[76lsjumb]

I know burger won't bother to read this because, for him, the NYT is ABSOLUTE TRUTH [more so, probably, since they ran out that heretic, Bari Weiss] and the National Review isn't fit to line a birdcage.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that the column raises some legitimate questions about that still-evolving Texas COVID Party story:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/di...an-legend/

Maybe it happened; maybe it didn't, but, in the end, does that really matter?  It helped further the preferred media narrative so, by definition, it was a legitimate story for the NYT to print.

Weird to be name-checked in a thread where my only comment was a tongue-in-cheek inside joke about the Central Valley. 

But since I'm here: the Times repeated a statement from a hospital official.  Then they corrected a possible error.  What else would you ask them to do?  And more importantly, who gives a *****?  If the take-home message that you should not go to covid parties spreads based on a rumor, is that a bad thing?  Is Texas, with a giant outbreak going on, being too cautious about covid so that the media should be encouraging more partygoing?  What's the point of your comment other than dunking on the NYT?  Congratulations, you found a possible mistake.  Now we can disbelieve everything the Times ever publishes!  Useless.

You do recall dissing National Review a few weeks back as not worthy of being cited, don't you?  Beyond that, though, you seem to be saying that publishing an untrue story isn't really a big deal as long as it furthers an otherwise important [in your eyes] narrative.  I can't say that I'm particularly shocked you should believe that, though.  That's kind of the way progressive news media operates.  Of course, it shouldn't come as any surprise, then, that those not so progressively inclined as a result disbelieve that media on other matters that are true.

At least we agree that the NYT is useless...  :-)

---

The "Gotcha" complex continues unabated.

Don't know if this has ever been posted here before, but let's keep this really simple.

Credible sources of news:

- Follow best practices taught in journalism schools
- Have editors that scrutinize reporters in the name of accuracy
- Make mistakes because sources can lie and mislead
- Correct mistakes when they find them
- Clearly draw lines between reporting and opinion

And, while I'm at it, reporters do not write headlines. Editors write them.  

The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post (among many others) follow all the above points. The National Review is an editorial magazine. Literally, it is the Opinion page of a newspaper. It has no standards of journalism that equate it with primary reporting sources. 

This doesn't preclude the National Review from offering credible insights, but comparing it to news reporting in the New York Times, while conflating the resignation of a columnist that by definition isn't a reporter per se, in a weak effort to discredit its reporting, is quite unimpressive.

I'm not sure Bari Weiss, who, you know, actually WORKED at the NYT, would agree with your assessment that it "follow(s) all the above points."  

In any event, the NYT front page is, for all intents and purposes, little more than an Op-Ed page itself.

Terry Rule alert:  My post was intended to discuss an alleged COVID party and whether it really happened as reported.  Discussing NYT journalistic practices [or the lack thereof] wasn't the focus.

[76lsjumb]

I know burger won't bother to read this because, for him, the NYT is ABSOLUTE TRUTH [more so, probably, since they ran out that heretic, Bari Weiss] and the National Review isn't fit to line a birdcage.  Nevertheless, it seems to me that the column raises some legitimate questions about that still-evolving Texas COVID Party story:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/di...an-legend/

Maybe it happened; maybe it didn't, but, in the end, does that really matter?  It helped further the preferred media narrative so, by definition, it was a legitimate story for the NYT to print.

Weird to be name-checked in a thread where my only comment was a tongue-in-cheek inside joke about the Central Valley. 

But since I'm here: the Times repeated a statement from a hospital official.  Then they corrected a possible error.  What else would you ask them to do?  And more importantly, who gives a *****?  If the take-home message that you should not go to covid parties spreads based on a rumor, is that a bad thing?  Is Texas, with a giant outbreak going on, being too cautious about covid so that the media should be encouraging more partygoing?  What's the point of your comment other than dunking on the NYT?  Congratulations, you found a possible mistake.  Now we can disbelieve everything the Times ever publishes!  Useless.

You do recall dissing National Review a few weeks back as not worthy of being cited, don't you?  Beyond that, though, you seem to be saying that publishing an untrue story isn't really a big deal as long as it furthers an otherwise important [in your eyes] narrative.  I can't say that I'm particularly shocked you should believe that, though.  That's kind of the way progressive news media operates.  Of course, it shouldn't come as any surprise, then, that those not so progressively inclined as a result disbelieve that media on other matters that are true.

At least we agree that the NYT is useless...  :-)

---

The "Gotcha" complex continues unabated.

Don't know if this has ever been posted here before, but let's keep this really simple.

Credible sources of news:

- Follow best practices taught in journalism schools
- Have editors that scrutinize reporters in the name of accuracy
- Make mistakes because sources can lie and mislead
- Correct mistakes when they find them
- Clearly draw lines between reporting and opinion

And, while I'm at it, reporters do not write headlines. Editors write them.  

The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post (among many others) follow all the above points. The National Review is an editorial magazine. Literally, it is the Opinion page of a newspaper. It has no standards of journalism that equate it with primary reporting sources. 

This doesn't preclude the National Review from offering credible insights, but comparing it to news reporting in the New York Times, while conflating the resignation of a columnist that by definition isn't a reporter per se, in a weak effort to discredit its reporting, is quite unimpressive.

I'm not sure Bari Weiss, who, you know, actually WORKED at the NYT, would agree with your assessment that it "follow(s) all the above points."  

In any event, the NYT front page is, for all intents and purposes, little more than an Op-Ed page itself.

Terry Rule alert:  My post was intended to discuss an alleged COVID party and whether it really happened as reported.  Discussing NYT journalistic practices [or the lack thereof] wasn't the focus.