The New York Times is one of the newspapers of record for the United States. However, it’s history of running stories with poor sourcing, insufficient evidence, and finding journalists with conflicts of interest undermines it’s credibility when reporting on international issues and matters of foreign policy.

Late last year, the NYT ran a story titled ‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7. Recently, outlets like The Intercept, Jacobin, Democracy Now! , Mondoweiss, and others have revealed the implicit and explicit bias against Palestine that’s apparent both in the aforementioned NYT story and in the NYT’s reporting at large. By obfuscating poor sources, running stories without evidence, and using an ex-IDF officer with no journalism experience as the author, the NYT demonstrates their disregard for common journalistic practice. This has led to inaccurate and demonstrably false reporting on critical issues in today’s world, which has been used to justify the lack of American pressure against Israel to the American public.

This journalistic malpractice is not unusual from the NYT. One of the keystone stories since the turn of the century was the NYT’s reporting on Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs: U.S. SAYS HUSSEIN INTENSIFIES QUEST FOR A-BOMB PARTS, Defectors Bolster U.S. Case Against Iraq, Officials Say, Illicit Arms Kept Till Eve of War, An Iraqi Scientist Is Said to Assert. These reports were later revealed to be false, and the NYT later apologized, but not before the reporting was used as justification to launch the War on Iraq, directly leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and indirectly causing millions of death while also destabilizing the region for decades.

These landmark stories have had a massive influence on US foreign policy, but they’re founded on lies. While stories published in the NYT do accurately reflect foreign policy aims of the US government, they are not founded in fact. The NYT uses lies to drum up public support for otherwise unpopular foreign policy decisions. In most places, we call that “government propaganda.”

I think reading and understanding propaganda is an important element of media literacy, and so I’m not calling for the ban of NYT articles in this community. However, I am calling for an honest discussion on media literacy and it’s relation to the New York Times.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    5510 months ago

    I’m not American and I almost never read the Times, so I don’t have first hand experience. But I hear the same rhetoric about outlets here in Canada.

    My take is that yes, outlets can have bias on certain issues, but that doesn’t mean we should write them off completely. Trust in media is at an all time low, journalism is struggling to survive. There’s no media outlet in the world that doesn’t make the kinds of mistakes that you outline here. The key is how do they respond to them after the fact. Do they issue corrections? How quickly? Where do they put them?

    Some of your ‘evidence’ also doesn’t seem like journalistic malpractice. For example, are they obfuscating poor sources, or not revealing an anonymous source? The latter is not malpractice. The former doesn’t sound bad either… Who decides if a source is poor? Maybe the source didn’t have much to contribute so that’s why there wasn’t much detail on their background. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong, just that as an outside observer that point doesn’t seem very bad.

    Anyway, I do think it’s important to be aware of any biases in the media we consume, so conversations like this are important. But my fear is that if the conclusion is to wholesale stop trusting the media anytime they make a mistake or a bias is revealed (I.e all media outlets), we’re going to be even more fucked than we already are.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      510 months ago

      After the fact, it’s being revealed that their “sources” are consistently wrong and consistently in line with US foreign policy objectives.

      You can say it’s a coincidence, but…

      • @Candelestine
        link
        English
        2510 months ago

        “Consistently” and “in-these-specific-cases” are different things.

        • @[email protected]OP
          link
          fedilink
          510 months ago

          These are some of the most important and impactful stories since 2000. If the NYT can’t keep their journalism robust for these, what does it say about everything else?

          Oh wait, we already know: “Palestinian family collides with bullet discharged from Israeli weapon”

          • @Candelestine
            link
            English
            010 months ago

            Nobody and no system should be expected to be perfect all the time, I would anticipate some mistakes over a course of decades.

            Have you checked for any times they were critical of US foreign policy within the same timeframe?

            • @[email protected]OP
              link
              fedilink
              310 months ago

              These mistakes led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands. How much more genocide apologism do you want to do?

              • @Candelestine
                link
                English
                410 months ago

                I don’t think the invasion of Iraq can be blamed on the NYT. I think the Bush administration and Al Qaeda get the credit for that one.

                However much is necessary to arrive at the truth.

