Talk:The New York Times

Political Bias

The article no where mentions that the newspaper has not endorsed a Republican for president in 70 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_election_endorsements_made_by_The_New_York_Times 64.31.13.163 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources

Is there any plans to source the history section? Help:Transclusion#Drawbacks "Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear,." Moxy🍁 08:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The leads of the articles we're transcluding in the history section are still somewhat in flux. Currently they're roughly following MOS:LEADCITE, but given the circumstances it might be appropriate to add relevant citations from the respective article bodies to their leads. Alternatively we could just copy/paste the leads over with appropriate citations once their finalised. I like the transclusion element, as it keeps this article in sync if the content of the sub-articles, but if it does create issues then we can just copy/paste them and keep them in sync manually. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree simply add sources to the leads of sub articles or copy paste leads here and add sources so the sections here can be improved. An article of this caliber you shouldn't have to go searching for sources somewhere in some other article. As a tertiary source our purpose is to give general information and lead our readers to more exhaustive sources. We should not be making students of knowledge search all over for these sources that they're doing research on Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. As a major newspaper this should be an example of what other articles should be on this topic should look like. Moxy🍁 01:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your point has been acknowledged, but this article is a work-in-progress. I attempted to add citations, but my edit was reverted for having no summary, a standard that has not been held to anyone else to my knowledge. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User talk:ElijahPepe, funny that I should see you saying this on this talk page--I was considering whether to revert your recent huge unexplained removals. I don't know where you get the idea that somehow "unexplained" is not a reason for reverting: I can assure you that it is. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There's clearly no attempt to reinstate sources to the article. I really think we should resort back to something that is researchable for our readers. As of now the whole history section doesn't have one source and when you go to an article about the history they are also very poorly sourced. History of The New York Times (1851–1896) .... With again no attempt to address the issues raised by other editors. Moxy🍁 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There was an attempt, but it was forfeited by a lack of appreciation for my time. The last nine months have been a waste of my time. WP:BEBOLD is dead. Thank you for refusing to listen to what I have said about sourcing. It is clear that no one has been considerate of my opinions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me explain our purpose as a tertiary source....encyclopedias are designed to introduce readers to a topic, not to be the final point of reference. Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias, provides overviews of a topic and indicates sources of more extensive information. We try to eliminate barriers for research purposes by providing inline sources for statements where they appear. We do not make students or researchers run off to other articles trying to find an equivalent statement somewhere in a giant article that may or may not be there to find a academic source. Our intention in to facilitate education and research by way of sources..... not simply by the pros text we produce. Your position of the sources are out there somewhere it's not what we are looking for.Moxy🍁 18:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Combining citations with page numbers that would otherwise be separate citations is acceptable. I'm done with this conversation if your response begins and ends with what you're going to say, not building off of what I say. By extension, my time on this article is done. I have wasted a significant amount of time because it's easier for people to insist that they're right and to go against someone who is knowledgeable on the subject matter and spent time assessing the best possible structure for this article. I stated my position, I lost because I didn't have enough support, and I am now ceding both the work that I have done—which is available for everyone to claim as theirs—and that it is possible to get an article like this to featured article. I've about had it with editing in general, but I note that it has been easier to edit articles on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, so it seems like a particular issue here. I'm not sure why my opinions are getting disregarded, I'm not sure why there's some unique rule for using edit summaries that I have not once experience at any point in the last two-and-a-half years editing, and I'm not sure why making decisions and being bold has to involve weeks of discussions. This could have been a featured article by now. When I have been shown that I'm not wasting my time here, I would be willing to come back to this article. What occurred this morning is not that. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what anyone's saying.... you're talking about combining sources..... we're talking about the fact that there are no sources. Moxy🍁 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There are sources. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Article restoration to a version with sources in place. Moxy🍁 20:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverting months of edits over one section is excessive. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It clearly was a monumental task that no one else is willing to do and that you don't seem to understand. Leaving our readers without sources is simply unacceptable. Moxy🍁 22:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

elijahpepe@wikipedia, I don't even know what you're talking about. Months of work undone? But you're "combining sources" even as you're removing dozens of em? At the risk of overstating the obvious, are you starting to see why God gave us edit summaries to actually explain what we're doing? But you're as vague here as you are absent from the edit summary space. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I assumed Moxy was referring to the history subarticles. The section he is referring to is the history section, which did not have references; that was acknowledged. To at least see my work not wasted, I will revert Moxy's reversion with citations for that section.

To clarify, there are two issues Moxy is bringing up. The second is what I was referring to, that the history subsections "are also very poorly sourced", based off of the assumption that those citation needed tags are accurate. They are not, and I personally verified all of the references. Sideswipe9th added them out of disdain for combining citations across multiple sentences into one. For example, at History of The New York Times (1851–1896), I mentioned, "Under Jones, The New-York Times actively sought to challenge William M. Tweed and the Tweed Ring", which has a citation needed tag but is covered by the next reference on page 35. The citation needed tags reflect poorly on my writing. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

No mention of Iraq WMDs?

