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.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2

Contents

[edit] Web presence section

The last paragraph of the web presence section reads like a press release about it. Can someone who is at all familiar with the topic make it be better written, or at least substantiate some of the fluff? I don't see any reason for it to be at the "forefront" of anything.

Also, can we check if the edit was done from a computer at the NY Times or Microsoft? (MS gets good play in that paragraph as well) Huadpe (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[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)


Anyone who claims that the New York Times has no political bias is a fundementally dishonest human being.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "liberal" and "left-wing", as the article currently categorizes the paper. That said, it is inappropriate to categorize a media organ of this nature with a political label in its initial descriptor. The discussion about the alleged political biases of the NYT (or any other media organ) should properly go in a subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.43.225 (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Various employees of the paper have admitted that the paper has a liberal bias. Saying in the article that it has been accused of a conservative bias is highly misleading and designed to insinuate that all the allegations are garbage. Every empirical study I have seen has said that the Times has a definite liberal slant. Enigma msg! 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You're misconstruing a couple of statements which are addressed in this article. I'm not sure which "empirical studies" you're referring to. Perhaps you could provide some citations here for these studies and we could discuss it. It sounds like you're unfamiliar with the entire Judith Miller affair in the lead up to the Iraq war, as the entire controversy centers around accusations that the NYT exhibited a pro-Bush administration bias and assisted the administration in selling the war to the public. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political Leanings of Owners

What are the political leanings of Aurthur Ochs Sulzberger and other New York Times owners?

It seems that this is a key detail and should be a part of this article.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GomerMcFlarp (talk • contribs)
I cleaned up the SWIFT section and tried to tone down the POV. —Preceding unsigned comment 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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

Here is more (and I have added a paragraph to that effect): Conservatives' accusations of political bias have continued, notably with the Duke lacrosse scandal, when one of them (Dennis Prager) protested that "in the aftermath of the destruction of three young men's names," the name of the "lying woman … is still hidden by The New York Times and other major newspapers whose commitment to truth is not as strong as their commitment to political correctness." (The Rape of a Name Is Also Rape by Dennis Prager, June 26, 2007) Asteriks 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ann Coulter adds that 'The New York Times has yet to name the woman who falsely accused three men of committing a brutal gang rape. The Times "public editor" described the paper's delusional coverage of the Duke case after the first several weeks as "basically fair." The Times Sports editor, Tom Jolly, said he was "very comfortable" with the coverage, saying the case had two main elements: "One was the allegation of rape; the other was the general behavior of a high-level sports team at a prestigious university." That's when you know your newspaper might have a wee hint of a liberal bias: when even the sportswriters are left-wing crackpots.

'Apparently, the Times editor did not see this possibility as an "element" of the case: A liberal prosecutor incites a racial conflagration weeks before an election in a heavily black voting district by using the incredible claims of a stripper to falsely accuse three innocent white men of gang rape.'

However the paragraph I added to the article itself was unceremoniously removed (i.e., without any explanation or record thereof whatsoever), and we can therefore conclude (I take it) that Wikipedia (or a number of its influential editors) are as liberal as the Old Gray Lady… 81.67.66.202 21:48, 12 July 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:

Image:Hitlertamed.jpg
This content has an uncertain copyright status and is pending deletion. You can comment on its removal.

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)

[edit] Why was the tag about the lies removed?

