Talk:Criticism of The New York Times

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] MoveOn.org advertisement in the NYT about General Petraeus' Congressional testimony

Is this really relevant to this article? It became very contentious in the article about Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., too, as can be seen from the recent edit summaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger_Jr.&action=history

Whether there is even any information value to it seems to hinge on whether or not the ad was sold to MoveOn.org at a discount, and the cited news source says nothing about that. It seems (to me at least) to be a WP:OR conclusion that the editor who included it here reached independently by comparing the quoted $65,000 price to a NYT ad rate card, which may or may not be current. Having worked for both a major metropolitan daily newspaper and a Madison Avenue ad agency, I know that rate cards are not always indicative of the actual price an advertiser pays in their final contracted fee.

If there was no discount, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the NYT at all, as they have sold full-page ads to all sorts of controversial advertisers for many years. It's not about the newspaper or its editorial policies and practices at all, IMHO. The NYT editorial page opinion on the Iraq war, MoveOn.org aside, is well known. First draft of history 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I take back what I typed above. Another editor just cited a news story in the New York Post that makes this item a legitimate addition to this article. My objection to its inclusion was never ideological; just trying to be a stickler for facts. First draft of history 21:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page added

This page was created to resolve the fact that many issues other editors felt were notable, weren't notable enough to be included in the main article of the New York Times. It seemed only natural to create this page, as most other news agencies have their own separate entry on controversies/criticism. The detail of the previous controversy section certainly warranted a separate page. DMCer 02:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You "removed an off-topic edit" which I made, and restored the following text: "Other news corporations, including BBC_News, Fox News, and Al-Jazeera, were found to have made damaging edits as well.[1][2][3][4]" What does that have to do with "Critcism of The New York Times"? I was trying to stick to the topic of the page; the Times article which I cited as an annotated source has more details of the Wikipedia changes which were made from Times' computers, and a response from the Times' "standards editor." I made other contributions to the Wikipedia article itself about the broader WikiScanner news stories. First draft of history 01:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've corrected it.-DMCer 22:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NY Terror Plot

The NY terror plot never existed (in reality) -- the guy who "masterminded" it was a sporadically homeless, the other was a drug addict; the "informant" who tipped authorities is a drug dealer looking to get out from under a serious felony conviction... Beyond all of that, it was a technically challenging (read: impossible) undertaking far beyond the resources of the "conspirators". The Times was right in not giving it front page pres... Anyone like Red Herring in the morning? Tag applied. This article needs a lot of cleanup. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's even a clean-up issue. That paragraph shouldn't be in there at all. It isn't a "controversy" just because O'Reilly ranted about it for a few minutes one night. It needs to rise to a higher level of notability by receiving attention in the larger media (like the Jayson Blair affair, the Judith Miller case or even the Moveon.org ad). The problem with these "criticism" or "controversy" daughter pages is that they simply become POV forks from the main article and become a magnet for detractors who try to include any negative comment they can find. I'm going to remove that paragraph. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lede needs to be rewritten.

As it is now, it has nothing to do with the article and summarizes nothing. It starts out okay, but then it looks like some random comments were thrown in. I don't have time to get to it right now but I'll try this weekend. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Names of Critics

In the intro paragraph, I just wrote down some notable people whom have criticized the paper much like other "criticism of" pages. Some of their criticism was discussed as non-notable, but these people themselves are notable and have made remarks about the paper. I figure that their names should at least be mentioned. Discuss if you disagree. Arnabdas (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the article and its points. Given that George Bush and Dick Cheney are never discussed in the article (and that the additions were unsourced), the recent edits aren't really appropriate. Additionally, as discussed previously, notability means more than being mentioned on an anti-Times blog or on Bill O'Reilly's show. There is a higher standard, at the very least it would need to be discussed as an actual news item and responded to by The Times. Anything less serves only to turn this article into a coatrack. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I am just trying to understand how things work here.
  1. To put in a critic in the lede means a violation of WP:COATRACK ?
  2. Also, I am not so sure how Bush and Cheney haven't been discussed in the article. After all, they are apart of the Bush Administration aren't they? Since there is a section of The Times' criticism of the Administration, I fail to understand your logic about why it wouldn't apply.
  3. Why would The Times need to issue a response? If (and I emphasize if) the paper purposely misled and IF they are using statistics without context in a hard news piece to promote any sort of agenda, why would they want to alert their readers to that fact?
Arnabdas (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Kohn and Journalistic Fraud

