A lot of reporters, I think a bit blinded by their complicity in all this, continue to play dumb about what's gone horribly wrong at the NYT. Sullivan explains it quite clearly. open.substack.com/pub/margaret...
Yes, I do care to explain
I’m still wondering «what has gone wrong at the NYT» though. The headlines are skewed obviously, but does the editors at NYT do this? How did it end up like that?
This is a very generous interpretation. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it”
I read it, thanks!
Looks like not just the headlines, but the first ten paragraphs are excusing trump.
Would love to see more of this in her Guardian column.
“…Kevin Kruse about Trump: Historians: He’s a fascist. Political scientists: He’s a fascist. His own aides: He’s a fascist. The NYT: He shows a wistful longing for a bygone era of global politics. That, in essence, is the issue with these headlines.”
Exactly. I tried to listen to the latest 90 Days podcast yesterday with Ana Marie Cox & guest Emily Atkin. Both commented how their friends are still at legacy media publications like the NYT so they keep their subscriptions. WTH? How about you publicly hold your colleagues accountable?
I wonder if it's possible that NYT execs are misinterpreting view stats from hate-sharing by subscribers growing frustrated with and/or dumping their subs as view stats of people actually interested in reading articles with that framing, and it's creating a perverse incentive to keep doing it.