FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
In its nonstop campaign against the government of Venezuela, the New York Times is now forced to lean on the thin reed of Paraguay’s ultra-rightist government, which took power in elections widely characterized by fraud, as even the Timesnoted when they occurred.
Chase’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, was given prime space on the New York Times’ op-ed page to declare that his bank was doing something about “wage stagnation” and “income inequality” by “giving thousands of employees a raise.”
In an article headlined “The NY Times Is Normalizing Fascism by Running Marine Le Pen’s Column,” AlterNet’s Sarah Lazare cited FAIR’s Jim Naureckas on the Times publishing an op-ed by the far-right French leader.
“The Supreme Court Drifts to the Left.” That’s the message of a chart that takes up a good chunk of some of the most valuable journalistic real estate in the world, the top half of the front page of the New York Times. Only—that’s not what this chart shows at all.
A New York Times column by Phillippe Legrain denounced the supporters of Brexit by noting their contempt for economic expertise. It then went on to demonstrate good reasons for such contempt.
For establishment outlets like the New York Times, more important than Bernie Sanders dropping out of the race is that his core policy goals be dismissed as fantasy. In its editorial look back at the Sanders campaign, the Times did some ideological policing.
Critics do not generally need to seek permission nor pay royalties for quotations from the works they criticize—the “fair use” provision in copyright law authorizes such quotes for the purposes of commentary and criticism. But the New York Times, it seems, has a very restrictive view of fair use when it comes to its own material.
It is likely that performers will get less than 10 cents for every dollar of lost benefits to consumers, and their take may well end up being less than one cent per dollar. Unfortunately, the New York Times never mentioned these losses at all, ignoring the well-known benefits of free trade.
“Hillary’s fibs or lack of candor are all about bad judgments she made on issues that will not impact the future of either my family or my country,” says Thomas Friedman, whereas “Trump and Bernie Sanders have been getting away with some full Burger King Double Whoppers that will come crashing down on the whole country if either gets the chance to do what he says.”
The New York Times sneered at a growing movement against Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson, who is now being criticized for recommending—and getting—a no-jail sentence for the police officer who killed Akai Gurley in 2014.
This is Bad Journalism 101: You come up with a thesis, like “Bernie Sanders is going to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of beating Donald Trump.” You take your thesis to your source, and ask them to agree with it; like any sensible spokesperson, they decline to comment on it. You take their no-comment as an endorsement of your thesis—and that becomes the lead headline in the nation’s most influential newspaper.
“A neighbor came to her as soon as the man at the top of the stairs alerted her, and cradled Kitty in her arms as they waited for the ambulance. I think that detail is significant, because it shows that this is not what was then made out to be true. This was a neighborhood of people who, once they knew that their Kitty was in trouble, acted.”
“When Did Optimism Become Uncool?” wonders a New York Times Sunday Review piece by Gregg Easterbrook. “The country is, on the whole, in the best shape it’s ever been in,” Easterbrook writes. “So what explains all the bad vibes?” It would be easier to be optimistic if the case for optimism didn’t involve so much manipulation and misrepresentation.
Those reading New York Times Real Estate sections on a quiet Saturday morning aren’t expecting in-depth investigations. But the uncritical adoption of industry language has the paper of record either repeating or allowing others to repeat rather tone-deaf colonial language and tropes.
Andrew Ross Sorkin (New York Times, 4/28/16) presented a confused account of the state of the economy and economic policy under President Barack Obama. The account repeats many self-serving comments from Obama without comment and offers little useful context to readers.
A New York Times op-ed by Michael Lind called “Trumpism and Clintonism Are the Future” is a good guide to how the wishful thinking of the pundit class will likely lead them to misread the clear message of the 2016 elections.
When the Washington Post and New York Times are making the same corporate-friendly point, it’s safe to assume that some PR agency somewhere is earning its substantial fees. In this case, the subject is the need for nuclear power.
The first thing the New York Times wants you to know about Sanders’ media criticism is that it’s wrong–because Sanders fails to appreciate the brave new media world.
A new report from FAIR looks at a year’s worth of anonymity in the New York Times, with media critic Reed Richardson taking an in-depth look at how unnamed sources were used in the paper in 2015.
Far from being a “last resort,” anonymous sources remain stubbornly common within the New York Times, and are even more likely to be found lurking among high-profile and front-page stories.