Recently, I put up the following as an addition:

"On March 15, 2007 The Times ran an editorial titled "Immigration Misery" that had claimed a "screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken dehydrated to an emergency room so that the nation's borders will be secure." Upon further investigation, the only two babies admitted to the hospital in the area of Bedford, MA (where the raid had taken place) were due to dehydration because of pneumonia and not as a result of being "forcibly weaned." Commentators have alleged that The Times made up the facts that they based their editorial on to promote a left-wing agenda aimed at promoting illegal immigration in order to make the illegal immigrants into legal US citizens and register them as Democrats since the Democratic Party has traditionally promoted more entitlement programs that people in lower income classes (which most illegal immigrants are in) favor.[3]"

and it was reverted because of speculation? I dont understand what's speculative about it. The hospitals in the Bedford, MA area exist and don't have records for babies being admitted for dehydration outside cases of pneumonia. Though it was mentioned in a commentary, the facts of the commentary are true...The Times based its editorial on the wrong facts. There is nothing "speculative" about it. Arnabdas 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] front page item

In 1965, the Times printed a frontpage expose of a Jewish man, Dan Burros, turned Neo-Nazi and Klansman. Burros shot himself later that day, after having seen the newspaper. Should we put this into the controversy section? --LC 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it can be put in a different section, on stories broken by the Times, or so? --LC 14:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] facts removed from timeline

I rewrote the beginning of the history section to make it less like a timeline. When doing so, I removed a couple facts whose significance to the paper's history were unclear. Please re-add these if you can explain why they're important! Calliopejen1 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In the 1876 presidential election, while other newspapers declared Samuel Tilden the victor over Rutherford B. Hayes, the Times, under the headline A Doubtful Election, asserted the outcome remained uncertain. After months, an electoral commission and Congress finally decided the election in Hayes's favor.[4]

Between 1870 and 1871, a series of Times exposes targeted Boss Tweed and ended the Tweed Ring's domination of New York's city hall.[4]

actually on second thought I'll re-add that second one myself. Calliopejen1 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

November 6, 1928, on Times Tower, the Motograph News Bulletin, known colloquially as "The Zipper" or "The News Zipper," started flashing its 14,800 bulbs with election results: Herbert Hoover defeats Al Smith. Beginning May 18, 1942, the zipper went dark in compliance with wartime blackout rules.

During World War II, two Times reporters, Harold Denny, in North Africa, and Otto D. Tolischus, in Japan, were held as prisoners of war. Tolischus was tortured and accused of espionage. Both were eventually released.

In 1945, William L. Laurence, a science reporter, was drafted by the government to write the official history of the A-bomb project. On August 9, he was the only journalist on the mission to bomb Nagasaki

[edit] Family ownership

It is important to note that the Newspaper is controlled by the Jewish Sulzberger family.

[edit] Style question for another article

Hi, folks. At the FAC for Fun Home, the question has come up whether it's better to refer to the New York Times or The New York Times. I see that this article uses The New York Times, but almost always at the beginning of sentences. Does that make a difference? For some reason, my instincts want me to write "spent two weeks on the New York Times' bestseller list" instead of "two weeks on The New York Times' bestseller list." Does anyone have a copy of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage? Presumably that would have the definitive answer to the question. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] let's talk facts

It's a fact that 79% of Americans feel that the NYT is far "left of center" so then in a consensus based encyclopedia, why is this fact not relfected in this article?--—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article. [2]. The Times has a 120+ year independent history, while Fox News is less than 11 years old. What goes in this introduction should cover all 120+ years, not just the past few. Abe Froman 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro and bias

How many articles does it take to make this notable enough to make it into the lead? 10, 100, 1000? Certainly this is a big point of the NY Times critics, and there certainly are many of them out there. So, I ask, how many articles would it take to make this notable enought for inclusion in the lead, like the way its in the lead of the Fox News article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not going to worry about it anymore. The Evil Spartan 14:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This is already covered in the article. [3]. The Times has a 120+ year independent history, while Fox News is less than 11 years old. What goes in this introduction should cover all 120+ years, not just the past few. Abe Froman 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Time should not matter. How long has the current publisher and editor been at the helm? The moveon.org discount is just the latest example of a liberal bias. You can't have it both ways. Fox news is the leading cable new outlet yet the conservative bias is in the elad.Kirin4 23:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that the NY Times has been exposed by it's own outbundsman of giving a discounted rate to Moveon.org can we put the liberal bias in the intro?Kirin4 13:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you are an admin would you mind giving me a reason? Thanks.Kirin4 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That I'm an admin is irrelevant -- I'm just expressing my opinion the same as any other editor. What language do you propose? If you want to bring up the ombudsman's opinion, you'll also need to mention that what happened was against corporate policy, which kinda weakens the argument about liberal bias (except, perhaps, in the ad sales department, where this all took place.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The outbundsman has critized the liberal bias before as has Fox News, what is sufficent to put in the introductarary paragraph, the Fox News entry has the conservative tag it and that is more moderate than the NY Times is.Kirin4 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I couldn't care less about the Fox News entry; if something bad is there, it doesn't mean something bad should be here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave you 2 examples, is that enough? Times Own outbundsman and the leader U.S cable new network.Kirin4 23:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Famous Mistakes"

