[lex24]

Your (both of you) hyperbolic reports about bias in the Times would be more credible if you could come up with more than a single example of a possibly incorrect story.  Got anything else?  Anything?  Bueller?  Bueller?

How bout the statement of it’s “Ombudsman” a few years back :  “Of course we are a liberal newspaper.”  

Correction: It was the NYT Public Editor. Daniel Okrent. He also supposedly invented fantasy baseball ( according to his wiki page)

As for journalistic standards, they have been lowered considerably. Used to be most important to get it right. Now it’s most important to get it first.   It’s not really anybody’s “fault“. That’s what happens when you have the Internet coupled with 24 seven new stations. I have a simple rule – I never trust any story with a single source particularly if it’s an “unnamed source.“  And I don’t care whose ox is getting gored in the story – whether it’s aimed against a conservative or a liberal etc. Way too easy for a single sourced story to be wrong.

---

+1 Absolutely correct. Journalism ethics is a real thing, they teach it at several really good schools, and editors and reporters teach it and believe in it. Jobs in the so-called "mainstream media" are sought after and respected. Sad how much real journalism has become the target of demagogues and crackpots. That standards and ethics matter doesn't mean that they are always right, because nobody is. Nor does it mean they don't have opinions, because everybody does. But real professional journalists do exactly what OF says here or they are not respected by their peers. And they won't last in that world without understanding the standards and ethics.

Democracies depend on having a free press. Dictators hate the free press.

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.

 Clearly draw lines between reporting an opinion? Please. I don’t even think most journalist would buy that one anymore. The same today back on the CBS News when Eric Severeid would give us commentary - and it was actually called commentary.

As for headline writers, their job is to catch the eye of the reader. Perhaps the best headline ever written: “headless man found in topless bar”.

---

Your (both of you) hyperbolic reports about bias in the Times would be more credible if you could come up with more than a single example of a possibly incorrect story.  Got anything else?  Anything?  Bueller?  Bueller?

How bout the statement of it’s “Ombudsman” a few years back :  “Of course we are a liberal newspaper.”  

As for journalistic standards, they have been lowered considerably. Used to be most important to get it right. Now it’s most important to get it first.   It’s not really anybody’s “fault“. That’s what happens when you have the Internet coupled with 24 seven new stations. I have a simple rule – I never trust any story with a single source particularly if it’s an “unnamed source.“  And I don’t care whose ox  is getting gored in the story – whether it’s aimed against a conservative or a liberal etc. Way too easy for a single sourced story to be wrong.

---

+1 Absolutely correct. Journalism ethics is a real thing, they teach it at several really good schools, and editors and reporters teach it and believe in it. Jobs in the so-called "mainstream media" are sought after and respected. Sad how much real journalism has become the target of demagogues and crackpots. That standards and ethics matter doesn't mean that they are always right, because nobody is. Nor does it mean they don't have opinions, because everybody does. But real professional journalists do exactly what OF says here or they are not respected by their peers. And they won't last in that world without understanding the standards and ethics.

Democracies depend on having a free press. Dictators hate the free press.

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.

“ Clearly draw lines between reporting an opinion?” . I don’t even think most journalists would buy that one anymore. This ain’t the day when CBS News’ Eric Severeid would give us commentary - and it was actually called commentary.

As for headline writers, their job is to catch the eye of the reader. Perhaps the best headline ever written: “headless man found in topless bar”.

[lex24]

Your (both of you) hyperbolic reports about bias in the Times would be more credible if you could come up with more than a single example of a possibly incorrect story.  Got anything else?  Anything?  Bueller?  Bueller?

How bout the statement of it’s “Ombudsman” a few years back :  “Of course we are a liberal newspaper.”  

Correction: It was the NYT Public Editor. Daniel Okrent. He also supposedly invented fantasy baseball ( according to his wiki page)

As for journalistic standards, they have been lowered considerably. Used to be most important to get it right. Now it’s most important to get it first.   It’s not really anybody’s “fault“. That’s what happens when you have the Internet coupled with 24 seven new stations. I have a simple rule – I never trust any story with a single source particularly if it’s an “unnamed source.“  And I don’t care whose ox is getting gored in the story – whether it’s aimed against a conservative or a liberal etc. Way too easy for a single sourced story to be wrong.

---

+1 Absolutely correct. Journalism ethics is a real thing, they teach it at several really good schools, and editors and reporters teach it and believe in it. Jobs in the so-called "mainstream media" are sought after and respected. Sad how much real journalism has become the target of demagogues and crackpots. That standards and ethics matter doesn't mean that they are always right, because nobody is. Nor does it mean they don't have opinions, because everybody does. But real professional journalists do exactly what OF says here or they are not respected by their peers. And they won't last in that world without understanding the standards and ethics.

Democracies depend on having a free press. Dictators hate the free press.

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.

 Clearly draw lines between reporting an opinion? Please. I don’t even think most journalist would buy that one anymore. The same today back on the CBS News when Eric Severeid would give us commentary - and it was actually called commentary.

As for headline writers, their job is to catch the eye of the reader. Perhaps the best headline ever written: “headless man found in topless bar”.

---

Your (both of you) hyperbolic reports about bias in the Times would be more credible if you could come up with more than a single example of a possibly incorrect story.  Got anything else?  Anything?  Bueller?  Bueller?

How bout the statement of it’s “Ombudsman” a few years back :  “Of course we are a liberal newspaper.”  

As for journalistic standards, they have been lowered considerably. Used to be most important to get it right. Now it’s most important to get it first.   It’s not really anybody’s “fault“. That’s what happens when you have the Internet coupled with 24 seven new stations. I have a simple rule – I never trust any story with a single source particularly if it’s an “unnamed source.“  And I don’t care whose ox  is getting gored in the story – whether it’s aimed against a conservative or a liberal etc. Way too easy for a single sourced story to be wrong.

---

+1 Absolutely correct. Journalism ethics is a real thing, they teach it at several really good schools, and editors and reporters teach it and believe in it. Jobs in the so-called "mainstream media" are sought after and respected. Sad how much real journalism has become the target of demagogues and crackpots. That standards and ethics matter doesn't mean that they are always right, because nobody is. Nor does it mean they don't have opinions, because everybody does. But real professional journalists do exactly what OF says here or they are not respected by their peers. And they won't last in that world without understanding the standards and ethics.

Democracies depend on having a free press. Dictators hate the free press.

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.

“ Clearly draw lines between reporting an opinion?” . I don’t even think most journalists would buy that one anymore. This ain’t the day when CBS News’ Eric Severeid would give us commentary - and it was actually called commentary.

As for headline writers, their job is to catch the eye of the reader. Perhaps the best headline ever written: “headless man found in topless bar”.