Talk:The New York Times/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New York TImes Magazine

Can I go ahead and create a stub? I can't believe there's not even a reference to the magazine on the NYT page.

Ifranzen 23:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. - DavidWBrooks 13:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

So excellent that I went ahead and did it. The stub already existed, as a redirect to this article. I changed it to a one-sentence stub, and also changed the "Magazine" link within this text to a link to The New York Times Magazine. Now that one-sentence magazine article needs to be expanded! - DavidWBrooks 19:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

NY Times and "Serbophobia"

NY Times is being quoted on article Serbophobia in order to push certain agenda. If someone is familiar with this topic (NY Times) I thought the discussion about the article may interest you. --Dado 18:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

New Controversy?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5163

Not much of a controversy, was it? A mistaken caption, quickly acknowledged to be such. Wow. --Christofurio 15:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky and "Conservative bias"

Anyone who reads Chomsky understands that he believes that most newspapers in the United States (including the NYTs) has a 'liberal bias' in that they are generally supportive of the Democratic Party. The article makes it look as if Chomsky claims a "conservative bias" i.e., the NYTs sides with Republicans. The thing is that Chomsky looks at the political spectrum in the U.S as being very narrow such that the differences between "liberals" and "conservatives" are not very significant. I think that this should be in some way addressed.-Jersey Devil 20:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

First, Chomsky is a nutcase who is a prime example of why University tenure rules should be eliminated. Using chomsky as a source is definite bias. When a newspaper always supports one side in all elections it definitly has a bias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannim (talk • contribs) 05:06, October 31, 2006

Ad hominem, my friend. And completely unrelated to this article. --ElKevbo 11:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

removing allegation of error

I just removed "An article on February 10,2006 stated, in error,that President Bush was on vacation at his ranch in Texas on August 30, 2005 (at a critical time for Katrina evacuations) when Bush was, in fact, on a trip to speak to the military."

Bush's own calendar describes him as on vacation for the month of August, planned until 9/3/2005. He did fly to Arizona on 8/29 for what could charitably be called a trip to address the military, although "stumping for McCain" or "fundraising" might be more applicable verbs. However, he'd returned to the ranch by 8/30, so the NY Times article is factually correct. (In fairness, he did cut his monthlong vacation two days short to return to Washington, but that's not relevant to the Times' correctness or lack thereof.)

removed criticism for use of "insurgents"

I removed this criticism because it is ridiculous. There isn't a news organizations, including Fox News, that doesn't refer to the "insurgency" and the "insurgents." That does not mean they do not use terrorism, but "terrorist" for their ends is completely different than for, say, the 9/11 terrorists. Granted, we may want to brand them in all in an effort to inspire so hate, but it does not belong on this page, considering it is in use by every news organization. This is a problem that should be on a "Criticism of the American Media" page. Here is the removed language:

Since the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Times --and other news organizations, including Fox News-- has persistently referred to "insurgents" rather than "terrorists" being responsible for the bombing and other acts of violence. This has been aggressively criticized, such as by frequent Times contributor Christopher Hitchens, as carrying a connotation of justification; Times columnist Thomas Friedman refers to them as "terrorists" or "Islamo-fascists". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLaurel (talk • contribs)

Contradiction

Quoting from the article:

Most for-pay NYT editorials are available online shortly after their publication through blog searches. As of late January 2006 online reproduction of Select content is extremely difficult to find.

Isn't this a contradiction? Which is true? zafiroblue05 | Talk 19:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, to me the NYT has become unverifiable for most Wikipedia editors. I wonder if we shouldn't stop putting links to articles in it as references. Most stories can be found elsewhere easily using Google. Case in point: [1]. I can't tell who's right by following the link, and most people can't use the link anyway. -Syberghost 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Danish cartoons vs. Piss Christ

The New York Times has thus far refused to publish the Danish cartoons portraying the prophet Muhammad deemed offensive by Muslim activists, out of sensitivity to those activists. What was their position regarding Piss Christ? Did they publish pictures of that work? Also, what was their stance regarding taxpayer money being used to subsidize an anti-Christian statement that many Christians found offensive? Are they being consistent in their sensitivities? -- Gerkinstock 22:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually know the answers to your questions, or are you asking someone else to research it for you?