I am not sure why this was removed. The author and book are mentions in wikipedia with their own articles. I added it back in. Please do not remove without reason. Arnabdas (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it this time (did not do it time before) per WP:LEAD. Thanks. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I accidentally skipped over this comment you made. I apologized on your talk page for the error on my part. As per the issue itself, I added it as a reference in the "See Also" section. If people want to go to it they can since the two issues are related. I don't see enough weight as the other topics to warrant a topic of its own yet. If there is a "poutpouri" section in the future, then we can include it there at that time. Arnabdas (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
On a side note about the "See Also" section, I added in a reference to the Politics of Bill O'Reilly page as a reference. He spends a lot of time on his programs talking about his perception of media bias, especially at The Times. People interested in this topic should have the convenience of getting to his page to find out more if they wish. Arnabdas (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

As this article is supposed to be about Criticism of the New York Times, I've changed the lead paragraph accordingly. Originally, the lead only discussed Daniel Okrent's accusations of liberal bias, which made no sense. I've placed the Okrent info into the main text of the article. Obviously, others can tweak/expand the lead as they see fit.-Hal Raglan (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain Article

I am going to put back in part of Bob Bennett's statement. It won't be as much as before, but he is McCain's attorney in the matter and his comments are notable..especially because he also investigated McCain during Keating Five and suggested to the Senate Committe to NOT pursue charges against McCain. This is about a man's character and it goes to his character to mention this much. Not doing so would be a violation of BLP. I also don't know why Bill O'Reilly was removed in favor of Limbaugh, Hannity and Ingraham. I will put in a small statement about his mention that The Times had endorsed McCain despite these rumors. That is a point of notability without question I feel. Arnabdas (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean "O'Reilly was removed in favor..." - I wrote the whole section from scratch as the previous versions were removed. I tried to keep it NPOV. Whatever changes you are going to make, please keep the balance. Mhym (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't had any time in the last few days to give it any attention, but the section in its current form is very poorly written. The point of it should be to briefly summarize the issue and why it is controversial and what the arguments are on boths sides. There is absolutely no reason to enumerate one-by-one a long list of pundits with with no connection whatsoever to subject and then list a series of generic pull-quotes without any actual arguments attached ("disgraceful", "a lie", etc.). It's not a review! This is yet another example of how these "criticism" articles are almost universally awful and end up simply becoming POV forks. The entire section needs a re-write. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I see my contributions are really appreciated... Ugh. Mhym (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I am going to explain why we should keep in all the people that are listed:

  1. Bennett because he is his attorney and has inside info about the allegations
  2. Gingrich because he is a former Republican politician
  3. Lieberman because he is a current Democrat politician, yet a McCain endorser
  4. Davis because he is not a McCain supporter but criticized the article and gave insight about the allegations the article menstions since he himself was lobbying on the issue
  5. O'Reilly for bringing up the endorsement of McCain by the paper when they had the information that they based the article on

