on the NYT as an objective news source?
If you look back far enough this has been going on a while, they haven't recently lost it. Now it's just that much more obvious and harder to hide.
NYT credibility is VERY low outside the coastal lib elite. I don't know how much, if any, those lib coastal elites (outside perhaps Finance professionals) are really questioning it. What's new is:
- Way more influential people questioning it like Elon or the All-In podcast folks for example
- Israel / Hamas war is actually tearing them in two right now (i.e. Bill Ackman)
The typical brainwashed 25yr old white female lib in marketing isn't changing her mind on any of this though.
I'm just hoping Trump gets elected and continues turning the tide. We've already got folks like Elon and Bill Ackman now fighting back, Twitter is now owned by Elon which is awesome, there's real pushback even among Asians (primarily due to the Black on Asian crime which libs ignore alongside libs gutting AP classes & schooling because 'muh racusm' which makes 0 sense), AA now banned, MANY hispanic and even black voters now turning against the Dems, etc. So there's a lot of positive momentum building against the Dems -- the one thing they have is abortion. Eventually that will becomes non issue as states codify their laws to allow a Roe v Wade scenario and the Republicans are forced to stop railing against it but will unforunately still be a net negative for Republicans this election cycle
For my piece, I only read WSJ and Financial Times re mainstream media. The Economist has gotten unbearably hyper lib in the past 5-6yrs so I don't get near that anymore. Bloomberg also solid but I don't subscribe
Elon has been k-holed the last 5 years, dude is insane
I’m not intimately acquainted with all his business ventures, though from the outside it seems like a miracle that he’s still in business, especially considering all the quality control issues with Tesla. I’m wondering how much longer he could possibly keep this all up.
Dont care for Elon, and never have, but his most vocal criticis 100% were the same group that were absolutely sucking him off 5-10 years ago. The only change being made is they received new marching orders from the media that they blindly consume hand to mouth.
Are you joking? 90% of the MSM is owned by pro-Israel Zionists.
Lmao the New York Times is very well known for being anti-Israel. Has been for decades. I can provide you many documented cases and articles about this. Just because it isn’t the Middle East eye or whatever BS Hamas publication you’re reading, doesn’t mean it isn’t wildly left leaning and trying to conform to this crazy oppressor/ oppressed narrative. 1619 project is in the same vein. Define Zionism for me while you’re at it and try to touch some grass outside of your encampment. Let me guess you prefer Al Jazeera
It’s been trash for awhile
Every news publication that I don't 100% agree with is trash. Don't question me on this.
Lol, the NYT is trash because it misleads its readers by omitting context and relies on unreliable sources to push out inflammatory headlines before they can be verified. Just see what they did with the Gaza hospital story for example. They hastily relied on the account of Hamas officials that pinned the blame on Israel when it was actually a Hamas rocket from nearby that misfired. They never bothered to verify and correct the story until they got a ton of backlash online. I suggest you also look at Bill Ackman's tweets discussing the inaccuracies in NYT stories about him.
And Fox News doesn’t do the same exact thing on the other side?
I don't read the NYT bro, relax
Seriously. The fact that both Zionist colonizers and the Hamas apologists accuse The Times of being extremely biased in their coverage just shows how much the average person is allergic to facts that don't fit their narrative.
Enfranchising the average voter was a mistake.
Nah it wasn't a mistake, this is just an equal parts comedic and unfortunate side effect of our system. Lesser of evils yk
Zionist colonizer 😂 which encampment are you writing this from and what shade of purple is your hair?
Anyone who reports on Trump’s insane behavior is woke? I guess news organizations are just supposed to not comment on the fact a major presidential candidate is embroiled in multiple criminal proceedings, posting insane things on his social media account and just keeps acting like a wannabe dictator. Ok Nancy.
I believe Elon was referring to an article called "The Racial Bias Built into Photography" when he said that.
You have absolutely zero idea what it means to live under a dictator you weasel. Quite pathetic seeing adults behave like histrionic adolescents.
The typical refrain from Trump bootlickers and sycophants.
He doesn’t wanna be a dictator!
Please ignore Jan 6th or the fact he spoke about a Reich recently or the fact he’s publicly said he would consider lifting two terms for presidents! Thats just rhetoric and embellishment, he didn’t actually mean it!