I suspect he/she just wants an argument. Just ignore the troll.

Very brave of you to call me a troll without signing off. No, I wanted to know if anyone here knows the answers to these questions, because I don't. I'm very suspicious of The New York Times and its biases, which is why I asked the question. I'm not asking anyone to research it for me, as there must be some people out there who already know the answers. -- Gerkinstock 23:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the forum to chat and poke for answers to suspicions. --ChrisLaurel 23:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could 'know' the negative proposition, even on the assumption that it is true. Are you asking whether anyone has reviewed every page of every issue of the NYT published since the Piss Christ controversy first occurred, with an eye to finding any image? that would be a heck of a waste of however many hours were devoted to it, and I doubt anybody did. So if the answer is that the didn't run such a photo, how will you come to know and accept that fact? Or is only a positive answer conceivable for you? --Christofurio 01:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

stories the paper broke

Since this is a news outlet, would't it make sense to add a section on big stories that they news paper broke?

That could be a monstrous section. - DavidWBrooks 01:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent Mistakes

I removed the "Recent Mistakes" section as a) not notable; b) unmanageable (is every correction published by the paper also supposed to be added here?) and c) not relevant to the New York Times (newspaper), as it relates to a feature of the paper's Web site. The paper itself publishes daily corrections, none of which (including the cited one) seem interesting enough to meet the standard of notability. If the mistake described is still present, a letter to the editor would probably be more effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham (talk • contribs)

First, please sign your comments. Second, I believe any mistake by a major media organization is notable, just by dint of its being a major outlet. It means millions are seeing the error and getting bad info (in this case, how many children are learning the wrong pop numbers for these countries?). Third, this article encompasses both the printed and online version of the Times, so an example of errors in the online version is relevant. Fourth, I notified the paper of the mistakes over a week ago. No response and no change. Fifth, Recent Mistakes will be an interesting ongoing feature of this article. Restoring. JDG 19:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Every mistake by a newspaper with a 150 year history is not encyclopedic or notable. Unless there was significant press coverage, it should not be included. Removing. Gamaliel 19:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

