Post: #1

I grew up with the print NYT.

It has held a close place to me for many years.

Now, it has started to lose favor.

I'm quick to jump on the wagon that says it sucks.

How have you noticed NYTimes sucking? Hopefully, they will read this and change their ways.

Post: #2

Do you mean "whack" like you are going to hit someone? Or "wack" like we used to say in NYC?

I tend to get my news from other news sources.

Post: #3

(10-31-2013 04:12 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  Do you mean "whack" like you are going to hit someone? Or "wack" like we used to say in NYC?

I tend to get my news from other news sources.

Are you a white guy?

Post: #4

Their quality of writing is high, they cover most important topics, their coverage is prompt and overall it's a very good newspaper. But the tremendous amount of white knighting and feminism (not just limited to its columns like Modern Love and Opinions) - literally everywhere - ruins all of it. I've first dropped my subscription and now I've stopped reading the NYT entirely.

It's ironic - a newsaper might be accused of liberal bias, but there is no room for actual misleading. Poll numbers and speeches are always the same, no matter the comment that follows. But reporting on all sorts of gender issues - oh boy, false "studies" and "experts" are referenced at the speed of light. It's crazy.

Post: #5

(10-31-2013 04:19 AM)soup Wrote:  Are you a white guy?

No, but I remember when guys were using terms like "Dope" or "Wack" back in the day.

Post: #6

(10-31-2013 04:30 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 04:19 AM)soup Wrote:  Are you a white guy?

No, but I remember when guys were using terms like "Dope" or "Wack" back in the day.

Whack is spelled "Whack", not "Wack" like a fucking retard.

Just like "Whoop, there it is" isn't spelled with ululating "oop" sound.

Black people have silent consonants, it's not just all patois and latino influenced stuff.

Post: #7

I wouldn't say it has a liberal bias. It has its head so far up the establishment's ass I would say it has asshole bias. None of its articles on anything are remotely objective, they spin hard for whoever is in power, and they're politics are much more socialist than anything resembling traditional American political thought.

Post: #8

(10-31-2013 04:35 AM)soup Wrote:  Whack is spelled "Whack", not "Wack" like a fucking retard.

Dude, I didn't insult you in the anonymity of the internet. I just asked you a question because I've never seen the slang term "wack" spelled like "whack."

Post: #9

The website sucks because you can only read 10 articles a month for free. Then they want you to subscribe for $8 a month. It's annoying.

Post: #10

(10-31-2013 04:35 AM)soup Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 04:30 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 04:19 AM)soup Wrote:  Are you a white guy?

No, but I remember when guys were using terms like "Dope" or "Wack" back in the day.

Whack is spelled "Whack", not "Wack" like a fucking retard.

Post: #11

^^^^^^
Funny gif, but I agree ... no need to get emotional over a question of semantics, lol

       

Post: #12

(10-31-2013 05:54 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 04:35 AM)soup Wrote:  Whack is spelled "Whack", not "Wack" like a fucking retard.

Dude, I didn't insult you in the anonymity of the internet. I just asked you a question because I've never seen the slang term "wack" spelled like "whack."

I hope you say soda and not pop.

I avoid the NYT. It embodies blue pill ideals in all the ways possible and it keeps our lesser men in line by feeding them pseudo intellectual junk that panders to maintaining the status quo.

Post: #13

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/wack

Post: #14

(10-31-2013 06:22 AM)frenchie Wrote:  I hope you say soda and not pop.

Only in the USA. In places like Costa Rica, a "soda" is something else, lol.

I hear what you are saying about the NYTs. With the availability of so many news sources, it's not really an issue for me.

Post: #15

NYT is garbage. Well-written, though. Plus, at the risk of sounding like an anti-semite, I really detest it's pro-Israel, pro-Jewish spin on everything. And that's much of the American MSM, I'm afraid.

Post: #16

(10-31-2013 07:25 AM)pavel_eskimoso Wrote:  NYT is garbage. Well-written, though. Plus, at the risk of sounding like an anti-semite, I really detest it's pro-Israel, pro-Jewish spin on everything. And that's much of the American MSM, I'm afraid.

How is there a pro-Israel, pro-Jewish spin in NYT? It has been spamming articles against Nentayahu and basically saying that Israel is currently completely in the wrong as far as its Palestine dispute goes. If that's "pro", I'd hate to see what counts as "con".

