![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Suggest that more weight be placed behind the NYT pattern of repeatedly leaking classified information without a regard for the fact that such a leak violated federal law claiming the justification that the public's need to know outweighs abiding by a federal law.
Could we get a list of where all the bureaus are? Also, I can help add information to the Times wiki, if someone could point me to what would be best for me to start on.
a picture would be really nice here :) perhaps a quick digital photo of a recent issue? or just the title at the top.. Goodralph 19:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The readers' representative of the NYT, Daniel Orkent, penned a column in the 2004-07-25 NYT that stated that the NYT is a liberal newspaper. However, the column is the person opinion of Orkent, not that of the NYT editorial board.
I'm not sure if adding something like this to a Wikipedia article would create NPOV problems (I haven't done any deep searching for NYT columns that state the NYT is NOT liberal). But I thought it'd be something interesting to share.
"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?" [1]
Maybe we should change the "Recent Controversies" section to "Controversies" to contain older controversies as well. For instance, I recently wrote an article on the grunge speak hoax, which was an event that showed the Times in an unfavorable light (due to a lack of research on their part before publishing the hoax). I would add this event to this article, but there isn't a section for it at the moment, and it would seem redundant to make seperate sections for old and new controversies. -- [[User:LGagnon| LGagnon]] 01:13, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
Is the latest addition about more recent headlines, that "helped fuel perception of a left leaning bias in news reporting" really necessary? Not daring to modify, I would suggest, it should either be removed, or at least be completed by a broader point of view. This would ensure a) encyclopedic character, and b) neutral point of view. - Fuffzsch 08:25, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I reorganized the allegations of bias section and added balance for NPOV. The size of my edit should not be taken as a sign that I believe this section should be this long. IMO this section is placed way too high on the page, and it's too long (or, rather, the rest of the article is way too short compared to this one), but the previous version of this section was way too one-sidedly POV, so there wasn't much else I could do.
k.lee 08:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have found out this statistical analysis by Riccardo Puglisi from the London School of Economics about the editorial choices of the New York Times from 1946 to 1994:
This is the abstract of the paper:
I analyze a dataset of news from the New York Times, from 1946 to 1994. 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 it gives more emphasis to issues over which the (Republican) incumbent is weak. Moreover, out of the presidential campaign, there are more stories about Democratic topics when the incumbent president is a Democrat.
--
Johnny Guitar 17:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As the French newspaper Libération is currently being characterized as "militant" in its article I would like to know whether the New York Times statement [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899082/posts "Chirac and his poodle Putin have severely damaged the United Nations", "Chirac's Latest Ploy", WILLIAM SAFIRE] would qualify this newspaper as "militant" as well? Just a rhetorical question... Get-back-world-respect 15:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Note that William Safire was an Op-Ed contributor, not a reporter. You might want to argue that Safire is/was "militant" (Safire once described himeself as a "right wing scandal monger" so possibly he might even agree with the characterization), but that's a rhetorical leap to apply it to the newspaper as a whole. In any event, it sounds like your beef is really with the Libération article.
Crust 8 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
I rolled-back an added paragraph titled "leadership" that exaggerated the paper's actions during the Kent State riots. If nothing else, it had the tone of extreme POV. - DavidWBrooks 16:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I removed the following text:
It seems to me to be unsourced speculation, not encyclopedic content. I'm not sure it belongs in an encyclopedia. [[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]] 20:57, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
There seems to be an undiscussed revert war going on between 4.152.255.197 and several wikipedians concerning the NYTimes' presidential endorsements. Perhaps the two sides ought to explain their positions. I'm not sure why the NYTimes' presidential endorsements are considered vandalism, unless the paragraph 4.152.255.197 is inserting is factually incorrect. It's clearly in need of copy editing and a bit of NPOV cleanup, but the information (unless factually false) certainly doesn't warrant deletion as vandalism. I see that people here have complained that the NYTimes article as a whole weighs too heavily on the side of criticism, and while I agree, that doesn't mean criticism should be avoided—it means wikipedians have been remiss in writing more substantively about the NYTimes's other aspects and achievements. The text being inserted reads as:
The information is factually correct. NYT has always endorsed a democratic candidate after Eisenhower. Thats something like 40 years. Even when raegan won 49 states out of 50 states NYT supported Mondale.And NYT opened a office in Kansas city to voice more red state concerns part of reorientation of the newspaper.Check NYT website for historical abstracts.