We differ as to what is notable. The usual courtesy, since this is not a matter of npov or accuracy, is to leave the disputed text in place until feedback from other parties is given. I am restoring and I ask you to leave it there for now. I will also try to flag the attention (as should you) of a few well respected editors and if their opinions align with yours I'll be more than happy to step aside. JDG 22:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)-- Note: I listed the dispute at Wikipedia:Third_opinion under the link "The_New_York_Times#Recent_Mistakes", so please leave that section in so the link doesn't go red. JDG 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)... Additional thoughts added some time later: Oh, I see you are two different people. Ok, since I'm a minority now I suppose I'll quit squawking. Still very much disagree (btw, I see that WP:NN referenced by "Graham" above isn't even a guideline, much less a policy.. it's "an essay"). Although I used to feel otherwise, I now feel Wikipedia's great strength and principle contribution to humankind is and will be in satisfying a function as a Compendium of Everything. So, there is simply no such thing as non-notable or "not encyclopedic". This isn't an encyclopedia. It ceased being one sometime in mid-`03. It's now a MetaCompendium or something like that... In any case, I can agree that material which would not be admitted to a standard encyclopedia should perhaps be kept to sub-articles, and that is where Recent Mistakes will probably land. JDG 23:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello; I came in response to the WP:3O request. I have not edited this article and am unfamiliar with this article or with any of the editors posting here, but it looks like a disinterested party is what you're looking for. After reviewing the article and the discussion, it is my opinion that the "Recent mistakes" section should not be included. It is inevitable that a major newspaper will make errors; unless those errors have serious real-world consequences, they are not notable in the encyclopedic sense. Given the number of errors made by any large newspaper, a "Recent mistakes" section is doomed to be underinclusive, and the information listed there will quickly become obsolete (no longer "recent"). Yes, it's unfortunate when a major newspaper distributes wrong info; but someone looking for corrections would presumably look to the Times' own website, not to Wikipedia. I hope that this opinion is of use to you. Kickaha Ota 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Kicka. As you can tell by my other spews here, I firmly disagree. But I bow to the majority. JDG 01:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing --- newbie mistake, and I more than qualify. I'm curious about "The usual courtesy" bit, though... I didn't find that anywhere in the policy manual; could you point me to it? The standard I applied was "Be bold." Honestly, I didn't imagine that this deletion would be controversial in any way; the text was so plainly trivial. Graham 23:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The day we need to codify every courtesy is the day we should give it up. And yes, this courtesy is very often not given. But slightly more often it is. As for "Be Bold", well, that's really a very circular thing, don't you think? I was just being bold in reverting, no? Plainly trivial? Nothing is trivial. Or, stated another way: if trivia is useless, so is Wikipedia. There's already a Britannica, and dedicated Encycs far more polished that WP will ever be. WP's trumpcard is its hugeness, it's inclusion of everything. So, if you're down on "trivia", you're in the wrong project... Be sure, Recent Mistakes will live. It was my mistake it wasn't a sub-article from the start, though. JDG 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is a newbie mistake of me, too, but it seems like this discussion has surpassed the scope of this talk page. Are there other places for it? In any case, it seems to me (as an avid user, infrequent editor) that the strength of WP isn't "its hugeness" per se, but its active community. I disagree with your syllogism that "if trivia is useless, so is Wikipedia": I think it's self-evident that if you load up the site with too many minutiae, it will lose utility. "Notability" is controversial because it's subjective; what's not controversial is the basis for the concept of notability, namely that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."

It also seems that you think I was annoyed at being "boldly" reverted: I was not; I rather expected to be, and I'm glad you did. I thought (and have observed) that that's how these things get discussed. If Recent Mistakes comes back as a subarticle (and I notice it), I'll start a discussion about deleting it there, too, being bold as I should. I fully expect (and applaud) that you will support its inclusion. Graham 02:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems we can agree on nothing. I don't even agree that you're a newbie... You say "what's not controversial is the basis for the concept of notability". But I'd say that is very controversial. There are more than a few of us, among the original 80 or so people, who now feel that Wikipedia's real reason for being, though we didn't understand it at first, is to be a Compendium of Everything. Plainly, the concept of "notability" is brushed aside in this approach, Personally, I envision what I call an "itch number" (not sure how I came up with the term). The user would set this number in his/her preferences. An itch setting of 1 would present a version of Wikipedia that strives to be traditionally encyclopedic. A setting of 20 would present links and search results for sub-articles with no floor of notability, right down to a description of the usual earwax texture of an otherwise unknown person who's never done or said anything anyone else remembers. It is to be a meme repository, and as there's no telling ahead of time which memes will be important, none are barred. Thanks for listening. JDG 03:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Just curious about this philosophy, then: how is what you're describing different from, say, the World Wide Web as a whole? Where does the editorial input start? We can't even come to consensus about a minor bit in a single article; how would we even begin to come up with a 20-level notability scale? (Again, if there's a better place where this is being discussed, I'd be interested to know.)

P.S. I guess I'm flattered that you don't think I'm new at this. I made a bunch of stubs about marine mammals three years ago, have corrected a few commas since then, and that's about it. Seems pretty green to me, but call me what you will. Graham 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

bias on entry

The article seems to have a strong negative bias against the paper. Despite the NYT winning 90 Pulitzer prizes, nearly two thirds of this entry is devoted to controversies and bias. There needs to be a balance. We shouldn't limit only one paragraph to its successes, while having around two dozen focus on its failures. This creates a negative slant. Action Hank 4:02, 28 Jun 2006 (UTC)

