I seem to recall you writing a column telling us we still needed to support the NYT because it has good reporters and vast resources. I understood your point, but disagreed with it (I cancelled my subscription years ago), and this kind of stuff is exactly why I did.
I did, just after the 2024 election. It's called "We Must Defend the New York Times,", and prompted by your comment I reread it. In the article, I agree with many of the criticisms of the Times, say that people should criticize them whenever warranted, and argue that they have a greater ability than anyone else to expose and draw attention to government wrongdoing, so if Trump takes them down things will be worse.
I think that argument holds up well and stand by it. If anything, it's stronger now that CBS has fallen to the regime, and Warner Bros.-Discovery (which owns CNN) is poised to.
I remember your article well. You made the best possible case for supporting the NYT. I get your point about their resources, and would like to subscribe again, but I’ve cancelled them twice over their egregious enabling of the GOP’s attempts to subvert our democracy. I’ve also been offended by their anti-trans coverage. Until they change their behavior I will continue to support independent media instead, including Arc Digital.
I think everyone should make their own decision on subscription. As you likely noticed, I didn't tell anyone to subscribe to NYT, not in that article or elsewhere. I canceled by Washington Post subscription in 2024, and don't regret it at all.
So the "proof" is that one NYT reporter last year used a bolder adjective to describe Hunter Biden's dealings than a different NYT reporter used to describe Eric Trump's?
Thin. Very thin.
In fact, stories about Eric Trump's profiting by his father's power are regular features of NYT coverage, and the only reader who might see those stories and say to themselves "but they don't call it 'audacious' so it must be better" is probably Nicholas Grossman. It's nitpicking at a microlevel that reflects neither how stories are manufactured or how how readers engage them. There are good criticisms of the Times. This ain't it.
If you'd like to accuse me of overstatement in a headline, that's fair. "An example of" would probably be better than the more comprehensive "Proof."
But it's a long-running pattern, and this is far from the only example. You can see it in the sheer volume of coverage they devoted to Hunter, usually without qualifying that most of the accusations were false, compared to the much lower volume devoted to the (actually, in reality, well documented, unquestionably true) much more corrupt and influential Trump children.
Hunter used his father’s influence to such an extent that he needed a blanket, retroactive, 11 year pardon…. good Lord. I mean, maybe Erik Trump is corrupt, but don’t act like Hunter Biden is innocent. That’s ridiculous.
I seem to recall you writing a column telling us we still needed to support the NYT because it has good reporters and vast resources. I understood your point, but disagreed with it (I cancelled my subscription years ago), and this kind of stuff is exactly why I did.
I did, just after the 2024 election. It's called "We Must Defend the New York Times,", and prompted by your comment I reread it. In the article, I agree with many of the criticisms of the Times, say that people should criticize them whenever warranted, and argue that they have a greater ability than anyone else to expose and draw attention to government wrongdoing, so if Trump takes them down things will be worse.
I think that argument holds up well and stand by it. If anything, it's stronger now that CBS has fallen to the regime, and Warner Bros.-Discovery (which owns CNN) is poised to.
Here it is, if you'd like to take a look: https://www.arcdigital.media/p/we-must-defend-the-new-york-times
I remember your article well. You made the best possible case for supporting the NYT. I get your point about their resources, and would like to subscribe again, but I’ve cancelled them twice over their egregious enabling of the GOP’s attempts to subvert our democracy. I’ve also been offended by their anti-trans coverage. Until they change their behavior I will continue to support independent media instead, including Arc Digital.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
I think everyone should make their own decision on subscription. As you likely noticed, I didn't tell anyone to subscribe to NYT, not in that article or elsewhere. I canceled by Washington Post subscription in 2024, and don't regret it at all.
So the "proof" is that one NYT reporter last year used a bolder adjective to describe Hunter Biden's dealings than a different NYT reporter used to describe Eric Trump's?
Thin. Very thin.
In fact, stories about Eric Trump's profiting by his father's power are regular features of NYT coverage, and the only reader who might see those stories and say to themselves "but they don't call it 'audacious' so it must be better" is probably Nicholas Grossman. It's nitpicking at a microlevel that reflects neither how stories are manufactured or how how readers engage them. There are good criticisms of the Times. This ain't it.
If you'd like to accuse me of overstatement in a headline, that's fair. "An example of" would probably be better than the more comprehensive "Proof."
But it's a long-running pattern, and this is far from the only example. You can see it in the sheer volume of coverage they devoted to Hunter, usually without qualifying that most of the accusations were false, compared to the much lower volume devoted to the (actually, in reality, well documented, unquestionably true) much more corrupt and influential Trump children.
I just wrote this above:
In '15-'16, Maggie Haberman wrote 54 columns on "her emails".
She wrote ZERO on Trump's well known decades of NYC criming
Refusing to pay contractors, mob connections, compulsive lying, racism, philandering and more
Zero
BTW, Mama Habes works for the Kushner fam
This paper collapsed 10 years ago
In '15-'16, Maggie Haberman wrote 54 columns on "her emails"
She wrote ZERO on Trump's well known decades of NYC criming
Refusing to pay contractors, mob connections, compulsive lying, racism, philandering and more
Zero
BTW, Mama Habes works for the Kushner fam
This paper collapsed 10 years ago
Hunter used his father’s influence to such an extent that he needed a blanket, retroactive, 11 year pardon…. good Lord. I mean, maybe Erik Trump is corrupt, but don’t act like Hunter Biden is innocent. That’s ridiculous.
No one is claiming Hunter was a saint. Biden did the pardon because he knew the Trump-corrupted DOJ would persecute him, and he was right.
Oh please, no one gets an 11 year blanket pardon unless they have broken many laws
Is the person that wrote this article serious?
at this point, who needs proof?...