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)


 * The article mentions the number of Democratic and Republican presidents endorsed by the Times: "The New York Times has endorsed a total of twelve Republican candidates and thirty Democratic candidates." I believe this is sufficient and see no need to specifically highlight that they haven't endorsed a Republican president in 70 years. Frankserafini87 (talk) 04:24, 29 June 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)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg 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 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 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,", 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, 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)

Removal of Times reporting on human zoos
Hi @Elijahpepe, I was wondering if you could explain why you felt that my edits adding the NYT's reporting on human zoos was unworthy of inclusion in this article? The NYT has revisited the controversy at least twice, and numerous other sources have reported on it. Unbandito (talk) 03:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless a controversy significantly affected the Times, such as the backlash surrounding Jayson Blair's plagiarism that resulted in executive editor Howell Raines' resignation, it should not be included. Your sentence is better suited for List of The New York Times controversies. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this belogns on the List article either unless there's reliable secondary coverage with respect to NYT's reporting. The references for the paragraph were either primary (NYT's original report, and a more recent retrospective) or were not reliable (a blog post discussing the NYT coverage). You ideally need multiple sources that are both reliable and secondary to qualify this as a "New York Times controversy" instead of being primarily in "Legacy" (or a more appropriate) section on Ota Benga. Soni (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see your point. I am going to re-introduce the material with some better secondary sourcing in the Critism section, rename that section to Controversies, and work on making it into a better summary of the List of The New York Times controversies article. This should address some of the concerns around recentism in that section as well. Unbandito (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)