Talk:The New York Times/Archive 2

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  New York TImes Magazine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NY Times and "Serbophobia" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Controversy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ad hominem, my friend.  And completely unrelated to this article.  --ElKevbo 11:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chomsky and "Conservative bias"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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: .  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)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: 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)
thread_title:  stories the paper broke 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Alleged pro-Israeli bias

message: 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)
thread_title:  Op-ED bias towards Israeli writers

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Corporate bias subsection deleted

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Lack of references

message: Can anyone show me what it cost?
Thanks,
--58.187.110.86 21:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does it cost? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  whaddya think: accusations of liberal bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Distinctions between news, comment, ads" section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: 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. --Grahamtalk/mail/e 23:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. Omphaloscope » talk 05:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  liberal label 

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV TAG

message: 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)
thread_title: New York Times v. Tasini

message: 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)
thread_title: Uncited Fox News accusation

message: 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)
thread_title: Uncited liberal bias

message: 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)
thread_title: Bias in Judith Miller bit?

message: 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)
thread_title: Web presence section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Accusations of [[liberal bias]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Political Leanings of Owners

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Pulitzer Prizes

message: 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)
replies: text: Good call.  I removed the image from this article.  --ElKevbo 22:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing Issue 

message: 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)
thread_title: Added this to the errors section 

message: Here is the image and caption I removed from the article, which is problematic for several reasons: 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hitler in "Famous Mistakes" Section