5 ms·

I don't read it. Why is it awful?

lyu07282 6mo ago
From Manufacturing Consent: > by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society." > "history is what appears in The New York Times archives; the place where people will go to find out what happened is The New York Times. Therefore it's extremely important if history is going to be shaped in an appropriate way, that certain things appear, certain things not appear, certain questions be asked, other questions be ignored, and that issues be framed in a particular fashion." The propaganda in the New York times is especially precious because of how highly respected it is, there never was a war or other elite interest they didn't push along.
mikkupikku 6mo ago
They have a very long track record of pretending to be independent but actually toeing the government's line at key pivotal moments in history when an independent newspaper is needed the most. Everybody here knows how they helped start the second Iraq war I hope, but that wasn't a one-off fluke. Go back through the major wars in American history and you can find the New York Times championing the cause of war before each of these. World Was 2, they uncritically accepted Walter Durranty letting Stalin ghostwrite for him, specifically w.r.t. Stalin's man-made famine in Ukraine, because America was allied with Stalin. WWI, frequent editorializing of Germans being wild Asiatic savages while the Anglos were good and noble people that Americans owed something to for some reason nobody could explain. Vietnam, they uncritically accepted government reports on the second Gulf of Tonkin incident which never happened and broadly accepted the governments own reports about how the war was going, at least in the early years when it still might have been possible to avoid further engagement. Korean war, they supported the government narrative of communist containment. First Iraq War, they uncritically reported very dubious atrocity propaganda, like the fraudulent "Nayirah testimony" given by the teenage daughter of a diplomat pretending to be a politically uninvolved hospital worker. The pattern here is deference to official narratives at precisely the times when criticism is needed the most.
- martey 6mo ago
  > World Was 2, they uncritically accepted Walter Durranty letting Stalin ghostwrite for him, specifically w.r.t. Stalin's man-made famine in Ukraine, because America was allied with Stalin. Duranty's New York Times articles were written in 1931, a decade before America entered World War II. They not only predate an American alliance with the Soviet Union, but they also predate the United States having any diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union whatsoever. > Go back through the major wars in American history and you can find the New York Times championing the cause of war before each of these. Are there other major American newspapers who have a history of dissenting against war? Wasn't the New York Times' behavior in most of the conflicts you mention in line with American popular opinion?
  - mikkupikku 6mo ago
    The American political apparatus was already normalizing relations with the Soviet Union due to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931, which is when WW2 truly started), due to the great depression in America making alliance with the Soviets look economically advantageous for America, and due to political instability in Germany and Italy. There was a strong sense of shit hitting the fan soon and that America would be with the Soviet Union through it. FDR officially recognized the Soviet Union in 1933, during the peak of Stalin's famine in Ukraine, which the New York Times was actively denying. As for other newspapers, the Times isn't worse but bears the brunt of the criticism because they are after all America's foremost, most influential newspaper.
    - martey 6mo ago
      Your comment is full of historical revisionism. The Second World War has little or nothing to do with the Holodomor. The Times' lack of reporting on it has nothing to do with American foreign policy (both Duranty and Gareth Jones were British) and everything to do with credulous reporters. The idea that America and the Soviet Union would be natural allies was not the majority viewpoint in the 1930s (outside of American communist propaganda) and is clearly disproved by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
  - 6mo ago

From Manufacturing Consent: > by selection of topics, by distribution of concerns, by emphasis and framing of issues, by filtering of information, by bounding of debate within certain limits. They determine, they select, they shape, they control, they restrict — in order to serve the interests of dominant, elite groups in the society." > "history is what appears in The New York Times archives; the place where people will go to find out what happened is The New York Times. Therefore it's extremely important if history is going to be shaped in an appropriate way, that certain things appear, certain things not appear, certain questions be asked, other questions be ignored, and that issues be framed in a particular fashion." The propaganda in the New York times is especially precious because of how highly respected it is, there never was a war or other elite interest they didn't push along.

mikkupikku 6mo ago

They have a very long track record of pretending to be independent but actually toeing the government's line at key pivotal moments in history when an independent newspaper is needed the most. Everybody here knows how they helped start the second Iraq war I hope, but that wasn't a one-off fluke. Go back through the major wars in American history and you can find the New York Times championing the cause of war before each of these. World Was 2, they uncritically accepted Walter Durranty letting Stalin ghostwrite for him, specifically w.r.t. Stalin's man-made famine in Ukraine, because America was allied with Stalin. WWI, frequent editorializing of Germans being wild Asiatic savages while the Anglos were good and noble people that Americans owed something to for some reason nobody could explain. Vietnam, they uncritically accepted government reports on the second Gulf of Tonkin incident which never happened and broadly accepted the governments own reports about how the war was going, at least in the early years when it still might have been possible to avoid further engagement. Korean war, they supported the government narrative of communist containment. First Iraq War, they uncritically reported very dubious atrocity propaganda, like the fraudulent "Nayirah testimony" given by the teenage daughter of a diplomat pretending to be a politically uninvolved hospital worker. The pattern here is deference to official narratives at precisely the times when criticism is needed the most.

martey 6mo ago
> World Was 2, they uncritically accepted Walter Durranty letting Stalin ghostwrite for him, specifically w.r.t. Stalin's man-made famine in Ukraine, because America was allied with Stalin. Duranty's New York Times articles were written in 1931, a decade before America entered World War II. They not only predate an American alliance with the Soviet Union, but they also predate the United States having any diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union whatsoever. > Go back through the major wars in American history and you can find the New York Times championing the cause of war before each of these. Are there other major American newspapers who have a history of dissenting against war? Wasn't the New York Times' behavior in most of the conflicts you mention in line with American popular opinion?
- mikkupikku 6mo ago
  The American political apparatus was already normalizing relations with the Soviet Union due to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria (1931, which is when WW2 truly started), due to the great depression in America making alliance with the Soviets look economically advantageous for America, and due to political instability in Germany and Italy. There was a strong sense of shit hitting the fan soon and that America would be with the Soviet Union through it. FDR officially recognized the Soviet Union in 1933, during the peak of Stalin's famine in Ukraine, which the New York Times was actively denying. As for other newspapers, the Times isn't worse but bears the brunt of the criticism because they are after all America's foremost, most influential newspaper.
  - martey 6mo ago
    Your comment is full of historical revisionism. The Second World War has little or nothing to do with the Holodomor. The Times' lack of reporting on it has nothing to do with American foreign policy (both Duranty and Gareth Jones were British) and everything to do with credulous reporters. The idea that America and the Soviet Union would be natural allies was not the majority viewpoint in the 1930s (outside of American communist propaganda) and is clearly disproved by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
- 6mo ago