The New York Times famously pushed disinformation leading up to the US invasion of Iraq, acting as a stenographer for US intelligence and repeating the false claim that Iraq possessed WMDs, which was the pretext for the invasion.

The invasion was a disaster, and led to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. This is acknowledged by pretty much everybody, including many who supported the invasion at the time.

The NYT's encouragement of the invasion by giving credence to (and refraining from criticizing) the WMD hoax is arguably the single most egregious case of disinformation in modern media history, as measured by the real-world harm caused.

Yet "WMD" is not mentioned a SINGLE time in this massive article. The only allusion to the scandal is the following:

"Journalist Judith Miller was the recipient of a package containing a white powder during the 2001 anthrax attacks, furthering anxiety within The New York Times. In September 2002, Miller and military correspondent Michael R. Gordon wrote an article for the Times claiming that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes. The article was cited by then-president George W. Bush to claim that Iraq was constructing weapons of mass destruction; the theoretical use of aluminum tubes to produce nuclear material was subject of debate. In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, beginning the Iraq War."

This sort of implies that there was a connection between the NYT reporting and the invasion, but it's worded in such a passive way that an uninformed reader might not even notice the connection. It's as if the passage was written by a PR consultant hired by the NYT for damage control. This must be corrected.

Even in the "critical reception" section, this is not mentioned at all. The section mainly focuses on the claim that NYT is insufficiently pro-trans, which may be true, but their insufficiently pro-transgenderism stance has objectively far less significant and harmful than the invasion of Iraq. Ask an Iraqi. The body count speaks for itself.

Contrast this with this article, about another American news outlet, which comes out swinging like Mike Tyson. In the lede, it states that "The Grayzone" is guilty of "misleading reporting", "sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes", and "spreading disinformation".

Now, I think the "Grayzone" article is horribly written and is unencyclopedic. Most other editors disagree, and think the article is the pinnacle of neutral encyclopedic writing. That being the case, these labels must be applied in a reasonably equitable manner. Why is there no mention whatsoever in this article of the fact that NYT is also guilty of "misleading reporting", "sympathetic coverage for regimes engaged in offensive military operations", and "spreading disinformation about Iraq"?

It's not like I'm the first person to notice the horrendous consequences of NYT's reporting on WMDs. A cursory internet search yields many articles from reliable sources about the issue.

Even the NYT itself acknowledged that they contributed to a "pattern of misinformation" surrounding the false claims of Iraq's nuclear ambitions.

So my questions are: 1) why is this not covered properly in the article already? And 2) what can we do to correct this omission? Should we start by compiling a list of sources? Philomathes2357 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357: This article was significantly culled after I rewrote it, and I did cover the weapons of mass destruction scandal in extensive detail in my rewrite. See History of The New York Times (1998–present) § 2002–2003: Controversies over the Iraq War and § 2004–2007: Judith Miller and further Iraq coverage, which warranted Miller's name in the latter's section title, a practice that I rarely did covering the history of the Times. The critical reception section is incomplete, as is much of the article, but I have been driven out of the article and thus cannot add what I want to, though whether or not I would have included controversies that were mentioned in the History section is an ambiguous point of contention. For the record, as alluded in your comment, I'm not a consultant for the paper and I personally view the Miller and Blair scandals with shame. I did not, however, want to assume that The New York Times was directly responsible for the invasion without due time and further historical analysis; accusations that an organization or person was responsible for starting what amounts to an illegal war are severe. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It is already covered in List of The New York Times controversies, along with the newspaper's publication of Stalinist propaganda during the Holodomor, its minimization of the Holocaust during World War II and its general support of anti-Zionism, its publication of both anti-Israel propaganda and anti-Palestinian propaganda in the 2000s, its publication of conspiracy theories concerning the 2001 anthrax attacks, its "factual errors" in articles about television criticism, its Anti-Indian sentiment in the 2010s, its antisemitic articles in the 2010s and the 2020s, its age and racial discrimination in hiring practices in the 2010s, and its anti-transgender articles in the 2020s. The newspaper has a long history of publishing propaganda and misinformation, and mistreating its own female and black employees. Dimadick (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned above by Dimadick, there have been many cases where the NYT has published pieces that can be seen as propaganda and/or misinformation (the word "misinformation" implies that the bias or errors may be either intentional or intentional). However, the newspaper is generally still reliable in its areas of expertise, such as NYC-area topics.