This section seems pretty weak. The first entry (about Goddard) is an amusing anecdote, I guess. I'm not sure I'd call it a mistake. All the rest, though, except the ballet dancer, aren't mistakes -- they're being the victim of hoaxes. Quite different. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two "See Also" sections?

Is there a reason there are two "See Also" sections? Clamster 22:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If there was a reason, I couldn't see it. First draft of history 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mr. Hussein"

The Times insists on referring to Saddam Hussein as "Mr. Hussein". As many know, however, "Hussein" is Saddam's father's first name, and hence, Saddam's "middle name". It is not a surname (Saddam's family name is "al-Tikriti"). Almost all other news publications I come across refer to the man as "Saddam", or perhaps "Hussein"; it is pretty unique to the Times to consistently refer to the man as "Mr. Hussein" - which is as nonsensical as referring to Bill Clinton as "Mr. Jefferson." I think it is worth throwing in a one-liner about the consequence of the Times' policy of not using unadorned last names - that is, the cultural inappropriateness of referring to everyone in the world as "Mr. ---". The "Mr. Hussein" controversy is a good example. See the first 6 Google results for "Mr. Hussein" and you will see my point. But my edit was deleted. 24.193.49.117 03:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jayson Blair

Narry a word about Jayson Blair? 9591353082 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried a long time ago to point out that people - in some cases actually closely affiliated with the Times - have been sanitizing this article of anything controversial (compare it to the similarly polemic Fox News). My complaints have fallen on deaf ears every time. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the Jayson Blair scandal, i.e., the fabrication of dozens of national news stories, which the Times itself described as a "low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper", goes completely unmentioned? 74.68.113.253 (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just fixed it. In closing, POWER TO THE PEOPLE. Swarm Internationale (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Times online

(I'm not sure this should be here, but the regular editors here could probably answer....)

Looking at {{cite news|publisher=New York Times|url=}} entries, there are a number of different formats of URLs; Day care sex abuse hysteria alone has http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=… and http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=… . Any idea which, if any, is more stable? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted articles

Currently, the article has 3 images of copyrighted Times articles (4 if you count the Armenian headline). I think we should be able to replace most if not all with public domain articles. There are 70+ years to choose from. A good start is Image:Titanic-NYT.jpg, the front page from the Titanic sinking in 1912. Thoughts? Superm401 - Talk 09:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You have my support. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Allegation of bias" wording in Modern controversy section.

