I'm still not over the New York Times having a front-page story that Israel bombed a hospital. They've been busy correcting, but they don't seem very apologetic. Their response, that it's hard to report in a war zone, leaves me thinking, "Yes, that would be exactly why one shouldn't jump to conclusions." But the slow slide of journalism …
I'm still not over the New York Times having a front-page story that Israel bombed a hospital. They've been busy correcting, but they don't seem very apologetic. Their response, that it's hard to report in a war zone, leaves me thinking, "Yes, that would be exactly why one shouldn't jump to conclusions." But the slow slide of journalism into "just print whatever people will react to the most" continues. And I'm realizing that one of the many frustrating things about getting old is that the people running things seem so young and incompetent.
We are reaching "epistemic ground zero" where people now debate whether or not things happened. Who won the 2020 election? Did Hamas kill that many civilians? I just can't see protesting in FAVOR of Hamas if you know what they did. Do people doubt it happened? Is this another propaganda front?
Incompetent and seemingly uninterested in becoming more competent.
I think there have been at least two New York Times reflections on what went wrong. The first one was disturbingly self-pitying, IMO (of course it's hard to report from a war zone! that's why there are more people applying to work at McDonalds than to report from a war zone! it's the job they took on). The second one gestured towards saying "we should have done xyz instead" -- but, as an apology /or/ a commitment to do better next time, it didn't seem to have much energy.
I was astonished at the "editor's note" or whatever I read yesterday. Of course, NYT didn't allow comments on it, but there was zero apology; barely even a mea culpa. It was utterly disgusting. There's an audio interview by NPR with a NYT editor posted now that's no better.
I'm still not over the New York Times having a front-page story that Israel bombed a hospital. They've been busy correcting, but they don't seem very apologetic. Their response, that it's hard to report in a war zone, leaves me thinking, "Yes, that would be exactly why one shouldn't jump to conclusions." But the slow slide of journalism into "just print whatever people will react to the most" continues. And I'm realizing that one of the many frustrating things about getting old is that the people running things seem so young and incompetent.
We are reaching "epistemic ground zero" where people now debate whether or not things happened. Who won the 2020 election? Did Hamas kill that many civilians? I just can't see protesting in FAVOR of Hamas if you know what they did. Do people doubt it happened? Is this another propaganda front?
Incompetent and seemingly uninterested in becoming more competent.
I think there have been at least two New York Times reflections on what went wrong. The first one was disturbingly self-pitying, IMO (of course it's hard to report from a war zone! that's why there are more people applying to work at McDonalds than to report from a war zone! it's the job they took on). The second one gestured towards saying "we should have done xyz instead" -- but, as an apology /or/ a commitment to do better next time, it didn't seem to have much energy.
Why should it? Headline grabbing gets clicks and views, sober reporting, not so much.
Here s another thing that doesn't receive clicks and views;Biden working behind the scene to solve problems.
I was astonished at the "editor's note" or whatever I read yesterday. Of course, NYT didn't allow comments on it, but there was zero apology; barely even a mea culpa. It was utterly disgusting. There's an audio interview by NPR with a NYT editor posted now that's no better.
You should be the editor of NY Times.Hell,make that all news media!