Thanks
Businessweek article that contains a huge amount of info on the state of the paper. Someone with a bit of free time could data mine this and insert paraphrased bits into the wikipedia article.
Some claim that political commentary may intermix with art criticism in the Arts section of the paper. For example, A. O. Scott's film reviews sometimes contain barbs directed at social conservatives.
We can't link this articles to every blog that speculates on issues which may or may not be altering Times coverage, because it would completely swamp it. Remember wikipedia is not a link farm! - DavidWBrooks 15:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An article about the changing voting parterns of Jews in Europe should not be in an article about The New York Times. It is totally not on topic. The justification by User:Jvb "The New York Times perhaps fears to lose some of its Jewish readers. A shift to the right abroad might be an omen for things going to happen in America itself" is supposition. This is not encyclopedic. If there is no disagreement I will revert out after 12 hours (and the next time I am connected). Trödel| talk 15:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article is not the place to discuss or document every mistake that a newspaper may make. When this particular issue gets significant media coverage, then it can be included. Until then, it does not belong. Gamaliel 20:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the link. It's just a blog post. It's not significant enough to include as an external link. Rhobite 20:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Irrespective of how legitimate the argue may be, we can't link to every blog that speculates on issues which may or may not be altering Times coverage. This may well be a legitimate topic of discussion but not here. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a debate forum! - DavidWBrooks 20:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There's been no mention yet in this article of another recent controversy, one that helped weaken Howell Raines' position even before the Jayson Blair storm broke. I mean the spiking of opinion columns on the sports page that dissented from Raines' crusade against the Augusta National men-only policy. Anybody want to have a go at added a few words on point? -- Christofurio 19:50, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps somebody can add a heading with some facts about the New York Times online and also mention the fact that the opinion pages (online) will become subscription only in September. -- newsjunkie 19:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands describes the newspaper as divided into three major sections -- news, opinion, and features. Does the New York Times use these designations (other than as headings on its web site), and are they useful to the Wikipedia reader? These "sections" are not necessarily associated with the physical sections in which the newspaper is printed. For example, the editorials, op-eds and letters to the editor are printed in the main news section Monday through Saturday and in the Week in Review section on Sunday. -- Metropolitan90 19:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Should be renamed to New York Times, unless its officially part of the name. Even if it is, its very questionable - Violates name policy. - SV| t 05:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Rumors of investigation at New York Times regarding Carl Hulse of the DC bureau ghost-writing political columns for Maureen Dowd. Haven't seen documentation yet. Anyone know the inside information?
Retrieved from " http://journalism.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Current_events"
I deleted the paragraph: "Third, some Times political reporters, such as Elisabeth Bumiller and Adam Nagourney, have been accused by liberals of covering politics in a shallow and unreflective fashion that (perhaps inadvertently) benefits conservatives." I hope everyone can see why. -- zenohockey 15:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Just today somebody deleted a long paragraph on the "conservative bias". While I don't have a strong opinion on the matter and am reluctant to reverse this, I do believe we should have a discussion on whether this is a false equivalence for the sake of political correctness or a real bias. Mhym 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
...quite why the New York Times is considered a liberal paper, it just seems like a nice excuse to have conservatives represent both 'sides' of every issue on TV news programs, which are also marked as part of the great liberal media, best I can figure it, conservatives don't actually watch the channels they take the time to call liberal.. ..and don't read the papers they choose to call liberal
It's just silliness, no matter how loyal a newspaper/tabloid/newschannel is to the Bush administration, they'll still be a part of the great left wing conspiracy, I mean who are you going to blame when you control all 3 branches of the government? obviously not the government, this debate is entirly pointless as there are still people who call the New York Post and New York Daily News liberal papers, rofl-- 172.174.25.220 13:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello, everyone
There is some disagreement over the "Political position" line that appears in the info box to the right of the article.
It is beyond doubt that some controversy surrounds the political viewpoints intrinsic to the Times' newsreporting, and no assertions can be made about the general leanings of opinion editorials, either. Anything under the header "Political position" must be a complete discussion. I have therefore removed the line. If you wish to reinstate it, this is a good space to justify this.
Omphaloscope » talk 00:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Eleemosynary, live up to your name and be more charitable with your patience; drop the personal attacks. 213's business in other discussions has nothing to do with this article and certainly has no place in your debate. Moreover: "hypocrite", "vandal", "paranoid", etc. are not words you would throw around the classroom or the boardroom; nor should they appear on these discussion pages. I've noticed that you string together words well: why not use this skill constructively? Remember, Wikipedia is a cooperative effort.