So write some more stuff about its successes. :) Kickaha Ota 03:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Action Hank--the balance is way off. I'd suggest this question: Does every criticism (big, small, past, present) deserve its own paragraph? Are we being paid by the word here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickDC (talk • contribs)

After reading the article some more during my recent reformatting, I have two problems with the current article: it does seem to place undue emphasis on the negative, and much material is unsourced. At some point in the next few days, I plan to go back through the material, search for sources, add the sources I find, then start gradually trimming out unsourced material over time. So a gentle note to fellow authors: if there's unsourced material in this article that you particularly care for, now would be a simply wonderful time to find and cite a source. :) Kickaha Ota 03:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Pulitzer like the Nobel peace prize is mre often than not awarded due to politics not merit.Tannim 10:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Alleged pro-Israeli bias

SkyEarth left me a message on my Talk page about his or her recent addition to this article. The specific section in question is:

"The group Palestine Media Watch (PMWATCH) shows that The New York Times has a strong pro-Israel and Pro-Jewish bias. In particular, PMWATCH asserts that of the five US newspapers with the highest circulation, "The New York Times has been the least balanced over the last three years with an average of 4.3 Israeli op-ed writers for every Palestinian."

The relative balance at The Washington Post and USA Today indicates that a bias towards Israeli writers is not inevitable, but is a result of the choices made by the editors at The New York Times."

On my Talk page, SkyEarth wrote that "This does not say they are Pro-Israel, it does not suggest anything but a nummerical advantage."

I believe that stating PMWATCH's research as definitive proof (by use of words like "shows") is POV and I altered the text in accordance with that belief. I further believe the second, one-sentence paragraph that mentions the Washington Post is original research and deleted the sentence.

I truly appreciate SkyEarth's willingness to discuss this and welcome further discussion. --ElKevbo 15:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with report [2] is that it only provides numbers and there doesn't seem to be any way to obtain a list of all the examples they're citing as being biased to either the Israelis or Palestinians. Another problem is that the site is partisan which makes their motives questionable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidelines as to what references Wikipedia can and can not accept. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  16:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Op-ED bias towards Israeli writers

The group Palestine Media Watch (PMWATCH) shows that The New York Times has puslished more op-eds written by Israelis than palestians. In particular, PMWATCH asserts that of the five US newspapers with the highest circulation, "The New York Times has been the least balanced over the last three years with an average of 4.3 Israeli op-ed writers for every Palestinian."

Pmwatch is very respected, it has been quoted in hunderds of publications, including the Economist and the Guardian. Their goal is equality of media coverage. Please read the following quotes about PMWATCH from famous JEWISH people.

"Monitoring of media, and attempts to correct for error or imbalance, are difficult and demanding tasks, essential ones for a democratic society. That is particularly true for sensitive issues about which there are, rightly, strong and often conflicting judgments. I have been impressed with the care and sophistication of the work of PMWatch, and its constructive achievements. Extension of its valuable work would be a substantial contribution to public understanding and policy formation in areas of immense significance." -- Prof. Noam Chomsky MIT, Linguistics

"To keep the media honest on the Middle East, several of Palestine's brightest young minds created PMWATCH. This worthy project deserves the support of everyone seeking a just and durable peace." -- Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein, Princeton University

"Palestine Media Watch is something I've been longing for for years. It provides a counter-weight to an aggressive pressure group that has helped make the media seriously biased on Middle East issues. That bias has contributed to U.S. support for cruel and illegal policies that make for interminable repression and warfare and preclude reconciliation. Palestine Media Watch is doing an excellent job and deserves unstinting support." -- Prof. Edward S. Herman, Emeritus, Finance, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

"The Palestine Media Watch (http://www.pmwatch.org) is one of the best media monitoring sites I've encountered, period.... Many pro-Israel media monitoring sites could learn a lot from Palestine Media Watch." -- Ahron Shapiro, The Jerusalem Post

Well, Chomsky and Finkelstein are hardly the JEWISH people to persuade anyone that the organization is not dubious. I know nothing of Herman. I would a priori assume that a Jerusalem Post writer would not have a bias against Israel, but I don't know anything about Shapiro in particular. john k 17:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This is only about addition. Adding up, Israeli writers in one row and Palistinians on the other. And THEY DO NOT EQUAL WITH EACH OTHER. Now do they have an agenda? I don't know and nobody except the editors can tell you that.

