I need to write the whole piece about this, but the thing to understand is that the NYT is now just Facebook. The platform dictates narrative to normies, is totally gamed by the right, and is still so ubiquitous as to be unavoidable even by those who see how broken it is. It's just Facebook.
Ok, fair, but what's the consensus on what's considered the most informationally robust publication(s) now?
Cause I also feel like bitching about the NYT is the Left's version of "coastal media elites" and I'm not sure what the conclusion to draw from this is besides that everything sucks.
I think the issue I have with the analogy is that this isn't a recent development by the Times - I can easily think of similarities going back to the Clinton impeachment. The Facebook analogy is useful for understanding it, but it's not this way because of Facebook.
Is there good journalism and opinion in the NYT sometimes? Of course. And sometimes there are useful items on Facebook Marketplace. But what is it _for_? It's for the same thing as Facebook, and run with the same arrogance and insularity, based on the same fictions.
Liberals can't help but have politics be a fight over NYT editorial policy.
1. That's not where the votes are.
2. It reflects living in the past. The NYT market penetration is small.
3. It comes off as wanking to the people who have a legitimate critique of "the system."
What I think we saw during and after 2016 was the Times re-understanding itself as An Institution first. Institutions have different priorities around risk and survival, and that perspective explains a lot of otherwise baffling and out of character behavior.
Today’s American media cycle:
1. Right wing media focuses on some phony outrage.
2. People are “talking about it.”
3. Mainstream media has to cover it.
4. Repeat.
I subscribe to a bunch of smaller outlets, but as much as I find NY Times' editorial judgment infuriating, I'm loathe to stop supporting one of the very few journalistic outlets that still sends people out to research and report stories instead of just blathering about whatever Reuters wrote up.
The incredible (and epically long) book Anniversaries by Uwe Johnson, which is about 1967-8 in NYC, riffs on excerpts from the NYT throughout...making a great (and often very funny) case that it has been ever thus. The Times was FB before FB, really. www.nyrb.com/products/ann...
I'd offer a slight nuance – I think this is more true for the NYT's *web presence* than it is for the NYT. The print paper has a fairly different set of emphases.
That said... I grant you that when someone tells you who they are, believe them, etc., so it may be a distinction without a difference.
If you still have a NYT subscription, call them to cancel it. Then take that savings and donate it to NPR and/or buy a subscription to your local paper.
I keep reading takes like this from smart, well informed people but I'm struggling to get it. I feel like I need a lot more background on media literacy/historical context here (with concrete examples to help me). anyone have any recommendations?
It's also daytime TV...cooking, talking heads, fancy homes. A little something inoffensive and mild for everyone so you don't have to focus on the news.
It’s kind of wild how abruptly it feels like NYT became this. To me at least. I always took it with a grain of salt but there used to be legitimately good journalism buried in there.
I've been trying to get NYT out of my feed for over a year. It's just fash-lite these days, a barely respectable veneer of 'both sides' actually totally captured by maga extremism, with zero journalistic principles or value, selling us all out in the name of access and profit.
It's a nasty rag.
Oh please write the piece! I’m actually using Facebook to try to breakthrough to my middle aged mostly white NYT reading cohort how flawed the Times has become.
I have a lot of complaints about our local paper, but they cover every single climate change issue in the region and I can reliably count on a front-page headline every time our climate commission does anything.
It really is, isn’t it.
The watered-down both-sides presentation of “news,” your racist uncle’s loud opinion on the side, a little kvetching about inflation or “those darn kids,” your Aunt Stella’s recipes, a heartwarming human interest story about a dog, the ubiquitous homogeneity… it’s Facebook.
Add: it almost solely panders to middle-class white people people over 40.
AND - it's just smart enough and uses the big words that allow educated people to pretend that they are participating in something smart and not something dumb like Facebook.
It used to be just twitr. I started going to the Guardian in 2013 bc they were the only ones not padding their articles with random twts. AP is best imo
And it needs to be abandoned. Too many critics of the NYT remind of X-Men and Spider-Man readers who bitch nonstop about the storylines but nevertheless continue to faithfully hand over their money every month. Vote with your wallet.
I feel like this goes for any media/news corporation. No matter if it's left, right, centrist or whatever. There's always an agenda, we just tend to notice the ones we don't agree with more often.
Furthermore, it is optimized for driving engagement - not being the journal of record any more - and so ever article is designed to drive outrage-based reading by one side or the other.
We are being "rage farmed" by them into continual engagement the same way Fox News does to their audience.
who is an NYT “normie” at this point, though? FB is notoriously for “olds” (people in our age demographic or, likely, older). that’s hardly a growth strategy, but NYT doesn’t have an instagram to fall back on