Talk:The New York Times

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The New York Times article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 State shield laws conflict 2 Accusations of liberal bias 3 Pulitzer Prizes 4 Licensing Issue 5 Controversies in the 2000's 6 Added this to the errors section 7 Hitler in "Famous Mistakes" Section 8 Carpal tunnel syndrome epidemic at the Times 9 No good ability goes unpunished 10 The Girls in the Balcony 11 Paper of Record 12 Relationships within and without the Times? Conflicts of interest? 13 The New York Times in fiction 14 NPOV tag

[edit] State shield laws conflict

According to shield laws,

Currently, there are twenty-nine states with shield law protections. There are four states with some protections for journalists and seventeen with no form of shield laws.[3]

This article's discussion of a possible federal shield law claims that forty-nine of fifty states have shield laws in place.

72.8.105.223 20:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of liberal bias

Nothing her shows liberal bias.

The 2005 roster of regular columnists ranges in political position from Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, and Bob Herbert on the left, to Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman on the center-left, to David Brooks and John Tierney on the right. These labels must be placed alongside the subjects that the columnists most frequently choose to write about. For example, Friedman writes a great deal about free trade and globalization -- and thus often comes across as more conservative -- while Kristof writes almost exclusively about human rights, and thus comes across as more liberal.^{[citation needed]}

The editorial page of The Times last endorsed a Republican Party presidential candidate in 1956 when it backed Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nonetheless, the paper has endorsed Republicans in statewide or local races, such as current New York Governor George Pataki and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.^{[citation needed]}

Daniel Okrent, The Times former Public Editor stated that his was a liberal newspaper in a July 25, 2004 article. Additionally in a post-Jayson Blair report to Bill Keller,^[1] a committee of Times employees noted:

Nothing we recommend should be seen as endorsing a retreat from tough-minded reporting of abuses of power by public or private institutions. In part because the Times’s editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic.

Last bit is a better fit in the "self-examination of bias" section.71.249.22.33 02:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this empirical study I wrote about the editorial choices of the New York Times would be quite suitable for a discussion about the political position thereof. Here is the link to the SSRN website where the paper is posted [1]. I report its abstract here:

I analyze a dataset of news from the New York Times, from 1946 to 1997. Controlling for the incumbent President's activity across issues, I find that during the presidential campaign the New York Times gives more emphasis to topics that are owned by the Democratic party (civil rights, health care, labor and social welfare), when the incumbent President is a Republican. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the New York Times has a Democratic partisanship, with some "watchdog" aspects, in that -during the presidential campaign- it gives more emphasis to issues over which the (Republican) incumbent is weak. In the post-1960 period the Times displays a more symmetric type of watchdog behaviour, just because during presidential campaigns it gives more more coverage to the typically Republican issue of Defense when the incumbent President is a Democrat, and less so when the incumbent is a Republican.

Riccardo.puglisi 21:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulitzer Prizes

I've moved the giant list of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to Times' staff to a new article. The list was out of place in this article and really impaired its readability. Please look at the new article and make any necessary or recommended changes. Thanks! --ElKevbo 06:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that we now have a tiny section about the good things, and a big section of mistakes/controversies. yandman 09:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is a balance issue then it needs to be addressed in a different and more effective manner than simply listing every Pulitzer. It was simply a very poor section of the article with choppy prose in a long list. Not to mention almost completely uncited. Perhaps someone knowledgeable in this area can write up a few paragraphs of nice, descriptive prose about the important and interesting Pulitzers the Times' staff has won over the years? --ElKevbo 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call. We're not the Guiness Book of records here. Maybe I'll see if I can knock up a paragraph or two summarising the reasons it has been given awards. yandman 12:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Licensing Issue

The image Image:Nytimesbuilding.jpg says it's only OK for fair use on the article New York Times Tower. Doesn't that mean it can't be used here? CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I removed the image from this article. --ElKevbo 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies in the 2000's

I reverted these recent changes. The previous text had an obvious POV, it recasts the SWIFT program from a 'program to detect terrorist financier' to a 'scheme to access transactional database'. How can you make this change and leave no reference that the intent was to track terrorist funding? There is no reference that the Belgian government declared that the SWIFT program was illegal. And what Bill Keller posts in a blog in hardly encyclopedic, just his opinion. Lets not try to sort out the politics of the SWIFT scandal.

