Sadly, even the NYT does it

In an editorial at the NYT today, by (ahem) the Editorial Board, I found this sentence:

Recently, NBCUniversal, a division of Comcast, recently invested $200 million in BuzzFeed, the digital media company.

I mean, seriously. No editor or copy editor at the entire New York Times noticed the double-use of "recently" in that sentence? And you know, I might not have mentioned it but this error is online. How hard is it to correct an online error? (Answer: not hard at all.)

Tacky. Really tacky.

Public editor wary of NYT Iraq coverage

It's great to have Margaret Sullivan at the New York Times. She's done a bang-up job as public editor. Mind you, as a progressive, I want more. (We always do, you know.) But she points an accusatory finger at the Times, when merited -- and for that, I am grateful.

Her column in yesterday's NYT harkens back to the paper's terrible coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq war. That was a gutless time for all journalism but one expected more from the NYT. Amazingly, it failed to include voices against the war, while making quite sure the warmongers were heard -- every day, loud and clear. It was all hawks, all the time at the NYT. And Sullivan says it's happening all over again.

First, she reminds us of the past:

The lead-up to the war in Iraq in 2003 was not The Times’s finest hour. Some of the news reporting was flawed, driven by outside agendas and lacking in needed skepticism. Many Op-Ed columns promoted the idea of a war that turned out to be both unfounded and disastrous.

Then she jumps to the present:

Many readers have complained to me that The Times is amplifying the voices of hawkish neoconservatives and serving as a megaphone for anonymously sourced administration leaks, while failing to give voice to those who oppose intervention.

I went back with the help of my assistant, Jonah Bromwich, and reread the Iraq coverage and commentary from the past few weeks to see if these complaints were valid. The readers have a point worth considering. On the Op-Ed pages and in the news columns, there have been very few outside voices of those who opposed the war last time, or those who reject the use of force now.

But the neoconservatives and interventionists are certainly being heard.

Let's hope this sends a chill into the hearts of the NYT editors. Journalism ain't much, these days. But it would be nice if the "paper of record" got it right this time. Still, I wonder if anything will change. The NYT is so in bed with whatever administration is in power, including this one. When I read their stories, it sometimes seems like they were written by White House or Pentagon staffers.

Americans don't want any new wars. Given our history over the last 50 years -- and the helpful refresher course we had during the Bush years -- we are wary of war. Apparently, this news hasn't reached the NYT.

Still, kudos to Sullivan for putting it out there. (It's also great that the New York Times hired her. They knew what they were getting: a no-holds barred, ethical public editor. So who knows? Maybe there is hope.) 

This is what's wrong with the New York Times

The New York Times headline blares: "Ecuador grants asylum to Assange, defying Britain". Of course, what it should say is "Britain threatens to storm Ecuadorian Embassy in London". That's the story.

But the New York Times always sides with authoritarian American interests. Apparently, it cannot do otherwise.

And this is our "paper of record". We are doomed.

My Times paywall experience

Seems like a clunky paywall to me. So far, it's acted like an ineffective, demented, old man.

Many days ago, a message popped up while I was on the New York Times web site. It said I had five more free stories to read -- and then I'd have to haul out my wallet.

About 30 stories later, yesterday, it told me I had four more free stories to read -- and then I'd really be in trouble.

I've been clicking on their stories all day without a peep from their end. Neat paywall they've got. What's your experience been?

UPDATE: The Times hive-mind finally decided I'd read enough for free. However, I was ready for them. I had already downloaded a nice little "bookmarklet" that cuts right through the paywall and lets you read whatever you'd like. Clicked it and I was in. Still reading the Times for free. 

The New York Times conundrum

Sadly, there are quite a few New York Times links in my posts. I say sadly because the NYT is about to go pay-only (or pay-mostly, as they want to paint it), which means a lot of visitors won't be able to follow the links in my posts. That's not good. From now on, I'm going to try to use alternate links for my posts. The heck with the Times.

This also raises the question of whether to subscribe to the New York Times online or simply sneer at its paywall. I think the upcoming subscription is supposed to cost $20 a month. Like Apple's 99 cents per song, it's the highest price they think we'll cough up without choking.

I could just subscribe and be done with it but it would set a precedent. And when you play that precedent forward it doesn't make sense. Will we end up paying twenty dollars for each online news site we rely on? I like the LA Times and the Boston Herald too, and quite a few other "papers". This pay scale won't work for a serious news reader who doesn't have a lot of money to spread around.

And of course, I haven't even mentioned the elephant in the room: what the New York Times prints is not always the truth. See, I read Glenn Greenwald and Dean Baker every day, so I know the Times peddles nonsense to solidify the positions of its overlords, especially the government. And this is the "paper of record". It's despicable.

I'll pay for the Times online when they begin to call torture torture and terrorism terrorism, and the latter no matter who the perpetrator, including the United States government or assorted rightwing nitwits. They'll also have to start calling nonsense nonsense. Is that really so hard to do? They present wingnut views as if they make sense. That's not what I want from a newspaper, especially when the facts are so easy to check. Anyone can do it -- but the reporters don't? What's wrong with this picture?

I won't pay for the Times until they start printing the truth. But if they did, if they returned to actual journalism, I'd rush back and subscribe -- and the hell with the bad precedent I mentioned earlier. We need an accurate news source that doesn't cower before government and business. If the New York Times could fill that bill, yes, I'd pay. Happily.

We will develop other news-gathering sources over time to fill the gap that the Times leaves in its wake. And we will always remember that the NYT didn't come through when it counted -- not on the Iraq war, not on the economy, not in the Bush election cycles, and not now, when nonsense is never called by its true name. The New York Times hasn't committed an act of journalism in the past ten years, with the exception of publishing the truth about the widespread surveillance and wiretapping-without-warrants by the Bush administration -- but let us recall that it also hid this information for a year, choosing not to publish it until after Bush was re-elected. 

The New York Times let the people of America down and they're still letting the people down. That's the bottom line. So no more NYT links unless there's absolutely no alternative.

NY Times fail

I have absolutely no respect for the culture-reviewing aspects of the NY Times. If the Times says a book is great, it's garbage. If they hate it, it may be fabulous. They are equally clueless about TV and movies.

But they really tripped up big-time today by publishing a two-page article about the SyFy Channel's movies -- without ever saying they're dreadful! They actually praised them! They must be blind and stupid. Amazing!

Here's the link. What dolts!