Hope that clarifies what I was trying to do. Arnabdas (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but neither the article nor the talk page is a forum for people to respond to the story. As Loonymonkey explained above, this should be a brief summary of why this story is controversial, with an explaination from the paper (per WP:NPOV). Anything beyond that (including a list of third parties' responses) runs far afoul of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOT. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Other than Bennett, how are any of those a reason for inclusion? "Gingrich because he is a former Republican politician"? So what? What does that have to do with anything? We should summarize the controversy and list a couple of the relevant criticisms. There is absolutely no need to print a whole series of generic quotes by people who have absolutely no connection to the issue, that's simply undue weight. In any issue like this, it's a given that every single paid pundit is going to weigh in. But that doesn't mean there is anything notable about their comments. Every word that Bill O'Reilly utters is not inherently notable to the subject simply because he said it on TV. Wikipedia is not news. Also, you might want to double-check your facts. Lieberman is an Independent, not a Democrat. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I actually didnt put in Gingrich so I have no beef with taking him out. Lieberman is an Independent yes, but he is still a registered Democrat from my understanding and caucuses with Democrats. I have no problem of calling him an Independent-Democrat. Only keeping the right-wing talk show hosts in would be POV since it would seem the criticism came from only the right. I think Lieberman should be put in because he is not on the right, but a McCain supporter as should Davis because he criticized the article and is not a McCain supporter. Point is, this article has been criticized for many days and from all sides. That's why all the corners of the political arena who opined on it should have their mention. Not including them all would make it seem that only a certain group was criticizing The Times when that's simply untrue. As for the endorsement, I have no problem taking O'Reilly out of it if we actually find a link to the article citing where the paper itself endorsed him. I don't understand how that cannot be seen as a notable point. Arnabdas (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, what I did was leave out everything you took out but put back in Davis' mention. His mention is important because he is not a McCain supporter and was actually involved in the same lobbying case as Iseman was. I do agree that it is getting to big to put in everyone else...I didnt know you had taken out all of the right wingers too. No need to put in Lieberman if the talk show hosts are also out. However, we definitely need to put in mention about the endorsement. Mentioning O'Reilly is not necessary, but the endorsement is. If I can find the link to the actual endorsement I will put it in. I will be a bit busy this day, but if you guys can find the actual editorial feel free to link it yourselves. If I can't find it, I'll put in a statement "the paper was highlighted for its endorsement of McCain a month earlier despite having knowledge of what they called an improper relationship" or something along those lines Arnabdas (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Before you go replying to yourself again, I'll go ahead and point out the irrelevance of the stuff you're putting in and then agreeing with yourself for putting in. This is article is Criticism of The New York Times, not an article about McCain (or a place for you to defend him). This is all in violation of WP:UNDUE and generally inappropriate for a criticism style article; this is the sort of crap people always worry about regarding POV-forks, and this only justifies their worry. This criticism is worth little more than a sentence or two; a paragraph is plenty sufficient. The rest must be trimmed. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree completely. The Davis stuff is completely irrelevant as it doesn't have anything to do with the Times. It seems to have been inserted just to have one more voice defending McCain. This article is not about McCain. We need only mention what the controversy is and why the Times was criticized. The same criticism only needs to be mentioned once, not by every person who repeated it (or similar criticisms). And it especially doesn't need to list a string of similar quotes by people who are simply defending McCain. That isn't "balance," it's undue weight. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I totally understand what you are saying, but I completely yet respectfully disagree. You're right, the article is about Criticism of the Times and not about McCain and that's exactly why we should put in Davis' mention. Reason is the criticism is not just coming from a certain political group or from McCain supporters...the criticism is widespread. BECAUSE Davis is NOT a McCain supporter yet still a critic of the article and as someone who has first hand knowledge of the incident the article highlights makes his thoughts VERY notable. It is far more relevant than having 3 different criticisms from newspapers. If you are worried about weight, we should remove the newspaper mentions aside from the Globe (because of its relationship with The Times) and say something to the likes of "many newspapers around the country also criticized the article. The Boston Globe..." Arnabdas (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsement of McCain in Jan 2008

I put this back in as per my message above. I didn't see anyone put in a reference of the paper itself showing its endorsement, so I am going to put in O'Reilly's point about it. Arnabdas (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