I am new user to wiki, so maybe I dont understand the policy, but I changed Wikiwatch's edit of my edits and provided an explanation. Wikiwatch, just reverted the changes without comment. Isnt it proper to add an explanation?

In the new edits, it reads the the other newspapers were invoved somehow in the publication of the story. This is clearly not true. The choice of words: 'scheme' over 'program' suggest POV. As well removal of the fact that the program targeted terrorist also suggest POV. To quote the Editor of the Times in response to a controversy doesn't clarify the article. Certainly the editor of the newspaper might hold the belief that he did nothing wrong. That is why it is a controversial.

I will wait on this one. I hope that Wikiwatch is able to reply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GomerMcFlarp (talk • contribs).

I cleaned up the SWIFT section and tried to tone down the POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.171.180.101 (talk • contribs).

""I reverted these recent changes. The previous text had an obvious POV, it recasts the SWIFT program from a 'program to detect terrorist financier' to a 'scheme to access transactional database'. How can you make this change and leave no reference that the intent was to track terrorist funding?""

Since the it clearly stated that the program being revealed was called the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program it seems redundant to say that it is to detect terrorist financing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwatch (talk • contribs).

Sign your posts with ~~~~ thanks, Travb (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"How Much Longer Can the Grey Lady Get Away With Sloppy Journalism", asks Janice Shaw Crouse in a new article, NY Times admits to a blatent lie (one I can't figure out where to add to Wikipedia's NYT entry and which starts thus): "A major journalistic scandal was finally acknowledged during the long news hole leading up to the New Year’s celebrations when the headlines were consumed by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s execution and the funeral of former U.S. President Gerald Ford. It was revealed last week that in April 2006 The New York Times Magazine published a long cover story that hinged on a blatant lie.

"The facts of the case came to light in November through the efforts of a pro-life Web site, LifeSiteNews.com. At first, The Times editors stonewalled over the facts, then they covered up the reporter’s biased sources and denied unethical journalistic practices. Finally, the newspaper’s ombudsman, Byron Calame, wrote a column on December 31, 2006 detailing the newspaper’s malpractice in the April 9 story. Amazingly, but not surprisingly, the newspaper’s editors saw no reason to “doubt the accuracy” of the story, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So, no retraction, no recriminations and no firings.

"This incident is reminiscent of the case in 1992 when Rigoberta Menchu was awarded the Nobel Prize for a fabricated autobiography of her life in the 1987 book I, Rigoberta Menchu. Hearing of the fraud, the New York Times sent one of its investigative reporters to Guatemala with the purpose of verifying Ms. Menchu’s claims in the supposed “autobiography” Ms. Menchu's defenders still claim that the dishonesty of her account is of no consequence, because her words are “metaphorically true;” she remains a hero to the left.

"Likewise, fabrications in support of radical causes apparently are considered legitimate today by The New York Times –– the ends justify the means, as the facts of the Climaco case illustrate. In April 2006, The New York Times Magazine published a nearly 8,000 word cover story about the problems in El Salvador resulting from laws treating abortion as a crime. The story featured a young woman, Carmen Climaco, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison for supposedly aborting an 18-week-old unborn baby. The truth is that Ms. Climaco gave birth to a full-term baby that she strangled to death. A panel of judges found her guilty of “aggravated homicide.”

"Jack Hitt, author of the piece, is a freelance writer for numerous elite left-wing publications. He used a local translator associated with Ipas, an abortion advocacy group in El Salvador who later used the story to raise money. No one at The Times bothered to check his work. No one asked to see the court documents related to the case."