              • carbrewr84
                link
                fedilink
                010 months ago

                The NYT mistakes caused hundreds of thousands of deaths that you say are genocide? Please enlighten me on how this is the case because it sounds a lot like hyperbole.

                You seem to be just a pissed-off person who wants to lash out at things/people/organizations and think that if something isn’t perfectly aligned with your views, then it’s evil/bad/etc. I’d like to suggest stepping outside and taking a deep breath.

    • @QuarterSwede
      link
      -510 months ago

      Allsides is a good US based news aggregator that specializes in rating how liberal, central, or conservative biased an article is.

  • davel [he/him]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    36
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    But muh Media Bias/Fact Check says it checks out!

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/contact/

    Dave M. Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.

    Van Zandt is some hobbyist who was in the right place at the right time: the “post-truth” moment of Clinton’s loss to Trump and the string of Russiagate conspiracy theories and Kellyanne Conway’s alternative facts and the Cambridge Analytica hysteria.

    The whole concept of the “left” or ”right“ “bias” being inversely correlated with factualness is garbage. These kinds of graphs, which try to convince us that centrism equals factualness, are garbage:

    The core bias of corporate media is the bias of the capitalist class, but people like Van Zandt don’t seem to understand this.

    The inner workings of corporate media were explained about forty years ago in Inventing Reality and Manufacturing Consent.
    A five minute introduction: Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      610 months ago

      Has he changed his blurb? It used to say:

      This curiosity led him to pursue a Communications Degree in college; however, like most 20-year olds he didn’t know what he wanted and changed to a Physiology major midstream.

      Implying that he changed to Physiology before graduating, and that his “higher degree” is a Bachelor’s.

  • @markstos
    link
    3510 months ago

    I have been reading NYT’s coverage of this conflict. Their journalists seem to have a range of viewpoints and their coverage reflects that.

    Here’s a story that’s just about the level of Pro-Palestian support:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/04/us/protests-israels-gaza.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

    Here: “Invading Gaza Now is a Mistake”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/17/opinion/israel-gaza-invasion-mistake.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

    The conflict has proved hard to cover because journalists have been targeted and killed, so there are a shortage of journalists on the ground in Gaza.

    I’ve also appreciated the times when NYT has published follow-up pieces to explain when I found case where their own reporting didn’t meet their own high standards and what they are doing about it.

    I agree we should hold them to a high standard, we should have a conversation about media literacy and be careful what we consume.

    Regarding a possible NYT ban, I think it is both important to consider their totality of coverage behold what is seen as specific mistakes. Also consider the alternatives. What English language outlets have objectively better and less biased coverage of the conflict?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2310 months ago

      opeds are different. If the NYT framed the original article as an oped, fine, but it didn’t.

    • davel [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      710 months ago

      Even NYT op-eds have to condemn Hamas in order to get printed. The range of allowable viewpoints is only as wide as the Overton window allows.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      610 months ago

      Literally any outlet that doesn’t spin bullshit sources to justify warmongering?

      Any outlet that doesn’t get an ex-IDF official to write an article on Israel’s war against Palestine?

      Just basic journalistic integrity.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      510 months ago

      The NYT is pretty good about domestic news. In fact, I’d say they’re one of the best for reporting US news. Internationally, they’re a fuckfest.

      • davel [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1310 months ago

        It’s not great on domestic news, either, in that it slants in favor of the employer class and in opposition to the working class.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          610 months ago

          That’s representative of US interests domestically. The NYT is specifically slanted in favour of the financial class, which you might infer from it’s name.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        410 months ago

        Idk, I generally just gave an eyebrow raised whenever I read a political nyt article, I’m perpetually aware that the nuances or implications in the article too be important to pay attention to.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -5
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Also let’s just appreciate that the two examples cited by the poster are 1) a recent story that may genuinely be problematic (though I think it’s naive to believe either the Israelis or Hamas haven’t engaged in sexual violence given its prevalence in warzones), and 2) reporting on a manufactured war that’s now nearly 30 years old.

      It’s absurd to think you can hold the current NYT to account for actions done so long ago that many of their current journalists wouldn’t have been borne yet.

