A short Times news article reports on Senate developments on climate change:
From a New York Times news article on Camille Cosby (which carries a Serge Kovaleski byline, suggesting that the Times has deployed one of its biggest investigative bigfoots to the Cosby story, which it has been treating with relative restraint):
If Camille Cosby can't get a letter to the Times published complaining about downplaying a racial angle in coverage of her own child's killing, what hope does any mere ordinary mortal stand in trying to challenge the newspaper's coverage in its own columns?
A dispatch from Seoul about a defector from North Korea whose story has changed says the defector's story was "memorialized in a 2012 book, 'Escape from Camp 14,' by a former Washington Post reporter that has been published in 27 languages."
It's pretty funny that now that there is a problem with the story, the Times is referring to the author of the book, Blaine Harden, as "a former Washington Post reporter." Back when it came out, Times columnist and former executive editor Bill Keller wrote that "Harden's book, besides being a gripping story, unsparingly told, carries a freight of intelligence about this black hole of a country."
The Times has a news article about the FBI director's objection to the Times' granting of anonymity to a source the newspaper described as a member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula:
Under the split-infinitive headline "Condoleezza Rice Testifies on Urging The Times to not Run Article" comes a Times news story that includes this paragraph:
There are no hyperlinks and no further details about any of this, all of which came as news to me, and I follow this sort of thing, albeit not obsessively. What happened to the CIA officer arrested in Pakistan? What happened to the American businessman? What was the name of the country where the drone strike was being considered? Times readers might reasonably wonder about these things, and the news article is, alas, no help, just a tease.
There are already three corrections appended to a New York Times news article about how Fox News and Rupert Murdoch reacted to the Paris terrorist attacks. so I hesitate to pile on. But this sentence — "Another prominent author, Matt Haig, wrote on his Twitter account: 'On behalf of white people I'd like to apologize for Rupert Murdoch.'"— is an example of an editing lapse at the time that I find grating enough to mention. If someone is really a prominent author, shouldn't the Times respect the cultural literacy of its readers enough not to find it necessary to remind them of that fact?
In reality, when you see the Times throwing around terms like "eminent" or "prominent" or "famous" or "authoritative," it's usually a subtle signal that the person about to be quoted isn't actually any of those things, but is in agreement with the Times on some issue, and so therefore qualifies for the privilege of being puffed up by the Times with some sort of inflationary adjective.
A front-page Times news article describes Nevada governor Brian Sandoval, Tennessee governor Bill Haslam, Ohio governor John Kasich, and Michigan governor Rick Snyder as moderate pragmatists. Remember that one for when or if one of them is named as a Republican vice presidential candidate and the Times and the Democrats immediately characterize them as extremist and reactionary conservatives.
No one quite understands how off the mark the press can be until it writes about a subject you know firsthand. So it is with a Times commercial real estate dispatch on Worcester — which has been lingering all week on the Times most-emailed story list — in which any journalistic skepticism is suspended, and the city is described as a kind of paradise:
A front-page Times news article on the new Republican Congress includes this passage:
At National Review, Quin Hillyer has an account of his interview with Jonathan Martin of the New York Times: "Yes, he quoted the words accurately, but so entirely out of context as to be nearly 180 degrees — call it 175 degrees — from the patently clear message I was giving."
"Much of David Duke's '91 Campaign Is Now Louisiana Mainstream" is the headline over a Times news article by a freelance contributor, Jeremy Alford.
The article claims: "Two decades later, much of his campaign has merged with the political mainstream here, and rather than a bad memory from the past, Mr. Duke remains a window into some of the murkier currents in the state's politics where Republicans have sought and eventually won Mr. Duke's voters, while turning their back on him."
The article's premise seems unsupported by facts. The only thing close to evidence is the assertion, "Mr. Duke supported forcing welfare recipients to take birth control. Now there are near-perennial attempts by members of the Louisiana Legislature to give welfare recipients drug tests." It seems to me there is a difference between forced birth control and attempts (apparently unsuccessful) to make welfare conditional on a drug test.
The New York Times greeted Christmas with not just one but two op-ed pieces about how atheists should approach the holiday. That seemed a bit much even for the Times, but I suppose that paper's editors know their audience better than I do.
The New York Times manages to write an entire news article about Florida passing New York in population without using the word "tax."
"population experts said that the new rankings probably had more to do with longstanding immigration trends — large concentrations of people from Central and Latin American staking out new lives in Florida — than with economic development policies," the Times reports.
What about the people from New York staking out new lives in Florida? And what would the Times ever do without "experts"?
The Times attributes Florida's population growth to "air-conditioning."
For the record, Florida has no state income tax, while New York City and state combined have some of the highest top rates in the whole country.
A Times dispatch about the presidential campaign of Ben Carson refers to him as "a retired pediatric neurosurgeon" but also, repeatedly, as "Mr. Carson" rather than "Dr. Carson." On Twitter, a Times social media editor responded to my question about it by citing Times style to the effect that "Dr. should be used in all references for physicians...whose practice is their primary current occupation."
Subscribe to the Mailing List
© 2015 FutureOfCapitalism LLC