Crouse's conclusion: "Once again, if a story is “metaphorically true,” if it fits The Times’ leftist ideology, then there’s no need to verify it. So much for The Times being the “paper of record.” When a paper’s credibility is suspect, what is left?" 81.67.66.111 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Update: If the Lifesite website is to be believed (let's hope Lifesite's John-Henry Westen is wrong), the only person who will be punished in this case, i.e., fired, is ombudsman Byron Calame himself!! So much (again, if true) for the Times' lionization of whistleblowers, its defence of the downtrodden, and its pursuit of the truth and "all the news that is fit to print"! 81.67.66.111 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell has another example of bias: "The latest in a long line of New York Times editorials disguised as "news" stories was a recent article suggesting that most American women today do not have husbands. Partly this was based on census data -- but much more so on creative definitions.

"The Times defined "women" to include females as young as 16 and counted widows, who of course could not be widows unless they had once had a husband. Wives whose husbands were away in the military, or in prison, were also counted among women not living with a husband.

"With such creative definitions, it turned out that 51 percent of "women" were not living with a husband. That made it "most" women and created a "news" story suggesting that these women were not married. In reality, only one fourth of women have never married, even when you count girls as young as 16.

"While the data quoted in the New York Times story were about women who were not living with a husband, there were quotes in the story about women who rejected marriage.

"What was the point? To show that marriage is a thing of the past. … The New York Times' long-standing motto, "All the News That's Fit to Print," should be changed to reflect today's reality: "Manufacturing News to Fit an Ideology." " 81.67.66.111 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added this to the errors section

Added this to the errors section :

On May 26, 2004, the Times acknowledged errors in its reporting on the Iraq War: "Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged - or failed to emerge."^[2]

If it is in the wrong section, please move it. It is controverisal, though factual, so if someone deletes it, please let me know. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler in "Famous Mistakes" Section

Here is the image and caption I removed from the article, which is problematic for several reasons:

I can't find the text "hitler tamed by prison" anywhere on Google, which suggests two possibilities. This is either a hoax, or it is so obscure (ie, not famous) that a Google search can't even find it. Furthermore, this picture is introduced into the article with little context - no accompanying text other than the caption, which itself has a flippant, unencyclopedic tone. And even if you run a lexis search showing this is not a hoax, I don't see how it is famous, or even really a mistake of the NYT - the newspaper was merely echoing the mistaken view of German authorities. --JianLi 05:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

JianLi, it is for real, and it is not obscure, though this article seems to be. Hitler was indeed in prison; I got the article through ProQuest's complete archive of the New York Times (ProQuest Historical Newspaper Service, which has searchably scanned EVERY PAGE of the New York Times from 1851-2001 -- truly remarkable). I have access to this through the University where I work, and it is a constant, contextualizing source of amazing news, trivial and otherwise. I believe the Hitler article deserves to be on the main page, as it is such a brief dismissal of something extremely momentous, but I'll let you folks decide (I don't usually play here). --Fluffbrain 15:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right; I looked it up on Proquest, and it was there. I agree with you that this event is not obscure (I knew about it myself) but this article itself is obscure, probably because this was the mistaken consensus at the time and not a mistake of the New York Times specifically. --JianLi 01:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carpal tunnel syndrome epidemic at the Times

In the mid-1990's, there seem to erupt an epidemic of carpal tunnel syndrome and repetitive stress injury sufferers. Many of those afflicted were clerks and news assistants who had been at the paper for 20 years and more. The Times's chief physician (whose first name was Howard) was fired as the sacrificial lamb for not diagnosing this affliction early enough and leaving the Times open to potential lawsuits.

An article in New York Press by Brendan Burkhart, ca. 1996 ot 1997, brought this problem to light but it is rarely if ever discussed in histories of the Times. KateRyan 13 January 2007

[edit] No good ability goes unpunished

From a memo on the proposed revision to the newsroom contract:
Work Quality

The company is proposing new language that would allow employees to be dismissed if the company determines their work is not of sufficient quality, and that the company’s determination in such cases may not be arbitrated. We have, regrettably, had a few cases like this over the years, and we have concluded that we need this flexibility in the contract. However, we can assure you that no one will be dismissed under this clause without being given plenty of warning and opportunities to improve their performance.

