How the New York Times defines bias (sorry I took so long to get around to this one)


This post is by Unknown from West Coast Stat Views (on Observational Epidemiology and more)


Former NYT editorial page editor James Bennet’s book length op-ed is stunningly bad by every standard we would conventionally use to judging editorial. I sent a link to a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist I greatly respect (I quote him often enough you may be able to guess who). He summed it up as “complete horseshit.” Beyond its obscene length (around twenty-five pages), it is self-serving, structureless, tone deaf, misrepresentative, oblivious to what those on the other side were actually saying, petty, and so painfully smug you want to see someone punch him in the face. In this bloated account, all of the problems of the New York Times and the country as a whole come down to weak and short-sighted people not listening to brave figures like James Bennet.

For those, however, who have been studying the New York times, trying to understand the increasing dysfunction of the country’s most influential newspaper, much of this is unintentionally useful. Not useful enough to read the whole goddamn thing, but it does provide some highly telling passages, such as…
But Sulzberger seems to underestimate the struggle he is in, that all journalism and indeed America itself is in. In describing the essential qualities of independent journalism in his essay, he unspooled a list of admirable traits – empathy, humility, curiosity and so forth. These qualities have for generations been helpful in contending with the Times’s familiar problem, which is liberal bias. I have no doubt Sulzberger believes in them. Years ago he (Read more…)