      That’s not to say the NYT doesn’t have it’s problems. It is absolutely a both-sidesism establishment paper. But if you’re gonna criticize it, at least do so with modern examples.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        1610 months ago

        It’s absurd to think you can hold the current NYT to account for actions done so long ago that many of their current journalists wouldn’t have been borne yet.

        We call it a ‘newspaper of record’ based on actions done generations ago, the knife cuts both ways.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Then don’t call it that?

          If the bar is “never made a mistake or published a questionable article in the entire history of the institution”, then there’s no such thing as a “newspaper of record” and I’m fine with that. Frankly, I never liked that idea as no one, no institution, no media outlet, no person, is totally free from bias, and no one should treat any one paper as universally authoritative.

          But claiming the NYT is “unreliable” now, today, based on the actions of people who, if not dead are almost certainly retired today, is ridiculous.

          • davel [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            710 months ago

            But claiming the NYT is “unreliable” now, today, based on the actions of people who, if not dead are almost certainly retired today, is ridiculous.

            That’s true: The paper’s symbiotic & collusive relationship with the capitalist class and the government is over 150 years old, so I don’t think it’s any more or less reliable now than it’s ever been.

      • @Bell
        link
        310 months ago

        I think it’s naive to believe either the Israelis or Hamas haven’t engaged in sexual violence given its prevalence in warzones

        The story wasn’t that there was sexual violence, but that it was systematic. The point being that it was ordered and encouraged from above.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1310 months ago

    Regarding the WMD thing, was it proven the Times was aware of the mistakes and published anyway? Or were they also deceived by the government like everyone else?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      3510 months ago

      Not everyone fell for the lies. It’s a re-writing of history to suggest that everyone was all aboard with the war in Iraq. That war was preceded by the largest protests ever to occur up until that point. I personally recall Hans Blix, the UN official responsible for weapons inspections in Iraq at that time, repeatedly telling us that there was no evidence of such weapons programs. The New York Times should presumably be at least as questioning as my, at the time, 18 year old self. Particularly since I turned out to be right.

      • @doublejay1999
        link
        1110 months ago

        It’s very easy to forget how powerfully and unilaterally the government acts when manufacturing consent. Every control is exerted. The mainstream media a brought to heel. Dissenters are marginalised.

        Bush and Blair were ruthless in this respect, over Iraq. A British government office, David Kelly, killed himself over it .

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        610 months ago

        Good context to have!

        I’m not commenting on this particular case because I’m uninformed, the Times very well could have completely shit the bed here.

        But one difference between a news outlet and an every day citizen is that a news outlet pretty much has to report on what the government’s position is. If the white house claims there are WMD’s, that’s something the public needs to know. Of course the language around how that gets presented is everything!

        It sounds like there was too much blind trust in that statement and the language didn’t leave enough room for scepticism in this particular case. But it’s worth remembering that in other cases there’s a difference between towing the line and reporting words as a statement of fact. The fact being that the words were said but not necessarily that the words are true.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1210 months ago

      I forgot the name of the specific tactic, but basically what the Bush administration did was leak unsourced information to the NYT and then after the NYT published it, the Bush administration used the NYT as source for the unproven claim. They did this multiple times. The NYT was knowingly used to launder lies that led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. And they are doing it again.

      Think of how many Palestinians have been brutalized as a result of these heinous accusations. The fact that they canceled the Daily episode about this piece indicates that they knew something was fishy. The NYT is complicit.

      And finally does it matter if they are either comically inept, or criminally evil. It has the same effect on the world and there should be consequences for their actions.

    • @jordanlund
      link
      1010 months ago

      They were aware the reporting was wrong and buried stories questioning the official line.

    • davel [he/him]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      The people who own the NYT are not deceived by the government, they collude with the government. In the words of George Carlin, it’s one big club, and you ain’t in it.

  • @jordanlund
    link
    1110 months ago

    Like it or not, the New York Times holds the status of “Newspaper of Record”, which elevates them above traditional news sources.

    Now, as such, it’s fair to say they should be held to a higher standard than, say, your local Fox affilliate. But by the same token you can’t just discount them despite their problems both past and current. Thinking specifically of this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublishing.usnews

    https://theintercept.com/2023/03/30/new-york-times-iraq-war-error/

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      1010 months ago

      I agree on this. For better or for worse, the NYT is representative of US news media to the world.