A style reporter was cited for having many corrections attributed to articles written by her, but was basically given a slap on the wrist. She has a best seller out touting her addiction to Botox and plastic surgery. A picture editor, recently retired at age 69, was moved from department to department because she was grossly technophobic and incompetent. She often pushed her work onto news assistants. The Times allowed it because it was afraid of age discrimination suits.

Beginning in 1992, the demarcation (based on skillsets) between editorial and production staff began to fade. But, being a unionized company, those that couldn't master fairly user-friendly programs such as Eudora, QuarkXPress, EdPage and now CCI were kept on regardless of their ability to cope with changing times (no pun intended).

Years later, there are still editors who ask clerks and news assistants if you have to dial 9 to make a call outside the building, or who don't know that control-H attaches a document to an email.

This provision in the contract is overdue. For too many years, the Times has penaiized those who are capable in favor of incapable bullies whose primary talent seems to be for having loud voices and the capacity to scream "discrimination". KateRyan 13 January 2007

[edit] The Girls in the Balcony

There should probably be a section about the evolving role of women in journalism and the Times in particular, as chronicled by Nan Robertson in her book The Girls in the Balcony, published in 1992. RahadyanS 06:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Created an entry for Nan C. Robertson a couple of weeks ago with the eventual goal of starting a section on the evolving role of women in journalism. AndreasKQ 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paper of Record

The Times does not now consider itself "the paper of record" for New York or the US. It doesn't publish so many full transcripts of speeches and such any more, and (for example) it doesn't publish complete shipping information (arrivals and departures in New York Harbor), or Congressional roll calls. Some time in 2006 I believe read in the Public Editor column that the paper explicitly does not aspire to that role any more, so I changed the wording in the summary to "...is often regarded as the Paper of Record..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chester320 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Aren't full transcripts published on the Times's website? AndreasKQ 00:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationships within and without the Times? Conflicts of interest?

Is it within the scope of this article to include a section about correspondents and/or editors married to one another? For example, Max Frankel and Joyce Purnick; Don Van Natta Jr. and Lisette Alvarez; Susan Edgerley and Lon Teter; Sam Dillon and Julia Preston; Donald McNeil Jr. and Suzanne Daley; John F. Burns and Amy Waldman; Judith Miller and Qaddafi; Kathryn Shattuck and Tunisian diplomat Samir Koubaa? GFP 22:31, 27 January 2007

[edit] The New York Times in fiction

This could probably be an article all on its own, except that it would be oft-vandalized :/ The thought came to me as I noted that the Jayson Blair incident was adapted for television by two different series of the Law and Order franchise. I don't know why the different production teams couldn't agree to have just one of the shows do it. The Howell Raines character in one was played by Judd Hirsch.

Other instances of the Times's appearing in fiction are: Keith R.A. Candido's novel Articles of the Federation, set in the 24th century; and the films Firestarter and Three Days of the Condor. AndreasKQ 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

Is concerning the mention of the liberal bias of the Times, or the lack thereof, in fact. It does mention the bias, but seems to only quotes one study which says that it's not a biased newspaper, and otherwhere seems to be saying that any calls that it's biased are untrue. This is not proper: there is little debate that the NYT has some sort of bias: compare this with the Fox News Channel, which (correctly) mentions the bias in the lead paragraph of the article. In other words, not only are we ignoring this issue, but the only thing we're saying about it is buried in the article, and in fact only quotes people who say the Times isn't biased. I have thus tagged the article. Part Deux 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't just tag it that way because you feel it to be so or you think it's obvious. You have to cite some sort of poll or study. I removed the tag, there is talk of corporate and liberal bias in the article already. Quadzilla99 04:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)