The study also points out that USA Today and the Washington Post have almost a 1 to 1 ratio.

I think the NYT is an amazing newspaper, but as all things sometimes mistakes are made. Does anyone know how many stories that guy in 2003 wrote that were fabricated? SkyEarth London, England

Corporate bias subsection deleted

I've removed the "Corporate bias" subsection. There was not a single source cited in the subsection which is reason enough to delete it. I also suspect that much of it was original research but it's hard to tell without citations. So this section definitely violated one of the three content-guiding policies in Wikipedia and possibly violated a second. Please find and add citations if you plan on adding this section back into the article. --ElKevbo 23:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't say that I agree with a slash-and-burn approach, but you're perfectly within your rights to do this. It's any editor's right to remove unsourced material. I think the topic of corporate bias is one that deserves coverage, but that coverage should be carefully based on sources. Kickaha Ota 23:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A corporate bias section really needs to be included here. A few attempts have been made, but they've been immediately deleted. If you feel that the section has gone in the wrong direction I suggest altering it rather than erasing it entirely. This section needs to be here.--129.82.220.5 17:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I just took a stab at rewriting the Corporate Bias section, with two goals in mind: giving it a neutral tone, and focusing specifically on the Times. The section as it was previously written seemed to be painting a picture of consensus by 'leading intellectuals of the left' that went well beyond what two Chomsky books could support. Also, much of the material discussed applied to all major media, not just the Times; discussion of systemic media bias doesn't belong in an article on a single newspaper. The cited Chomsky excerpts from Manufacturing Consent do contain some provocative statements specifically about the Times, though; so I tried to fairly encapsulate those and throw in a solid-and-relevant-yet-short-enough-to-be-fair-use quote about the Times. Kickaha Ota 07:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is perfect, exactly what was needed. Thanks for putting the time in to come up with something that everyone can agree on.--129.82.221.32 16:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of references

I've started tagging other sections as being completely unreferenced. I'm sure that much of the information is correct but there must be references for the information to be added into or retained in the article. --ElKevbo 04:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a corporate influence section, I referenced 2 very well-known books on the subject, and cited an interview of Noam Chomsky explaining the corporate bias of the New York Times. My section was immediately deleted for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.122.51 (talk • contribs) 12:20, July 18, 2006

I didn't delete your additions but it appears to me that they were deleted because they consisted almost entirely of quotes from Chomsky. Not only does there need to be more substance to such a section than merely a large collection of quotes but I agree that the sheer volume you used may not fall under "fair use." In addition, your addition was just very long and would have to be shortened or compacted significantly as it is only one of many topics covered in this article. --ElKevbo 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who deleted it, but the most obvious reason for the deletion would be that the quote was much longer than was necessary in order to make the point. Long quotes create at least two problems: they make articles unnecessarily wrong long, and they create potential copyright violations. Kickaha Ota 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Update: Corrected interesting Freudian slip. :) Kickaha Ota 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply edit the post to take out anything that is too long? Wouldn't that be better than just completely deleting the section? Completely deleting the section is what you would do if you thought that section shouldn't exist. If you agree that it should exist, change it. It's a real simple concept here. Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

What does it cost?

Can anyone show me what it cost?

Thanks,

--58.187.110.86 21:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In the NYC metro area the cost is $1 M-Sa and $3.50 on Sunday. New subscribers may receive a discount for home deliervy. [3]

whaddya think: accusations of liberal bias

I'm tempted to strike this text:

Daniel Okrent, the Times former Public Editor stated that his was a liberal newspaper in a July 25, 2004 article.