The current wording of the article came about because the article was split, following the above discussion. The info about the Iraq War WMDs is described in much more detail in the History of The New York Times (1998–present) article. That article was part of the main NYT article, but it has been split out because it was more than 35,000 words long. The implication that the article doesn't mention the WMD controversy because a "PR consultant" wrote it, though, is verging on WP:ASPERSIONS. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Epicgenius, thanks for your reply. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that all mentions of NYT's history of publishing propaganda and misinformation were removed because they were transferred to a separate article about NYT history.

Here's one problem with that:

As you can see here, The New York Times has received 517,932 views in the past 90 days; an average of 5,692 per day. [[History of The New York Times (1998-present) has received a grand total of 553 viewers in the past 90 days, for an average of 6 per day.

So, what I'm seeing is that, in the course of "splitting" the article, all information about the NYT's history of publishing propaganda and misinformation on behalf of the US government was removed from the main article and moved to an obscure article with one one-thousandth the visibility of this one. I'm not sure what to call that, other than "whitewashing". I'm not saying that a PR consultant came up with this idea, but I will say that if I was the head of a PR firm working for the NYT, and one of my employees came up with that idea, I'd give them a performance bonus.

We all know that there are bad-faith actors, both government and corporate, that are active on Wikipedia, but I'm willing to AGF and assume that this was simply a mistake & an oversight. Regardless, it's absolutely imperative that this be corrected by including extensive information about the NYT's history of publishing propaganda and misinformation, in the lead as well as the body.

Let's move the conversation towards how, exactly, to do so. I'd like to step back and defer to other editors about how best to include this information in the article. Does anyone have suggestions? Philomathes2357 (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, if we added extensive information about the NYT's controversies in this article when dedicated articles about the topics already exist, it might lead to WP:DUE and WP:SUMSTYLE problems. The article was split based on the fact that the article was heavily imbalanced toward its history section. Page views weren't a consideration in this split. What I would suggest, however, is summarizing the misinformation and propaganda controversies in a few paragraphs in the body. In the lead, we could probably write a sentence or two about these controversies; anything longer and the article would run into due-weight issues. Epicgenius (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe and @Dimadick, what do you think should be included in this article regarding NYT's publishing of propaganda and misinformation? Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Epicgenius' comment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, in your first reply, you mentioned that you "cannot add what I want to". Within, say, 3 or 4 paragraphs, what specific instances of propaganda/misinformation do you think can be the most reliably sourced, and most merit inclusion in the article? Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Strands Addition

Strands has not been mentioned yet. I created an addition, but I wanted to make sure I referenced it correctly. Can anyone take a look? MrWackley (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

I just noticed that @ElijahPepe unilaterally moved History of The New York Times (1998–2016) from 1998-current. A new article History of The New York Times (2016–present) seems to have already been created and nominated for GA.

This is unorthodox. Page moves are not supposed to be based on the whims of one editor, especially after there was one consensus on the exact page split. It's different if it's a WP:Consensus can change scenario, but hard to believe if it's not even discussed on either talk page once. Not to mention the potential gamification of GA process by nominating everything at first sight Soni (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• Seeing no replies from Elijah after being pointed to this discussion multiple times including ANI, I will follow WP:BRD and revert the move-split. I believe I've pinged all other editors with intermediate edits in between.

I am not hard opposed to changing consensus, but unless we discuss why we are moving the article, please default to consensus.

Happy to discuss if we think this is a worthwhile split. My first instinct says probably not, because it's a bit of recency bias. Soni (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

2016 and 2017 marked a particularly tenuous point in The New York Times's history, largely because the Times received criticism from liberals for promoting the Hillary Clinton email controversy and from conservatives because of Donald Trump, who lodged unprecedented attacks as president. I would argue that modern perceptions of the Times start at 2016, so it would be a logical point to stop to have a place to stop. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You made that same argument during the discussion on exact article splits and it didn't gain much support at the time, and later there was a consensus for a specific four article split. As Soni said, consensus can change, but for situations like this that requires a discussion first. Making unannounced unilateral changes that go against a recent consensus is never a good idea. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Point already made. This discussion is happening now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2024

Change The Times was founded as the conservative New-York Daily Times in 1851 to The Times was founded as the liberal New-York Daily Times in 1851 as the NYT is a liberal newspaper 71.241.132.98 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

To clarify: this is not correct. The New-York Daily Times was explicitly founded with the principle, "We shall be Conservative", regardless of what you might view the paper as now. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Recentism?