The NYT has always had a strong liberal/leftist bias. This became much more apparent after Trump's 2016 victory, which significantly impacted the newsroom's mental health and the paper's overall coherence (see for instance the Times' take on the "Deep State").
At this point, it's quite clear that the NYT editorial board and its reporters see themselves as propaganda agents for the Democratic Party and they make no effort to hide it.
I found that Michael J. Glennon’s ‘National Security & Double Government’ provided a fairly articulate presentation of the ‘deep state’ from both a historical and modern perspective. It’s honestly quite laughable that there are people, let alone journalists at influential papers, who try the spin the existing and ever-growing influence of unelected bureaucrats as a vague non-existent boogeyman.
The NYT also has the same double standard regarding the "Great Replacement Theory".
It's happening and it should be celebrated:
Also, it's a conspiracy theory backed by bigots:
Why are you comparing an opinion article and a normal news article and acting like the same person wrote them? That's disingenuous.
Are you implying that Michelle Goldberg, opinion columnist at the NYT, is a far right conspiracy theorist - according to the words of the newsroom of her own paper?
No, of course she isn't. The editorial line of the newsroom and the opinion section is the same because the editors in charge of giving the green light to what is getting published in both sections are the same people.
It's laughable to argue that there is a distinction to be made between the newsroom and the opinion section of the Times as if the newsroom wasn't as biased to the Left as the paper's in-house columnists.
Read "The Gray Lady Winked" - they've been on the wrong side of history many many many times for basically their entire history.
Yes they mislead readers with their liberal bs. It’s a good thing Fox News is around because they provide the full and real truth brother. All left news is fake all right news is true
ITT: people who cannot differentiate between the news and opinion sections of a paper.
Google Walter Duranty.
He was an NYT reporter in the 1930s who won a Pulitzer for his articles downplaying (and later outright denying) the famines in Soviet Ukraine. The Pulitzer Board and the NYT both refuse to revoke his award.
That tells you all you need to know about j*urnalists.
This isn't just the NYT. For most of media history the ability of narratives to be disseminated was held within a very restrictive set of institutions. Those institutions generally had a relatively slightly left of center bias. Then Newscorp changed the game by creating a platform that spoke to a very specific, I am aware that there are a huge variety of groups that are right of center, subset of the population. This forced the legacy media platforms to fight over the remaining population. News went from being a generally accepted "reality" in an occupied by not flooded market, to a red sea with ever decreasing barriers of entry. Incumbents were slow to adapt, outright hostile to competition, and generally took the worst possible strategy of audience building. They circled the wagons internally, shunned anyone who thought differently then they did, openly mocked half of the country at every possible opportunity, and rapidly devolved into an internal struggle of who can out virtue signal everyone else. Management completely lost control of the organizations, the wolves started feasting on one another, technology continued to erode the moats these orgs have, and bloated operating budgets began to kill news organizations.
I wouldn't say this is a problem of bias, although that is obviously a symptom of this, I would say this is a problem of competency. In a business of falling revenues, massive hubris and ego, and ballooning costs you are bound to have this kind of outcome. You have to fill roles with people who are okay with taking shit pay and working long hours. The people most likely to do that are those with ulterior motives, aka activists or trust fund kids, aka activists.
I mean, I think you're close to something here, but just missing it.
Newscorp realized that a huge swath of this country wasn't actually interested in the news, they were interested in being entertained in a way that reinforced their biases. Well, that applies to all people, so what I should say is this. That a huge swath of this country was being left behind by largely unstoppable forces of globalization and changing cultural mores, and that reading about that wasn't going to cater to their biases, so Rupert Murdoch hit upon the genius idea of not bothering with journalism at all, but feeding his viewers/readers the opinions they wanted to hear, wrapped up in the veneer of "the news". And in the process completely swallowed an entire political demographic. Brilliant business model. And it essentially forced most "mainstream" media outlets to drift leftwards, because they weren't going to capture Fox's viewers and Newscorp just proved brilliantly that people don't want to be informed, they want to be entertained, and that anyone who can do that while making people think they're being informed can make a mint. So that's what other media companies did, except they went after liberals instead of conservatives.