How is that a notable issue? Can you find any other reliable sources where the Times was criticized for that same reason? If not, I would say it needs to go. Again, a mention by O'Reilly does not automatically confer notability. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No worries, I'm planning on gutting the entire section and putting in a more neutral (and appropriately sized) version that actually explicitly states the issues and criticisms. We've been waiting long enough with no progress. If you'd like to help, Loonymonkey, I'd appreciate it. Hit me on my talkpage if interested. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Loonymonkey, it is notable because it is a criticism of the paper regarding this particular issue. If O'Reilly was the only one talking about the alleged hit job, then you would have a point. He is one of many and had a very unique criticism. And saying that O'Reilly is not notable goes against what millions of people who watch and listen to him on a daily basis feel.
Blaxthos, I don't see any problem with where it is now considering the enormity of the situation and the history of the paper of allegedly trying to fix elections. The issue was defined, McCain's lawyer responded about the issues the article brought up, other journalist watchdogs criticized it and criticism also came from a person who does not support McCain but had a working knowledge about one of the issues involved...thus showing that criticism was not just based on ideology. Those are all the necessary points. I agree it shouldnt be any bigger than it is, but those points definitely need to be mentioned. Arnabdas (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Alleged" Liberal Bias?

Their liberal bias is definitely not alleged, it's true. I'm taking that word out. Want me to give evidence? The Duke lacrosse rape case, the obvious liberal stances of the top editors and owner of the New York Times (read some of Bernard Goldberg's works,) and many notable other things. It may be the most popular national newspaper in the country, but it's also when one of the most liberal ones.PokeHomsar (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be your opinion, not objective fact. There is a big difference between the two. Additionally, are you familiar with the Judith Miller controversies? The criticism of the Times in that case is not that it exhibited a liberal bias, but the opposite; that it assisted the Bush administration in selling the idea of an Iraq invasion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please understand that, regardless of your (or my) personal feelings on the issue, this is an encyclopedia that attempts to provide balanced, verifiable information attributed to reliable sources. As such, it would be inappropriate for you to use your opinion to decide what is "right" for the world writ large. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
The simple fact remains that the New York Times' owner is an outspoken liberal and the editor-in-chief is an outspoken liberal. They control what goes to print. Liberal bias? I think so.PokeHomsar (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll leave characterizations and labeling to the pundits and hawks. This is an encyclopedia, and likely not the place you're looking for if you wish to engage in that sort of behavior. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
PokeHomsar, although I do agree with you that overall the paper does have a bias, we have to be fair in criticism citing only facts and our personal beliefs are just that...beliefs and not facts. We cannot give our own POV in the article itself. We can link someone's factual criticism of an issue. After all, the paper does need to get the benefit of the doubt, as it would in a court of law, and it shouldn't be smeared. I just wish it would hold itself to the same standard, but I am not the editor of the paper so I personally cannot enforce that over there...just only in my own work here and with others here too. Arnabdas (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prominent people to criticize

At the moment, this page is simply a list, which isn't doing very well, and could use for a lot more prose. In particular, we've had major figures criticize the newspaper: some prominent conservatives that come to mind would be Mitt Romney (in the Republican presidential debate), William F. Buckley, Jr. (via the National Review), New York Post (frequently in editorials), and pretty much any prominent talk show host (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly): there are certainly more and probably more prominent criticisms. These is just as important to the subject as a simple list of criticisms, IMHO. It ought to be amended. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. It resembles a laundry list. Serious criticism by heavy hitters is lacking, and trivia is given prominence. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia edits

I've removed this section per WP:UNDUE: [1]. This was an extraordinarily minor incident, especially in light of heavier criticisms for other incidents not mentioned, and was true of many different news outlets. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. This could be a sensitive issue but we can always restore from history if it turns out, against your expectations and mine, to be the wrong decision. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I am fine with removing this. Compared to the other incidents, it definitely isn't as big. It also has more to do with the actions of individual people at that paper. We have no proof about it being a conspiracy ordered by Keller or other higher ups, so no need to mention it unless if concrete proof happens and then only a line or two should be suffice. Arnabdas (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)