I'm unsure a letter[1] complaining about the NYT recent Is/Pal coverage warrants an entire paragraph in this encyclopedia article about a 172 year old newspaper, per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. The paragraph is currently verbatim identical to one in the Screams Without Words article. It's very obviously DUE in the latter; here I'd say one sentence is the very most that is DUE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, this subsection needs to be removed. Editors should discuss the contents of the criticism section. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a letter from "50 tenured journalism professors and scholars", so it has considerable weight. It's probably the most due type of criticism. Also covered by the Washington Post and elsewhere. The big question is why a 172-yr-old publication let its standards slip. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

BobfromBrockley is not arguing that the letter doesn't have merit, but that it is too recent. There are prior instances where the Times has been accused of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli coverage. "Screams Without Words" is a major controversy — I recently spoke to Erik Wemple, who said that the upheaval resulting from that article is significant — but it is the only content in that paragraph. I personally would argue an open letter is not important unless it serves as the impetus for greater action. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Bob wasn't arguing for its total omission either, just a reduction. Now we have the input of NewsGuild of New York president Susan DeCarava, a single, relatively obscure individual, but not that of 50 scholars of journalism. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

An article being controversial or causing upheaval doesn't indicate bias, low journalistic standards, or unethical reporting, though. Accurately reporting the brutality of the attacks would obviously be controversial to anti-Semites and biased parties, too. The main source for this section builds a better case for the NYT having high standards for their accuracy, not evidence they slipped as @Iskandar323 suggests.

The only established evidence cited of their journalistic failings is the fact that someone on their team leaked their internal memos, which is an egg-on-your-face moment. I've yet to see any evidence of poor journalistic standards; the leaked memos didn't substantiate that claim. We should expect journalists to demand high burdens of proof from one another, not treat these internal expectations as evidence of a coverup or bad reporting.

What I see is people concerned with how Palestinian's would be portrayed, regardless of accuracy, and broke journalistic ethics of the paper by leaking internal discourse. However, none of the internal discourse substantiated the claims themselves. Pingpong947 (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Journalism Standards

It seems important to address the NYT journalism standards in this article. In fact, I would like to see "Journalism Standards" as a section on each news source article. It is helpful for people who consume news sources to know what the journalism standards of each news outlet is. This is an importnat aspect of developing the skills of media literacy. The standard is published at: https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-standards/ethical-journalism.html Thanks! Lbeaumont (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Value of Israel/Palestine Reporting Section

Should a letter from individuals [2] merely requesting a review of NYT reporting carry enough weight to necessitate a section implying it as fact? You can find 50 biased or uninformed people for any cause. The results of a review might suffice, but not the flimsy request for one.

Even the journalist's cited statement falsely claim that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found genocide "plausible." In reality, they only said Palestine had "plausible rights to protection from genocide,[3]", which isn't even close to the claim. This serious misreporting by "journalism scholars and professors" raises doubts about their reliability compared to the NYT reporters they're criticizing.

With no mention of the UN's in-depth report deeming the accounts of sexual assault credible[4], the section seems extremely weak at best, and purposely biased at worst. It seems it only serves to cast doubt on substantiated reports of rape without providing substantial evidence to the contrary. Do we really value the request for an investigation more valuable than an actual investigation by the UN which validated the reporting in question? Is this the bar set for an encyclopedia?

The first paragraph lacks serious criticism or examples of inaccurate reporting in the NYT article. Every accusation employs the logical fallacy known as begging the question; it assumes the examples cited are evidence of the bias and unethical journalism, but never establishes them as such.

For example, there is no reason to expect an evenly distributed number of terms like "massacre" applied for each group. Consistently reducing demonstrable massacres perpetrated by one side to more favorable terms would meet the burden of proof required to show bias. This section provides no such evidence. Israel responding with missile strikes on civilian infrastructure utilized by Hamas is quite literally not a "massacre." Interestingly, the next paragraph refers to 10/7, an event that was unquestionably a massacre of Jews, as an "armed incursion of Israel" for some reason.

Regarding their use of terms like "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide", the source provided makes it clear that these guidelines were strictly for accuracy in reporting, nothing more. Establishing a high bar for codified legal terms like the crime of genocide is the mark of journalistic integrity and accuracy, not impropriety. Given that the governing body in charge of investigating the crime of genocide found no evidence Israel is committing it, why is the NYT reminding their staff not to misuse it cited as evidence of their poor reporting? In addition, the criticism for the use of "refugee camps" is nonsensical and at odds with the cited source.

Finally, the last sentence deceptively conflates two tangentially related issues. It misleadingly implies that the NYT's admission of "material handled improperly" is related to their accuracy on the 10/7 rapes. However, the quote is referring to whether members of their staff leaked information about the article itself before publication. Why does the article abruptly shoehorn in a quote referencing a staff member leaking details of the story prior to publication? It seems contradictory when it's the details from this leak that the whole section is based on. At the very least, it should be written more clearly to avoid readers believing they relate to their journalistic accuracy.

In closing, I'm unconvinced of the impartiality of this entry or the encyclopedic value of the information it contains.

Pingpong947 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)