It's not that sometimes coincidentally they don't ever get things right; it's rather that quite often their biases shine through when their job is to present a more or less unbiased take on newsworthy events --with exceptions for organs who by their nature are biased like "The Daily Republican" or "The Democrat-Constitution", etc.
In essence journalists with bias are TV with laugh tracks. But instead of laughing for us, they make our minds up for us.
There are certainly some who do this, notably News Corp[1]. And the huge presence of that organization gives the impression that all others are this way too.
But it simply isn't true of respectable publications. People don't go to journalism school thinking "I'm going to devote my life to hiding facts". If they do, they don't graduate. And papers aren't interested in hiring people that are going to create an endless stream of retractions. Likewise, any outlet that doesn't issues retractions is highly suspect. So reporters at respectable paper really are trying to find the truth.
Indeed, this whole thread is not about facts but about a person's opinion about the tone of an article. And, quite frankly, a blog post that is lying about the article when he says it only mentions negative aspects of Monson's life[2] Which is probably why the lead image is not actually linked to the NYT article.
Papers often print things people don't want to be true, or say them in ways that offend certain groups. But to rely on a gut feeling or general annoyance or selected anecdotes to decide that a paper is lying would be an error.
The article focuses on opposition to gay marriage and to women in the priesthood, briefly touching on only an expansion in size of # missionaries and openness of records.
The blog post author argues that Monson had huge influence internationally, the article does not show that.
The New York Times routinely hides facts and generally ignores relevant viewpoints and context when covering substantial topics.
To pick a random example Injust noticed the other day: how often has the New York Times parroted the Democratic talking point that “Medicare is prohibited by law from negotiating drug prices.” It’s a point that is not only misleading but completely non-sensical. (Medicare doesn’t directly provide prescription drug coverage. Prescription drug coverage is offered by private supplemental plans under Part D, which do negotiate drug prices.) I’m constantly running into stuff like that, where journalists unthinkingly repeat talking points that turn out to be misleading upon deeper inspection.
To use another example, the Washington Post recently had to issue a correction in an article that falsely claimed that education spending in the US has decreased over the last several decades.
Perhaps worse still is the narrative and lack of context. How often did the New York Times mention that Trump’s corporate tax cut would bring us in line with countries like Sweden, France, Canada, and Germany? How often do articles about Warren’s wealth tax proposal mention that Sweden and France recently abandoned theirs? How often do they mention that the biggest difference between taxes in the US and in Europe are not lower taxes on the rich, but vastly lower taxes on the middle class? Does New York Times coverage of education ever mention that school choice, including public funding of religious schools, is common in Europe? Does it ever mention that we spend more than almost any other OECD country per capita on K-12 education? Does it ever mention that abortion is legal to 22 weeks in Georgia but only 14 weeks in France and 12 in Germany? Did the New York Times ever put Trump’s
“anti-Muslim rhetoric” in context by pointing out that Islamic head coverings are illegal in many European countries? (By contrast, when the international context advances its political agenda, the Times happily provides it. How often does the Times invoke the fact that developed European countries all have universal healthcare coverage, or stronger gun control? Apparently, the views of people on the other side of the pond are highly relevant in deciding what kind of health care system to have, but not in deciding what kind of tax system we should have to pay for it.)
These seem like fair points. So there's definitely plenty of room for improvement at NYT.
Do you mind me asking if you have a similarly prepared spiel for Fox News? Didn't they claim the American President wasn't actually American for years?
I know this is whataboutery, but I suspect NYT is one of the better media outlets in the US despite the failings you've pointed out.
I’ve don’t read or watch Fox News regularly so I don’t know. The NYT may be one of the better papers, but I don’t find it crosses the threshold of being worth reading.
I don’t really trust the news. I’ll read the Chicago Tribune or Bloomberg to get a general sense of what’s going on, and then try to research specific topics based on primary sources. I really like National Review. Unlike the NYT, NR is explicit about its viewpoint. So even though, for example, I support keeping the ACA, I can read an NR article on healthcare policy because the authors “show their work” in terms of how they perceive the facts to fit into their (generally conservative) take on the issue. That at least gives me a basis for researching things further. But with the NYT, I feel like I’m just constantly being manipulated, and because the NYT is so terrible about citing sources and data, I don’t even really have a starting point for further research.
This is an excellent point about transparency. Not just the NR which is very transparent, but on the other side you have mother jones and democracy now and the like. Those claiming to be purely objective and without bias, NYT for example, are the dangerous ones. Many of the readers don’t think there’s any bias in NYT coverage. Scary. As you said, good authors “show their work.”
organs who by their nature are biased like "The Daily Republican" or "The Democrat-Constitution"
There are a lot of local papers have things like Republican and Democrat in their names for historical, not political reasons or for political reasons that are by now long historical. Here's one example:
In essence journalists with bias are TV with laugh tracks. But instead of laughing for us, they make our minds up for us.