Public Editor is an external ombuds position, not an internal editor policymaker. It seems to me that Okrent's opinion about the paper's slant is no more relevant than mine. Comments? Graham 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. A paper's ombudsman can be expected to know much more about the paper than the average person, so I'd certainly consider the ombudsman's opinion substantial enough to justify inclusion. Kickaha Ota 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if his position is "only" as an external ombusman position, I think his opinion is much more relevant than yours. Whether or not it's noteable probably depends on the context. I defer to those more knowledgable of the NY Times and American media to make that determination. --ElKevbo 19:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think part of my concern has to be the Times' choice of the fuzzy title "Public Editor" for their ombudsman; the role is not editorial. The Times describes the position thus: "[Daniel Okrent] is the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own." The so-called "Public Editor" is not on the paper's editorial board. He never worked for The Times before taking on the position; he was specifically chosen as an outsider, as was the current "Public Editor." See my concern? Calling him an "editor" (which he's not, in the traditional sense of the term) and using the "his [newspaper]" phraseology here lends undue emphasis to this quote. I think at the very least I'm going to reword this. --Graham 00:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what Mr. Okrent believes, I have a hard time viewing a newspaper that's been so submissive to a far-right administration, and only very reluctantly reports on that administration's illegal activities, as "liberal". 71.203.205.251 20:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Distinctions between news, comment, ads" section

This is a pretty un-encyclopedic section. I propose that the controversy about the Exxon-Mobil ads be moved into "recent controversies" and the rest cut as in violation of WP:NPOV. WP:WEASEL phrases: "Critics complained..."; "Some commentators believed"; "Some studies have shown". And "effectively demanding a boycott" -- says who? Certainly not the Times. Any opinions? --Graham 02:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've added an NPOV tag because of the ridiculous imbalance in coverage here.

• "accusations of liberal bias" is nearly as long as "history"
• about one-half of the vertical height of this article is criticisms (mistake/bias/controversy)
• 3 of the first 6 sections are criticisms. (I'm not counting "see also", "further reading", etc)

JianLi 20:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Adnan Hajj photographs

I incerted into article information about Adnan Hajj case. Unfortunately, I am new for Wikipedia and do not know how to sign my name. If I will have user name it will be Prisko August 8, 2006.

liberal label

I've removed the liberal label again, since the topic of whether or not the New York Times is a "liberal" paper (and, moreover, the topic of the term "liberal" itself) is so thorny that it gets its own section. Let's keep our neutral point of view. --Graham^talk/mail/e 23:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Omphaloscope » talk 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV TAG

This tag has been up since August 8th: A whole month! It needs to come down. Even the 2006 Qana airstrike page was able to come to resolution to get the NPOV tag taken down, and that's the Middle East!! It looks bad for Wikipedia to have these "permanent tags" on the pages, especially for one that is edited as often as this one. To the people who care about this page, both anti-NYT and pro-NYT: fix the problems and get the tag off. Once a tag goes on a page, it requires every editor who works on that page to put thought into getting it taken down. If there are active discussions taking place, then my bad--but I don't see them. In fact, I don't see any discussion having taken place at all in the last week. Unless somebody outlines the problems and people attempt to resolve them, then I'm going to take the tag off in three days. --DavidShankBone 17:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

New York Times v. Tasini

Given the significance of this particular ruling to both the Times, and to freelance writers/journalists in general, is there a particular reason it's not mentioned in the article? To refresh memories, this was the landmark 2001/2 decision ruling that the Times did not have electronic rights to articles/columns purchased to run in the print Times, and therefore could not include those articles in their digital archive on NYT (or elsewhere) without further payment to or permission of the original writers. Huge ramifications, as the Times had to remove fairly significant amounts of material from their archives in instances where an agreement couldn't be reached with the writer. JEJoyce 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited Fox News accusation