213, the same applies: your critique of Eleemosynary's argument should steer clear of attacks on Eleemosynary.
With regard to the debate itself, I think putting the word Liberal in the info box makes the article worse. The burden of proof for items in the info box is very high. Readers expect information boxes to have empirical, proven data. As Eleemosynary points out, the info box is for "hard facts". But the claim of "liberal" is neither empirical nor proven in the least. The words of a former editor or those of an internal NYT review are not true simply because they are "official". Lots of organizations contend they are what they are not. Also, the Okrent article's conclusion is completely unsubstantiated: his isolated examples of individual Times articles' support for particular American social liberal causes do not meet our burden of proof.
Let's keep anything remotely controversial out of the sidebar and in the article body itself, where it can be explained properly.
I think the best thing we can do is to offer evidence to the readers and let them weigh it. Wikipedia is built on the fascinating notion that even common schmendricks are worth a bit of trust. Let us then put some trust in that other group of middling individuals: our readers. Let them decide what to make of what Okrent, Keller, et. al. have said. If the evidence is as strong as you contend, 213, then it should be able to speak for itself.
If you're reading this and have an opinion, feel free to type it in below.
Omphaloscope » talk 05:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone recently attempted to reinsert a political position of "Far Left" into the info box. It did not appear there, probably because the inserter misspelled "political position". :) I removed the change rather than correcting the spelling, though, because I agree that an issue as inherently controversial and nuanced as a paper's political leanings should not go into an infobox. Kickaha Ota 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
As a corollary to the note above ("info box politics"): The terms left wing and right wing have no definite meaning. It may be opined that this or that is Left or Right, but use of these words constitutes a non- neutral point of view. It is bad enough to use them to describe clearly defined political positions; it is egregious to present them as descriptions of unclearly defined political positions like that of the Times. Omphaloscope » talk 00:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Any chance of a circulation sectio being added, with numbers and history, possibly using this? -- Maru (talk) Contribs 15:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Suggest that more weight be placed behind the NYT pattern of repeatedly leaking classified information without a regard for the fact that such a leak violated federal law claiming the justification that the public's need to know outweighs abiding by a federal law.
Could we get a list of where all the bureaus are? Also, I can help add information to the Times wiki, if someone could point me to what would be best for me to start on.
a picture would be really nice here :) perhaps a quick digital photo of a recent issue? or just the title at the top.. Goodralph 19:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The readers' representative of the NYT, Daniel Orkent, penned a column in the 2004-07-25 NYT that stated that the NYT is a liberal newspaper. However, the column is the person opinion of Orkent, not that of the NYT editorial board.
I'm not sure if adding something like this to a Wikipedia article would create NPOV problems (I haven't done any deep searching for NYT columns that state the NYT is NOT liberal). But I thought it'd be something interesting to share.
"Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?" [1]
Maybe we should change the "Recent Controversies" section to "Controversies" to contain older controversies as well. For instance, I recently wrote an article on the grunge speak hoax, which was an event that showed the Times in an unfavorable light (due to a lack of research on their part before publishing the hoax). I would add this event to this article, but there isn't a section for it at the moment, and it would seem redundant to make seperate sections for old and new controversies. -- [[User:LGagnon| LGagnon]] 01:13, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)
Is the latest addition about more recent headlines, that "helped fuel perception of a left leaning bias in news reporting" really necessary? Not daring to modify, I would suggest, it should either be removed, or at least be completed by a broader point of view. This would ensure a) encyclopedic character, and b) neutral point of view. - Fuffzsch 08:25, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I reorganized the allegations of bias section and added balance for NPOV. The size of my edit should not be taken as a sign that I believe this section should be this long. IMO this section is placed way too high on the page, and it's too long (or, rather, the rest of the article is way too short compared to this one), but the previous version of this section was way too one-sidedly POV, so there wasn't much else I could do.
k.lee 08:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have found out this statistical analysis by Riccardo Puglisi from the London School of Economics about the editorial choices of the New York Times from 1946 to 1994:
This is the abstract of the paper:
I analyze a dataset of news from the New York Times, from 1946 to 1994. 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 it gives more emphasis to issues over which the (Republican) incumbent is weak. Moreover, out of the presidential campaign, there are more stories about Democratic topics when the incumbent president is a Democrat.