This sentence has long mentioned allegations of both liberal and conservative bias against the New York Times as the section (now a daughter) discusses criticisms from both the left and the right. An editor is repeatedly removing the word "conservative" from this to give the impression that only a liberal bias is alleged against the Times. This is inaccurate and not supported by the cites which already exist. Chief among these is the Judith Miller controversy, in which the Times is accused of having been insufficiently critical of the Bush Administration and overtly supportive of the war effort. I had thought that consensus was reached on this some time ago, but it seems to have been lost when the section was split to a daughter page. Comments? --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to a cite that supports that the NYT is "often accused of having a conservative bias"?. Please don't just revert, thanks, --Tom (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"Don't just revert?" Physician, heal thyself. You have repeatedly removed language that was long ago agreed upon and done so without any discussion or explanation. Are you at all familiar with the criticism the Times received for the coverage of Iraq by Judith Miller and the related editorials by William Safire? It is well-cited in other sections of this article (and in the daughter), but if you need me to spell it out in that specific sentence, I will. Let's hope that is the end of this. I try to avoid edit wars so I will provide additional sources (particularly in the discussion of the Judith Miller controversy) in which the Times was accused of furthering a conservative agenda, and then I will leave it alone for a bit. Once cited, I assume that you will not then continue to remove it, correct? To do otherwise would seem to indicate an agenda of some sort. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I do have an agenda just for the record, its stated on my user page. Cheers! --Tom (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)ps, I see your interests here. What is your agenda?--Tom (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
(As an experienced editor, you should know that is a highly inappropriate use of edit counters.) I'm really not sure why you're trying to make this personal but since you asked, my edits are primarily concerned with reverting vandalism and defending against tendentious editing. Mostly this comes from patrolling the recent changes, but I also watch several articles that are frequent targets. In the Times article, attempts to inject POV tend to involve inserting criticism in the lede, creating new "Controversy" sections and/or giving undue weight to whatever "scandal" has the bloggers enraged that day, and (as in this case) attempts to remove reference to any controversy other than allegations of liberal bias. All of these positions have long since been hammered out by consensus.
Back to the New York Times article (which is really all we should be discussing here), as you mentioned that you still don't like the wording, perhaps you can suggest better wording here so that there can be some consensus? I feel that you and I are not at all fundamentally opposed in our positions on neutrality and that agreement can be easily reached. Thanks! --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggested that maybe the two accusations should be broken out. To say that the NYT is often accused of having a conservative bias needs to be cited, thats all. Also, please do not remove or edit my comments. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The New York Times is not often accused of a conservative bias. It's often accused of a liberal bias. To say otherwise is trying to deflect criticism. As I stated above, employees of the paper itself have agreed that it has a liberal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaman (talk • contribs) 16:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current management and employees

My understanding is that each individual needs a reference. Other wikipedia articles are not sufficient to establish employment at the NYT. Consequently, I added an unreferenced section to "Current management and employees" Swarm Internationale (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style section issue

It seems there's a bit of a dispute going on regarding a portion of the Style section. So we don't have an all-out edit war (with problematic 3RR violations), let's discuss the issue here. The edits are around the portion of the Style section reflected here, describing what appears on the nytimes.com website on a given day. If there are opinions, please state them below and we can try to build consensus. --Bobak (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the debate over at Talk:Star Tribune, the dispute seems over. One of the parties to the dispute has expressed a clear desire to abandon it and avoid all discussions pertaining to it.--Beaker342 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Urban myth" section

This seems quite minor and the "hoax" itself seems quite stupid — the "hoax" doesn't look anything like a real page, and I have never heard of it getting much attention. Personally I'd remove the section, it seems quite unnecessary. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. This is the type of material that really doesn't belong. I have removed it. Thanks, --Tom 23:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The current front page image

It appears that somebody has replaced the front page image with one that's not real. If you look closely, the headlines are all absurd and one even has a bad word. 70.251.27.129 (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is true. Examples: "Independents Hate Everyone in This Race", "Obama Attempts to Act Like a Kennedy", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.246.55 (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It was done by user:Wonker Zonker (whose only contributions were this vandalism). We'll keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't get reverted again. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image for deletion

Image:NYT header.JPG has been marked for deletion and is noted here. Someone may want to write a fair-use rationale using the appropriate template. ww2censor (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsements

The article talks about the paper's alleged bias, but doesn't seem to have anything on which Presidential candidates/parties it has endorsed down the years. Can someone add something on this? --Richardrj talk email 08:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. I will see if I can find something. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)