by moshe 23 Replies latest social current
The New York Times has again and again proven over the past decade that it is only a grim shadow of its former self.
At least the NYT is reporting the story ----- reporters from all news outlets are subjected to this same practice.
What other papers are reporting this story?
tal
Sometimes a newspaper does report unpleasant political stories, that have factual information and leave it up to the readers to draw their own conclusions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ july 17th news conference/2012/07/17/gJQAHcARsW_video.html
For several decades I have noticed that frequently the tabloids are the first to report stories the press chooses to censor out and when it finally breaks into mainstream news, people are unaware this really is six month old news.
The reporters who agree to these conditions should really add a header in brackets that the story was edited by the source. We might be shocked to find out how much news copy has been adulterated to protect a politician's image.
MOSHE:
I never really believed that what papers printed was 100% truth anyway and every paper has its own slant which makes me angry. I could never stand reading a piece through the eyes of somebody who was totally left/right. Some papers I wouldn't buy at all and think they are just garbage to line a birdcage.
What I suspected all along is true and just another reason not to waste my money or soil my hands.
When are ppl going to wake up and see that our governments are FASCIST.
In my case about fifteen years ago, which is why I generally oppose programs that give the government more power over my life, no matter how well intentioned it is.
I stopped buying their trash years ago............
call me stupid or not, i draw conclusion from what i see.
their stories are really one big commercial (look at wt dc propaganda released yearly)
Grow up. A reporter normally asks what level of attirbution is involved: background, name, "a source close to the scene," etc. There are different levels of background, too. I'm not a journalist but I do these levels of attribution are used. Wikipedia must have an article. Indeed, I took a political campaign course where they warned candidates to never be off-guard with reporters. Never. YOu always have to say in what capacity you are making the statement.
If the NYT quotes a senior official (usually the public official involved), it makes sense to quote accurately.
News is very competitive. Now that people are relying on their own sources, and not just doing corporate news, every reporter wants something current and sensational.
Perhaps I am thick but I do not see the news in this news. It sounds so old hat that it goes back way before Spencer and Tracey films and Woodward and Bernstein.
Reporters and officials have to be in bed together for the system to function. There are boun
daries, however. Why don't you cite some concrete examples of a particular type of story that the NYT is soft on now compared to ten years ago? I read it every single day. First, I don't know how in a paper with such wide coverage, how one can frame the issue? Reporters and editors come and go.
The elite papers are beholden to their digital sales, not to politicans. Some sophistication is needed.
I can report that the New York Post and Daily News are as stupid as ever. One thing I will give them credit where credit is due. I believe they are terrible at reporting national and international news. The Times doesn't cover NYC news enough. Sometimes one is forced to compromise one's morals just to see what is happening in the city. My quarrel is with the Times' City Desk, though.
Interesting, b/c you don't strike me as a journalist nor a veteran New York Times reader? Is the Paris Review going to be critiqued, too?
I did notice that they were vicious toward Elliot Spitzer and Charlie Rangel. They prob. had a good idea what was happening and waited to have proof.
Of course, a New York Times buff, such as yourself, knows to get in touch with the NYT Ombudsmen.
The news media has sold out their credibility for a mess of pottage. They need to stand united against political alterations of their stories, but alas, a few greedy and obsequious reporters and editors have ruined it for all. We will probably see more hard information about Obama and Romney this election year from the BBC than from NBC,ABC, CBS, etc
I saw a Canadian journalist interviewed during the Iraq invasion. She had been 'embedded' with the troops.
They were told exactly what they could and could not report on. She is a seasoned journalist (Susan Ormiston). She expressed her shock and outrage at being censored.
I remember the Vietnam years -- we didn't know what was *really* happening over there until later. Nothing has changed.
JeffT -- agree with you philosophically.
tal
I may be mistaken but I believe that reporters were not embedded in Viet Nam, which is why they have been embedded in subsequent actions. I can see a need for national security that reporters transmitting reports back home may compromise security. There had to be some restraint even in Viet Nam. When the Marines landed in Beirut, for example, I recall Tom Brokaw, siiting in a lawn chair on the beach covering the landing. It seemed to be a farce. He kept repeating that reporters accompanying the troops could not report freely.
I don't see embedding as so bad as long as news consumers are aware what embedding entails and the new media still carry traditional reporting methods. My hunch is that few Americans or other citizens are aware that the info is completely monitored by the Pentagon. I know that there are minimum time limits imposed.
When the policy changed, all reporters made a big point that they could not report freely. I don't hear those provisos anymore. Maybe they still exist but I don't hear it anymore.
I apologize if my comments were too barbed. It was late at night and I was overly tired. The NYT is important b/c it is a reference source for all players. I keep reading that competition from wikipedia and other sources has curtailed its impact. When I worked on the HIll or in NY, no business seemed to be transacted without reference to the Times, first, WAshington POst, second in D.C., but third in NY, and the Wall St. Journal, second in Y but thrid in DC. I keep reading that the LA Times has superb political reporting. Politico and all those sites now exist.
One thing that sets America apart from perhaps any other country - at least, to my knowledge - is the fact that they declassify information after some time. Censorship really happened, but at least later historians can know what really happened
I think this editing is a violation even to that spirit. What kind of national security interest is at stake if you say that Mitt Romney said something stupid? Does he even have formal political power? I don't know, but it is my impression that he doesn't. My impression is that letting your notes be edited by Romney is even worse - in a sense - than letting them be edited by Obama; at least Obama would have real power to squeeze you.
The practice of embedding a journalist means the journalist isn't free to report and is there as a public relations person. In my opinion, we should not deceive ourselves and think otherwise. Can this journalist choose where to go?
It may be interesting to mention that in Mexico sometimes it is the drug barons that get the news first, and then they decide what gets published. I wonder if that also happens elsewhere. I can't think that it's only politicians who do it.