--
Johnny Guitar 17:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As the French newspaper Libération is currently being characterized as "militant" in its article I would like to know whether the New York Times statement [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/899082/posts "Chirac and his poodle Putin have severely damaged the United Nations", "Chirac's Latest Ploy", WILLIAM SAFIRE] would qualify this newspaper as "militant" as well? Just a rhetorical question... Get-back-world-respect 15:12, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Note that William Safire was an Op-Ed contributor, not a reporter. You might want to argue that Safire is/was "militant" (Safire once described himeself as a "right wing scandal monger" so possibly he might even agree with the characterization), but that's a rhetorical leap to apply it to the newspaper as a whole. In any event, it sounds like your beef is really with the Libération article.
Crust 8 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
I rolled-back an added paragraph titled "leadership" that exaggerated the paper's actions during the Kent State riots. If nothing else, it had the tone of extreme POV. - DavidWBrooks 16:45, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I removed the following text:
It seems to me to be unsourced speculation, not encyclopedic content. I'm not sure it belongs in an encyclopedia. [[User:Meelar| Meelar (talk)]] 20:57, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
There seems to be an undiscussed revert war going on between 4.152.255.197 and several wikipedians concerning the NYTimes' presidential endorsements. Perhaps the two sides ought to explain their positions. I'm not sure why the NYTimes' presidential endorsements are considered vandalism, unless the paragraph 4.152.255.197 is inserting is factually incorrect. It's clearly in need of copy editing and a bit of NPOV cleanup, but the information (unless factually false) certainly doesn't warrant deletion as vandalism. I see that people here have complained that the NYTimes article as a whole weighs too heavily on the side of criticism, and while I agree, that doesn't mean criticism should be avoided—it means wikipedians have been remiss in writing more substantively about the NYTimes's other aspects and achievements. The text being inserted reads as:
The information is factually correct. NYT has always endorsed a democratic candidate after Eisenhower. Thats something like 40 years. Even when raegan won 49 states out of 50 states NYT supported Mondale.And NYT opened a office in Kansas city to voice more red state concerns part of reorientation of the newspaper.Check NYT website for historical abstracts.
Thanks
Businessweek article that contains a huge amount of info on the state of the paper. Someone with a bit of free time could data mine this and insert paraphrased bits into the wikipedia article.
Some claim that political commentary may intermix with art criticism in the Arts section of the paper. For example, A. O. Scott's film reviews sometimes contain barbs directed at social conservatives.
We can't link this articles to every blog that speculates on issues which may or may not be altering Times coverage, because it would completely swamp it. Remember wikipedia is not a link farm! - DavidWBrooks 15:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An article about the changing voting parterns of Jews in Europe should not be in an article about The New York Times. It is totally not on topic. The justification by User:Jvb "The New York Times perhaps fears to lose some of its Jewish readers. A shift to the right abroad might be an omen for things going to happen in America itself" is supposition. This is not encyclopedic. If there is no disagreement I will revert out after 12 hours (and the next time I am connected). Trödel| talk 15:52, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An encyclopedia article is not the place to discuss or document every mistake that a newspaper may make. When this particular issue gets significant media coverage, then it can be included. Until then, it does not belong. Gamaliel 20:17, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the link. It's just a blog post. It's not significant enough to include as an external link. Rhobite 20:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
Irrespective of how legitimate the argue may be, we can't link to every blog that speculates on issues which may or may not be altering Times coverage. This may well be a legitimate topic of discussion but not here. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a debate forum! - DavidWBrooks 20:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There's been no mention yet in this article of another recent controversy, one that helped weaken Howell Raines' position even before the Jayson Blair storm broke. I mean the spiking of opinion columns on the sports page that dissented from Raines' crusade against the Augusta National men-only policy. Anybody want to have a go at added a few words on point? -- Christofurio 19:50, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps somebody can add a heading with some facts about the New York Times online and also mention the fact that the opinion pages (online) will become subscription only in September. -- newsjunkie 19:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
The article as it currently stands describes the newspaper as divided into three major sections -- news, opinion, and features. Does the New York Times use these designations (other than as headings on its web site), and are they useful to the Wikipedia reader? These "sections" are not necessarily associated with the physical sections in which the newspaper is printed. For example, the editorials, op-eds and letters to the editor are printed in the main news section Monday through Saturday and in the Week in Review section on Sunday. -- Metropolitan90 19:12, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Should be renamed to New York Times, unless its officially part of the name. Even if it is, its very questionable - Violates name policy. - SV| t 05:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Rumors of investigation at New York Times regarding Carl Hulse of the DC bureau ghost-writing political columns for Maureen Dowd. Haven't seen documentation yet. Anyone know the inside information?