  • @Linkerbaan
    link
    9
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Any western media outlet writing a pro israel or anti Palestine article citing “anonymous sources” or not providing evidence should instantly be deleted.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      410 months ago

      It’s a simpler: don’t trust strangers on the internet.

      Your lemmy memories should be preceded by: I heard through Lemmy

    • ???
      link
      410 months ago

      Alright, so while you’re totes cool with posting links to a “news agency” controlled by the Iranian government, you have a bone to pick with the NYT?

      But these things are irrelevant. They could still post “propaganda sites” and NYT could still also be wrong.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      410 months ago

      buddy read the article you’re posting

      read it carefully

      then ask yourself why an Iranian news agency might make sense for that news

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      You’re saying… A member of BRICS is an unreliable source of news for news about BRICS membership?

      Edit: That Venezuela and Iran, two nations who are undoubtedly friendly with each other, make inaccurate statements about what each others’ leaders are saying? This is Iran reporting on a statement by Maduro about joining BRICS. That is the news.

  • Valentine Angell
    link
    fedilink
    English
    210 months ago

    I do the NY Times crossword, that Is my whole interaction with the NY Times. I find it enjoyable.

  • arquebus_x
    link
    fedilink
    110 months ago

    I don’t read the Times anymore. I get my news elsewhere. That said, there are a few things to consider here, when it comes to the relative shittiness of the NYT vs other major papers. We have this notion, unfounded, that the NYT “used to be” better, or more progressive, or what have you. Certainly compared to the other two “papers of record” for the country (Washington Post and Wall Street Journal), it’s a raging pinko rag. But the fact remains that it was founded as a conservative-leaning paper, continued to be a conservative-leaning paper in the 20th century and, surprise surprise, remains a conservative-leaning paper. The lean is more Tower of Pisa than Man Vomiting on Sidewalk, but it’s still conservative.

    Many of its bad takes (and there are many) are squarely in line with mainstream views. At worst, its views lag behind the country by a few years. And like all major news corporations, it is incentivized to maximize its visibility (and therefore revenue). Given the options of 1) publishing something incendiary that will put the paper in the public eye and help in creating more news to print or 2) doing additional work with the anticipated result of the truth not being nearly as interesting and therefore not nearly as attention-grabbing, they’re going to do the less work option.

    Next, the NYT is a victim of the news cycle just as much as the TV networks, if not more so. While the website updates fairly regularly throughout the day, the paper comes out once every 24 hours, and must be prepped hours in advance. This means that breaking news suffers from two issues: 1) it has to be investigated at a speed faster than the TV networks because they paradoxically don’t have the luxury of time and 2) they can’t afford to be tentative when they don’t know something. CNN and Fox especially can get away with saying “we’ll report back when we know more” because that “back” is maybe 30 minutes from now. “Developing stories” exist on news networks. They do not exist for print papers. If you publish, you have to claim to be definitive, or people will stop reading. (“Why should I read the NYT when they just keep saying they don’t know shit?”)

    Finally, and we should take some solace from this, it should be noted that the NYT, despite being one of the “papers of record” for the country, is basically screaming into the void. Almost no one reads it. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t, they’re not conservative enough for the people who can throw money at a news organization when there are free alternatives available, and they’re not progressive enough for the rest of us to care. The number of eyeballs scanning the NYT is vanishingly small compared to the eyeballs staring at Fox News - or even CNN, for that matter. Basically, the NYT just doesn’t matter anymore. They can say whatever the fuck they want. They’re not influencing anyone who isn’t already on the same (sorry) page.

    I certainly wouldn’t fault anyone for giving up on the NYT because of its journalistic errors. I certainly have. But we should neither be surprised nor shocked. This behavior is baked into the cake, and it has been since 1851, and got even worse after 1980 when CNN first went on the air. They didn’t suddenly get stupid, and they never betrayed us. We have simply never been their intended audience.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -110 months ago

    NYT definitely has issues in their reporting. At the same time, keep in mind that Mondoweiss and Intercept have their own biases.