← Back to context

Comment by dmix

6 years ago

FWIW the publisher/top editor of NYTimes changed in 2017 and Arthur Ochs Sulzberger's [1] stepped down letting his son AG Sulzberger take over [2]. This is around the time it started becoming really clickbaity and 24/7 news channel level intentionally misrepresenting or spinning stories for reactions.

I believe his father took on a more old school approach to keeping the news as neutral as possible, while still having a bit of your usual slant.

I read NYTimes daily for a decade and it's sad to see it decline as it has. I understand now just how much effort that must take, especially in the age of social media. I respect any news org that avoids the pull and pushes back on that sort of thing. But they are increasingly rare.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger_Jr.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._G._Sulzberger

9 comments

dmix

Reply
dbt00  6 years ago

I mean, the NYT during the Clinton and Bush years was hardly some golden age of journalism. Off the top of my head, there was Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee, the Jayson Blair thing, and the Judith Miller / Curveball / Iraq war stuff.

  • travmatt  6 years ago

    You didn’t even mention their piece de resistance - killing a story on a nationwide illegal mass surveillance program, then being scooped by their own reporter years later as he’s publishing his story on how the NYT is complicit in keeping the program out of view of the public. I’ve personally lost faith in the NYT and prefer other papers of record in the US.

  • masklinn  6 years ago

    Did the NYT ever have any sort of golden age of journalism? They were publishing glowing profiles of one Adolf H. in the runup to WWII.

    They've had good pieces but pretty much every publication other than tabloids got those, Playboy published a number of great interviews and articles.

    Worse, assuming they did have a golden age they’re using that reputation in laundering the likes of Brett Stephens.