"Biden could answer every question in a newspaper interview sharply and comprehensively but his words and actions would remain subject to reporters’ interpretation. If he did well"
Interviewing the president of the United States is kind of useless. It's like the puff pieces Parade magazine used to publish.
I want actual news stories -- something the NYT is hit or miss on.
Take Santos - the NYT reported on his lies AFTER the election. Even though Newsday had uncovered some of it before the election.
The Supreme Court -- with all the access the Times brags about, you're telling me they didn't know about Clarence Thomas and Crow? They've never bothered to find out who paid off Kavanaugh's debts?
Hell, they never bothered to do stories on Trump's ties to organized crime in NYC and Atlantic City.
Liz Cheney wanted Scott Perry charged -- did the NYT ever investigate why Cheney found him more guilty than the others?
If I want breaking news, I go to the AP. If I want investigative journalism, I go to Pro publica.
If I want to know how old Joe Biden is, I go to NYT.
When will Sulzberger realize that the NYT is not and has not been the acid test for journalism for, say, 50 years?
I have to admit I still like the NYT for ... Wordle. But that ain't the pinnacle of journalism now, is it.
I am concerned that the "not the cool liberalism" might apply to me. Is the fact that I eschew sherry in favor of bourbon going to work in my favor? ;-)
What's missing is that the Times is sending 𝘫𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 to interview President Biden. They should be sending 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 of the NYT to interview the president of the United States, not some underling. Better yet, let the two presidents interview each other. Until then, it should be "you send and underling, you get my press secretary."
Why hasn’t the NY Times tried access journalism on Joe Biden yet?
Whenever journalists are criticized for letting republicans speak without any pushback or follow up questions (looking at you Chuck Todd) or calling out their lies, the rationalization that’s always given is they don’t do so because they have to maintain “access”. You have to be nice to republicans or else they’ll ghost you. It’s better just to print their words without challenge and let the people decide.
This access journalism thing doesn’t seem to apply to democrats. Why is that? 🤔
My current problem with the NYT and others? I do not consider anyone from the Republican Party to be a reliable source of information. So in articles, trying to both-sides things, they let elected officials rant, not answer questions, and lie. An article about the border might include counterpoint from Joe Haypants who was elected to the House by like 800 people start calling Biden senile, a commie, dangerous, that he stole the election… and just print it.
I worked at The Times under A.G.'s predecessor and this would never have happened then. The kid is not only thin-skinned, he's forgotten what it means to run any newspaper, let alone the "newspaper of record." There is a public service responsibility and an obligation to the American people that he's negligent in upholding, and in that sense, he's about as serious a figure as one of Trump's idiot sons. He's got to go, and you allude to the key reasons - entitlement, nepotism, and, frankly, incompetence.
I find it infinitely depressing that Sulzberger is only 43. There are only two newspapers in the country that aren’t in immediate peril of going out of business, and he’s going to be running one of them for the rest of my life.
I also forget Maureen Dowd still exists unless someone brings her up. Christ she’s the worst pure writer working in American journalism. And she thinks she’s the best, which is a really bad combination.
"Biden could answer every question in a newspaper interview sharply and comprehensively but his words and actions would remain subject to reporters’ interpretation. If he did well"
they'd just give him the Hur treatment
Interviewing the president of the United States is kind of useless. It's like the puff pieces Parade magazine used to publish.
I want actual news stories -- something the NYT is hit or miss on.
Take Santos - the NYT reported on his lies AFTER the election. Even though Newsday had uncovered some of it before the election.
The Supreme Court -- with all the access the Times brags about, you're telling me they didn't know about Clarence Thomas and Crow? They've never bothered to find out who paid off Kavanaugh's debts?
Hell, they never bothered to do stories on Trump's ties to organized crime in NYC and Atlantic City.
Liz Cheney wanted Scott Perry charged -- did the NYT ever investigate why Cheney found him more guilty than the others?
If I want breaking news, I go to the AP. If I want investigative journalism, I go to Pro publica.
If I want to know how old Joe Biden is, I go to NYT.
From what I’ve heard, NYT will endorse
Trump for President. And then I woke
up.
the effectively HAVE by their behavior
I dropped my Times subscription after they published that stupid Nazi next door human interest story, and they just keep making me glad I did.
All the news that's shit to print.
When will Sulzberger realize that the NYT is not and has not been the acid test for journalism for, say, 50 years?
I have to admit I still like the NYT for ... Wordle. But that ain't the pinnacle of journalism now, is it.
I am concerned that the "not the cool liberalism" might apply to me. Is the fact that I eschew sherry in favor of bourbon going to work in my favor? ;-)
What's missing is that the Times is sending 𝘫𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 to interview President Biden. They should be sending 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 of the NYT to interview the president of the United States, not some underling. Better yet, let the two presidents interview each other. Until then, it should be "you send and underling, you get my press secretary."
Because a billionaire owns it?
Why hasn’t the NY Times tried access journalism on Joe Biden yet?
Whenever journalists are criticized for letting republicans speak without any pushback or follow up questions (looking at you Chuck Todd) or calling out their lies, the rationalization that’s always given is they don’t do so because they have to maintain “access”. You have to be nice to republicans or else they’ll ghost you. It’s better just to print their words without challenge and let the people decide.
This access journalism thing doesn’t seem to apply to democrats. Why is that? 🤔
Just wanted to add…excellent piece as always, Stephen!
Thanks!
Biden is a five letter word.... just saying
My current problem with the NYT and others? I do not consider anyone from the Republican Party to be a reliable source of information. So in articles, trying to both-sides things, they let elected officials rant, not answer questions, and lie. An article about the border might include counterpoint from Joe Haypants who was elected to the House by like 800 people start calling Biden senile, a commie, dangerous, that he stole the election… and just print it.
“Here, President Biden. Please walk through this minefield for an interview” isn’t a compelling argument for an interview.
If Sulzbereger is too stupid to see the reasons behind Biden’s reluctance for an interview then he’s failed Journalism 101.
The New York Times is blatantly CORRUPT.
“That’s not journalism. That’s a protection racket.” Ka-BOOOOOOM!
“Being old means you’re out-of-touch, not fit for the job, and voters shouldn’t trust you,” says guy who runs 173-year-old communication method.
I worked at The Times under A.G.'s predecessor and this would never have happened then. The kid is not only thin-skinned, he's forgotten what it means to run any newspaper, let alone the "newspaper of record." There is a public service responsibility and an obligation to the American people that he's negligent in upholding, and in that sense, he's about as serious a figure as one of Trump's idiot sons. He's got to go, and you allude to the key reasons - entitlement, nepotism, and, frankly, incompetence.
I find it infinitely depressing that Sulzberger is only 43. There are only two newspapers in the country that aren’t in immediate peril of going out of business, and he’s going to be running one of them for the rest of my life.
I also forget Maureen Dowd still exists unless someone brings her up. Christ she’s the worst pure writer working in American journalism. And she thinks she’s the best, which is a really bad combination.