Retrieved from " http://journalism.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Current_events"
I deleted the paragraph: "Third, some Times political reporters, such as Elisabeth Bumiller and Adam Nagourney, have been accused by liberals of covering politics in a shallow and unreflective fashion that (perhaps inadvertently) benefits conservatives." I hope everyone can see why. -- zenohockey 15:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Just today somebody deleted a long paragraph on the "conservative bias". While I don't have a strong opinion on the matter and am reluctant to reverse this, I do believe we should have a discussion on whether this is a false equivalence for the sake of political correctness or a real bias. Mhym 18:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
...quite why the New York Times is considered a liberal paper, it just seems like a nice excuse to have conservatives represent both 'sides' of every issue on TV news programs, which are also marked as part of the great liberal media, best I can figure it, conservatives don't actually watch the channels they take the time to call liberal.. ..and don't read the papers they choose to call liberal
It's just silliness, no matter how loyal a newspaper/tabloid/newschannel is to the Bush administration, they'll still be a part of the great left wing conspiracy, I mean who are you going to blame when you control all 3 branches of the government? obviously not the government, this debate is entirly pointless as there are still people who call the New York Post and New York Daily News liberal papers, rofl-- 172.174.25.220 13:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello, everyone
There is some disagreement over the "Political position" line that appears in the info box to the right of the article.
It is beyond doubt that some controversy surrounds the political viewpoints intrinsic to the Times' newsreporting, and no assertions can be made about the general leanings of opinion editorials, either. Anything under the header "Political position" must be a complete discussion. I have therefore removed the line. If you wish to reinstate it, this is a good space to justify this.
Omphaloscope » talk 00:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Eleemosynary, live up to your name and be more charitable with your patience; drop the personal attacks. 213's business in other discussions has nothing to do with this article and certainly has no place in your debate. Moreover: "hypocrite", "vandal", "paranoid", etc. are not words you would throw around the classroom or the boardroom; nor should they appear on these discussion pages. I've noticed that you string together words well: why not use this skill constructively? Remember, Wikipedia is a cooperative effort.
213, the same applies: your critique of Eleemosynary's argument should steer clear of attacks on Eleemosynary.
With regard to the debate itself, I think putting the word Liberal in the info box makes the article worse. The burden of proof for items in the info box is very high. Readers expect information boxes to have empirical, proven data. As Eleemosynary points out, the info box is for "hard facts". But the claim of "liberal" is neither empirical nor proven in the least. The words of a former editor or those of an internal NYT review are not true simply because they are "official". Lots of organizations contend they are what they are not. Also, the Okrent article's conclusion is completely unsubstantiated: his isolated examples of individual Times articles' support for particular American social liberal causes do not meet our burden of proof.
Let's keep anything remotely controversial out of the sidebar and in the article body itself, where it can be explained properly.
I think the best thing we can do is to offer evidence to the readers and let them weigh it. Wikipedia is built on the fascinating notion that even common schmendricks are worth a bit of trust. Let us then put some trust in that other group of middling individuals: our readers. Let them decide what to make of what Okrent, Keller, et. al. have said. If the evidence is as strong as you contend, 213, then it should be able to speak for itself.
If you're reading this and have an opinion, feel free to type it in below.
Omphaloscope » talk 05:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Someone recently attempted to reinsert a political position of "Far Left" into the info box. It did not appear there, probably because the inserter misspelled "political position". :) I removed the change rather than correcting the spelling, though, because I agree that an issue as inherently controversial and nuanced as a paper's political leanings should not go into an infobox. Kickaha Ota 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
As a corollary to the note above ("info box politics"): The terms left wing and right wing have no definite meaning. It may be opined that this or that is Left or Right, but use of these words constitutes a non- neutral point of view. It is bad enough to use them to describe clearly defined political positions; it is egregious to present them as descriptions of unclearly defined political positions like that of the Times. Omphaloscope » talk 00:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Any chance of a circulation sectio being added, with numbers and history, possibly using this? -- Maru (talk) Contribs 15:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)