Papers like the NYT still have excellent journalists, excellent journalistic standards, and still do the things that the "press" are supposed, really really well. It's just that less and less time, space, and resources are being devoted to those things, and way more is being given over to opinion pieces and editorials, because that is what people want to read and hear and see. Feeding outrage to your readers is far more profitable than doing actual journalism, and we have Newscorp to thank for that realization.
Newscorp didn't realize that news as entertainment was a strategy. That has been known for decades before that. Take a look at what kind of stories news companies covered before that. It was blood, crime, and scandal. Your assertion that Newscorp is just bias feeding isn't a shocking revelation. That has been the business of the news for all of history.
As for places like the NYT having "excellent journalists" is a fucking joke. They are filled with ideological activists. The fundamentals of the news business do not allow them to employ anyone but people who will take lower pay because it gives them a megaphone to push their stupid ideas.
WSJ & NYT all pro Israel
Personally I stopped paying any attention to the NYT after they published the 1619 project, which was chalked full of such utter falsehoods it should be considered journalistic malpractice. But thanks to the likes of Fox and CNN it all seems relatively benign.
As someone in politics, I would definitely say that less and less people are reading it. Granted, I very rarely work with far left or right people because of how centric lobbying is. However, even when I was on the Hill, it was only the staffers in very left leaning offices (think Warren/Hirono) who actually referenced it. I was in a conservative office, but the Hill is like a mini college, and eventually you meet people from both sides of the aisle. My .02 will echo other comments, and that is unless you are a 50-year-old liberal on a coast you probably aren't reading it. Punchbowl is the big thing down here in DC (started by ex-Politicos) and Roll Call also has a substantial following. Long way to say that I think NYT is totally losing its educated readers who aren't stuck in echo chambers.
Haven't paid attention to them in years
I mean, it's important to distinguish between the reporting and the opinion pieces.
The Times' journalism is excellent. It's still the best newspaper from that perspective. It's op ed section has gotten more left wing. The problem that a lot of conservative WSO posters are going to run into below is that they can't distinguish actual journalistic content from opinion pieces, because most of the right wing media outlets have long since abandoned journalism in favor of being entertainment companies that pretend to be news outfits.
So yeah, the NYT is more left leaning than it was 20 years ago. Amusingly enough, or sadly enough depending on your perspective, this is largely the fault of Fox, which proved that feeding viewers/readers outrageous nonsense that pandered to what they wanted to hear was better business than actually reporting the news. Is it any surprise that the "mainstream media" decided to lean into that as well?
Bro, what the hell do you think the media exists for? You're acting like this is some kind of partisan crime when this is exactly what a free press is supposed to do. Expose corruption and demand accountability from political, social, financial elites. I'm not saying that the NYT don't push the preferred narratives of their editorial board, which is obviously anti-Trump, but this is the kind of shit that newspapers are supposed to do. I would fucking love it if Fox decided to become a news outlet and go out and leak things that Democrats are trying to hush up, instead of just making shit up and then pushing it down the throats of their viewers.
Mainstream media appears more and more left wing because American conservatives are drifting further and further right. Like, we should not be normalizing the fact that Mr Trump suborned the State Department and any pretense of acting on behalf of the country by sending his own personal lawyer to conduct shadow diplomacy with a foreign power for the express purpose of undermining a political opponent. That shouldn't be "one side of the argument," and the concept that merely because someone is willing to move the goalposts of decency and acceptable actions/discourse, doesn't mean we as a society should move with them.
Impedit et voluptas eligendi facere consequatur est nisi. Sed voluptatum cum laboriosam deserunt aut. Dolor deserunt cum ipsam qui. Rerum vitae voluptate incidunt rem illo qui dolores.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Aspernatur enim impedit distinctio laboriosam consequatur consequatur. Accusamus aliquam quia quia dolor. Iste dolore repudiandae eum quos labore voluptatum tempora. Dolorem veniam reiciendis deserunt est consectetur nulla natus. Est vel natus et voluptate et. Officiis qui a dolore laboriosam culpa totam cumque.
Consequatur veniam eligendi recusandae alias rerum harum ut molestiae. Hic dolor adipisci corporis voluptatum. Doloremque voluptate tempora fugiat nihil. Vel corporis autem voluptas ut dolore. Itaque nobis placeat vero velit et ab ipsum fuga.