In August 2005, The Times was accused of attempting to unseal the adoption records of United States Supreme Court nominee Justice John Roberts's children, an unprecedented investigation by a newspaper. Journalist Brit Hume, of Fox News reported that the Times has been asking lawyers that specialize in adoption cases for advice on how to get into the sealed court records. The report went on, "Sources familiar with the matter tell Fox News that at least one lawyer turned the Times down flat, saying that any effort to pry into adoption case records, which are always sealed, would be reprehensible." The Times replied: "Our reporters made initial inquiries about the adoptions, as they did about many other aspects of his background. They did so with great care, understanding the sensitivity of the issue. We did not order up an investigation of the adoptions. We have not pursued the issue after the initial inquiries, which detected nothing irregular about the adoptions. More specifically, our reporter called a number of lawyers who handle adoptions to learn about adoption issues in general and to inquire whether adoption papers are publicly available. He was told that the rule varies from case to case and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. At some point, he was informed that the Roberts adoption papers were sealed. He did not try to get them unsealed, nor did he try to obtain copies in any other way. He did not hire anyone to help him. Our editors have made it clear that they will not stand for any gratuitous reporting about the Roberts children. Many of our staff are adoptive parents-including our executive editor-and we are particularly sensitive to the subject."
Moved from article, please reinsert with citation. -Wikianon 02:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited liberal bias

Some conservatives believe that The Times' has a liberal slant, particularly on social issues. A 2005 study by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo of media coverage over the past ten years ranked the New York Times as the third most liberal of twenty major media outlets ranked by Americans for Democratic Action's guidelines for lawmakers' votes on selected issues of importance to liberals.
Moved from article, please cite and rewrite or leave out. -Wikianon 03:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bias in Judith Miller bit?

The praise for Judith Miller is a little heavy-handed, and states as fact one side of the debate over shield laws. Read that part again and you'll see what I mean... 128.135.96.167 16:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Web presence section

The last paragraph of the web presence section reads like a press release about it. Can someone who is at all familiar with the topic make it be better written, or at least substantiate some of the fluff? I don't see any reason for it to be at the "forefront" of anything.

Also, can we check if the edit was done from a computer at the NY Times or Microsoft? (MS gets good play in that paragraph as well) Huadpe (talk) 11:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of liberal bias

Nothing her shows liberal bias.

The 2005 roster of regular columnists ranges in political position from Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, and Bob Herbert on the left, to Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman on the center-left, to David Brooks and John Tierney on the right. These labels must be placed alongside the subjects that the columnists most frequently choose to write about. For example, Friedman writes a great deal about free trade and globalization -- and thus often comes across as more conservative -- while Kristof writes almost exclusively about human rights, and thus comes across as more liberal.

The editorial page of The Times last endorsed a Republican Party presidential candidate in 1956 when it backed Dwight D. Eisenhower. Nonetheless, the paper has endorsed Republicans in statewide or local races, such as current New York Governor George Pataki and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Daniel Okrent, The Times former Public Editor stated that his was a liberal newspaper in a July 25, 2004 article. Additionally in a post-Jayson Blair report to Bill Keller, a committee of Times employees noted:

Nothing we recommend should be seen as endorsing a retreat from tough-minded reporting of abuses of power by public or private institutions. In part because the Times’s editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic.

Last bit is a better fit in the "self-examination of bias" section.71.249.22.33 02:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this empirical study I wrote about the editorial choices of the New York Times would be quite suitable for a discussion about the political position thereof. Here is the link to the SSRN website where the paper is posted [4]. I report its abstract here:

I analyze a dataset of news from the New York Times, from 1946 to 1997. Controlling for the incumbent President's activity across issues, I find that during the presidential campaign the New York Times gives more emphasis to topics that are owned by the Democratic party (civil rights, health care, labor and social welfare), when the incumbent President is a Republican. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the New York Times has a Democratic partisanship, with some "watchdog" aspects, in that -during the presidential campaign- it gives more emphasis to issues over which the (Republican) incumbent is weak. In the post-1960 period the Times displays a more symmetric type of watchdog behaviour, just because during presidential campaigns it gives more more coverage to the typically Republican issue of Defense when the incumbent President is a Democrat, and less so when the incumbent is a Republican.

