The New York Times (10/31/15) used to think taking away “the only tool citizens have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices” was a bad thing.
“Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice” was a headline on a groundbreaking New York Times report (10/31/15) from 2015. Reporters Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Robert Gebeloff looked into the fine-print “agreements” that people sign, usually without reading them, as a requirement for obtaining credit card memberships or cellphone contracts or internet service—contracts that tell you that if there is any problem with your account, the company “may elect to resolve any claim by individual arbitration.”
The Times reporters rightfully described those nine words as “the center of a far-reaching power play orchestrated by American corporations.” Because, as they explained and illustrated at length, “inserting individual-arbitration clauses into a soaring number of consumer and employment contracts” is
a way to circumvent the courts and bar people from joining together in class-action lawsuits, realistically the only tool citizens have to fight illegal or deceitful business practices.
That was vital, critical reporting. Fast forward to today, and another company silently snuck a forced arbitration clause into its terms of service—and that company is the New York Times.
Public Citizen was among those unable to ignore the hypocrisy of a company that had called out a practice signing up to employ that same practice itself. In its letter to the Times‘ chief executive officer, Public Citizen noted the “ironic twist” of a paper that has told its readers that forced arbitration venues “bear little resemblance to court,” and are instead used “to create an alternate system of justice” by virtually privatizing the justice system, now characterizing those same arbitrators, in its updated terms of service, as “neutral.”
We have long noted that media corporations that are themselves anti-union can hardly be trusted to report fairly on unions and organizing. This is just another reminder that while we pick up the paper looking for reporting that simply offers a clear-eyed view on important events, what we are in fact getting is the product of a profit-driven organization, beholden to advertisers and shareholders, that may not set out to harm its readers, but that simply does not have their interest as its first priority.
It doesn’t mean don’t read the paper. It does mean read it carefully. And don’t believe everything you read.
See “Workers Are Increasingly Required to Sign Away Their Rights,” transcript of CounterSpin show (2/19/21).
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter: @NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.
Well, thankfully, it’s really easy to read the NYT online without any subscription whatsoever.
But this kind of thing is to be expected.
It would be nice to elaborate on what you mean by this Jay, unless your just being facetious. I am a subscriber to NYT online, not because I have any particular fondness for it, but for its occasional need. As I remember it, the NYT allows the reading of 5 articles for free. After that you must be a subscriber. I subscribed because it was only $1 every 4 weeks for a year. That was the introductory price. After that year, the price increases to $4 every 4 weeks, after which I will not be a subscriber.
It is very possible, and satisfying, to never read the NYT. You will hear all about any decent articles that slip through their corporate filters elsewhere, so nothing lost. Save your money to donate to smaller, more honest outlets, like FAIR, who actually need the money.
I agree John, except for something Noam Chomsky said. He said you cannot have a complete grasp on what’s going on in the world without reading the NYT. That the first thing he does in the morning is read that paper. I’m not sure I believe him, but it is Chomsky after all. I will never forgive the NYT for getting Iraq 2003 so completely wrong. Writers like Thomas Friedman, David Brooks and Charles Krauthammer got their analysis of that conflict and the events leading up to it 180 degrees wrong. Were they punished in any way for blatant mistakes of issues of so much import? On the contrary they were promoted. It was certainly 2, it may have been as many as a 4 book deal Friedman subsequently enjoyed.
Thank you so much for this, Janine Jackson. This is simply the knowledge we need. I am no subscriber of the NYT, and maybe because my browser is a bit more privacy-sensitive – I cannot even read 1 article per month^^. I just get told I had reached my free articles, without having read 1^^. This is something the NYT can’t be blamed for, they just chose they don’t seem to like browsers that care for more privacy, lesser cookies etc. I was told to install google chrome, but stay with my good one.
So without being able to read the NYT I of course had no idea about the older and good article the NYT now seems to have forgotten. Well, in our “in-scene yourself daily new” era this is quite a common way. To report about this is always a very good thing, thank you!
Oh NEW YORK TIMES—– you duck and cover!
You tell us NEWS is you—no other!
Democracy—you throttle—
NO truthiness– you ought to!
Alas –you have joined with BIG BROTHER!
Sent to NYT Jan 16: Hello,
I am against the New York Times mandating its subscribers to contractually forfeit their legal rights to the courts with respect to their interactions, and the adoption of binding arbitration in its stead.