Lately, I have been mostly using my NYT subscription to check out new recipes and find old ones that worked well for me.
More importantly, the NYT has been a part of my life since I was a little kid. My parents, as New Yorkers, subscribed wherever they lived, and getting the paper each morning and especially the mammoth Sunday paper was just a part of our lives. When we moved away from my parents, their visits to us, especially in Lubbock, involved quests for the NYT. It simply must reading. I read the news, the op-eds, the minimal sports, entertainment, and mostly skipped the business stuff. When my mother died recently, my family was quite intent on getting her obituary in the NYT, where you can also found marriage announcements and my uncle's obituary as well. My sister Ellen had several letters to the editor published there, and, yes, just one time, I got quoted there. I am pretty sure my family was thrilled more by that than any other media appearance.
Why drop my subscription and why be so loud about it? Because this paper, the newspaper of record, with the credo "All the News That's Fit to Print" has thoroughly betrayed itself. My displeasure started with so much false equivalence that I made a meme about it, treating in 2016 Hillary Clinton's flaws as equivalent to Trump's. I got into the habit of ranting on twitter when I saw a tweeted headline that was problematic.
Worse, the imbalance in much of the coverage. They didn't pursue his obvious and thorough corruption pre-presidency because it was too easy? Instead, it was all about her emails. And then it was the trend for its reporters to hold onto key bits of news for their books years after the news was relevant--so not all the news that was fit to print made it into print in the paper until it was promoting Maggie Haberman's book or my freshman year roomie's (Peter Baker) book. But I kept on subscribing.
Then the paper became obsessed with trans people, repeatedly amping up a moral panic about what be happening to those kids who transition too soon. Given how vulnerable the trans folks are, especially the kids, one might think that caution would be in order. Instead, it was really punching down. Why? Damned if I know, but it certainly was not "fit to print," at least at the volume and tilt of the stories.
I stopped reading its op-ed page as they ended up using not just "conservatives" but truly awful people to put out disinformation. Yes, the NYT became a vector of disinformation, which I am pretty sure is the opposite of its mission.
Its coverage of the current presidential race is maddening where it has been essentially pro-Trump, so focused on Biden's flaws and not spending that much page space on Trump's criminality. It is replay of 2016 but with personal animus: the publisher is miffed that Biden didn't do an interview with the NYT.
The paper has embraced the era of bad faith. The exemplar that finally got me to drop the paper was an op-ed written by a guy trying to discourage people to vote despite the fact that, yes, the shithead votes. On the Fourth of July? On that day, how about focusing on an imperial Supreme Court that is gutting not just the Constitution, but the entire revolutionary project? The end of the rule of law? How about that? Nope, instead, they encourage folks not to vote in the most pivotal election in American history. [I was talking with a smart pal last night, and she helped me realize that the Civil War might have ended the Union if the South had seceded, but it would not have ended American democracy. This election? The whole enchilada is at stake]
I have been arguing lately that the paper is pro-Trump despite its long dated reputation as a liberal paper, and the idea of not voting cinches it. Who is that message for? Biden voters. So, I am done. As many folks online pointed out, I can get recipes elsewhere. And, no, this is not a matter of me retreating into a left wing bubble, as I will not be reading left-wing outlets more. I will just try to get my news from as many non-disinformation sources as possible. The NY Times? Until it revises its current approach, it is dead to me.
2 comments:
Everything you say makes sense to me except your strenuous objection to an op-ex. It’s an op-ed, not an editorial comment! The whole point of the op in op-ed is that it doesn’t represent the view of the paper!
Op-eds are not just fun and games where a paper can put whatever shit they want and not be responsible for it. Publishing a right winger who has voted most recently who says don't vote? That is malpractice.
Likewise, putting antivax and transphobic stuff is not just "presenting diverse views" but doing real harm and spreading disinformation.
Post a Comment