Riccardo.puglisi 21:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who claims that the New York Times has no political bias is a fundementally dishonest human being.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "liberal" and "left-wing", as the article currently categorizes the paper. That said, it is inappropriate to categorize a media organ of this nature with a political label in its initial descriptor. The discussion about the alleged political biases of the NYT (or any other media organ) should properly go in a subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.43.225 (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Various employees of the paper have admitted that the paper has a liberal bias. Saying in the article that it has been accused of a conservative bias is highly misleading and designed to insinuate that all the allegations are garbage. Every empirical study I have seen has said that the Times has a definite liberal slant. Enigma ^msg! 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're misconstruing a couple of statements which are addressed in this article. I'm not sure which "empirical studies" you're referring to. Perhaps you could provide some citations here for these studies and we could discuss it. It sounds like you're unfamiliar with the entire Judith Miller affair in the lead up to the Iraq war, as the entire controversy centers around accusations that the NYT exhibited a pro-Bush administration bias and assisted the administration in selling the war to the public. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Political Leanings of Owners

What are the political leanings of Aurthur Ochs Sulzberger and other New York Times owners?

It seems that this is a key detail and should be a part of this article.

24.8.106.182 (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prizes

I've moved the giant list of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to Times' staff to a new article. The list was out of place in this article and really impaired its readability. Please look at the new article and make any necessary or recommended changes. Thanks! --ElKevbo 06:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that we now have a tiny section about the good things, and a big section of mistakes/controversies. yandman 09:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is a balance issue then it needs to be addressed in a different and more effective manner than simply listing every Pulitzer. It was simply a very poor section of the article with choppy prose in a long list. Not to mention almost completely uncited. Perhaps someone knowledgeable in this area can write up a few paragraphs of nice, descriptive prose about the important and interesting Pulitzers the Times' staff has won over the years? --ElKevbo 11:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call. We're not the Guiness Book of records here. Maybe I'll see if I can knock up a paragraph or two summarising the reasons it has been given awards. yandman 12:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Licensing Issue

The image Image:Nytimesbuilding.jpg says it's only OK for fair use on the article New York Times Tower. Doesn't that mean it can't be used here? CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Good call. I removed the image from this article. --ElKevbo 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Added this to the errors section

Added this to the errors section :

On May 26, 2004, the Times acknowledged errors in its reporting on the Iraq War: "Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged - or failed to emerge."

If it is in the wrong section, please move it. It is controverisal, though factual, so if someone deletes it, please let me know. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitler in "Famous Mistakes" Section

Here is the image and caption I removed from the article, which is problematic for several reasons:

File:Hitlertamed.jpg

---

The file File:Hitlertamed.jpg has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

I can't find the text "hitler tamed by prison" anywhere on Google, which suggests two possibilities. This is either a hoax, or it is so obscure (ie, not famous) that a Google search can't even find it. Furthermore, this picture is introduced into the article with little context - no accompanying text other than the caption, which itself has a flippant, unencyclopedic tone. And even if you run a lexis search showing this is not a hoax, I don't see how it is famous, or even really a mistake of the NYT - the newspaper was merely echoing the mistaken view of German authorities. --JianLi 05:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

JianLi, it is for real, and it is not obscure, though this article seems to be. Hitler was indeed in prison; I got the article through ProQuest's complete archive of the New York Times (ProQuest Historical Newspaper Service, which has searchably scanned EVERY PAGE of the New York Times from 1851-2001 -- truly remarkable). I have access to this through the University where I work, and it is a constant, contextualizing source of amazing news, trivial and otherwise. I believe the Hitler article deserves to be on the main page, as it is such a brief dismissal of something extremely momentous, but I'll let you folks decide (I don't usually play here). --Fluffbrain 15:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right; I looked it up on Proquest, and it was there. I agree with you that this event is not obscure (I knew about it myself) but this article itself is obscure, probably because this was the mistaken consensus at the time and not a mistake of the New York Times specifically. --JianLi 01:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)