Post: #17

(10-31-2013 06:22 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  ^^^^^^
Funny gif, but I agree ... no need to get emotional over a question of semantics, lol

I guess I'm a plebe, have heard of 'whack', 'wack', and even the unwisely underutilized 'wiggedy-whack'. I always thought 'wack' or 'wacker' was british for wanker.

Post: #18

Quote:The website sucks because you can only read 10 articles a month for free. Then they want you to subscribe for $8 a month. It's annoying.

Delete the cookies from your browser and close all NYT tabs / windows...

(Always worked for me in Safari but I haven't read it in several months.)

Post: #19

(10-31-2013 08:10 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Quote:The website sucks because you can only read 10 articles a month for free. Then they want you to subscribe for $8 a month. It's annoying.

Delete the cookies from your browser and close all NYT tabs / windows...

(Always worked for me in Safari but I haven't read it in several months.)

Also, the script that counts your visits and links them to each other is the last element that loads, so just stop loading the page before it's fully loaded and that's it. You can get the full article with pictures and comments and still leave the script out without problems.

It becomes a bit hard to do if your internet is above 4 MB/s, but still doable.

Post: #20

(10-31-2013 04:30 AM)JayMillz Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 04:19 AM)soup Wrote:  Are you a white guy?

No, but I remember when guys were using terms like "Dope" or "Wack" back in the day.

When did people stop?

Post: #21

(10-31-2013 07:46 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 07:25 AM)pavel_eskimoso Wrote:  NYT is garbage. Well-written, though. Plus, at the risk of sounding like an anti-semite, I really detest it's pro-Israel, pro-Jewish spin on everything. And that's much of the American MSM, I'm afraid.

How is there a pro-Israel, pro-Jewish spin in NYT? It has been spamming articles against Nentayahu and basically saying that Israel is currently completely in the wrong as far as its Palestine dispute goes. If that's "pro", I'd hate to see what counts as "con".

That's hilarious.

NYT is pro-Israel.

For example - the Times has a *policy* of only having correspondents to Israel who are themselves Jewish.

They'll never have a correspondent in Israel who's black, non-Jewish white, or Asian. How's that for diversity? So much for multiculturalism. When it comes to Israel, the Times suddenly becomes ethno-nationalist.

Do you think that the Times would *only* have correspondents to Brazil that were Brazilian, South African correspondents that were South African, or correspondents to Japan that were Japanese?

Nope.

The implicit message is that only Jews are allowed to report on other Jews.

The Times promotes liberal Zionism. You may prefer right-wing Zionism, but right or left the ideology by definition is pro-Israel.

To give an example of their bias - the political scientist John Mearsheimer used to be a frequent op-ed contributor to the NY Times.

Then he wrote against the Iraq War and published with Stephen Walt a seminal piece about the role of the Israel Lobby in shaping foreign policy in D.C.

Then *poof* he vanished from the Times. Never invited to write an op-ed since.

Post: #22

have had this exact argument, with dictionary links, the "i remember when", the "you didnt grow up in the 80's", but that one wasnt thrown out yet.

NYT still produces stellar content, but I get my news in chunks and bites from the web, tv, radio, etc, and I just dont have time to devote to it. The Sunday Times is really it, but its takes a whole day to literally devoir, and I would rather spend my Sunday at the pool, outside, working or sleeping off a hangover. It is deep reading, and a lot of the articles are fascinating and well researched and written. In a world where Business Insider and Drudge unfortunately becomes your default news source after spending all day on the web, its nice to know there still are well run newsrooms with actual professional writers and editors, not just recent graduate, quasi interns, pumping out click bait headlines, gawker/buzzfeed-esque machine written 'content' out to the masses, passing itself off to the world as actual newsrooms. Thats not to say the NYT is perfect, but if the only options are pumping out grumpy cat pics and false rape accusations, I will take the one with serious journalists any day, even if its losing money and harder to consume.

Post: #23

(10-31-2013 09:40 AM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 07:46 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(10-31-2013 07:25 AM)pavel_eskimoso Wrote:  NYT is garbage. Well-written, though. Plus, at the risk of sounding like an anti-semite, I really detest it's pro-Israel, pro-Jewish spin on everything. And that's much of the American MSM, I'm afraid.

How is there a pro-Israel, pro-Jewish spin in NYT? It has been spamming articles against Nentayahu and basically saying that Israel is currently completely in the wrong as far as its Palestine dispute goes. If that's "pro", I'd hate to see what counts as "con".

That's hilarious.

NYT is pro-Israel.

For example - the Times has a *policy* of only having correspondents to Israel who are themselves Jewish.

True. But it's more likely that even if the correspondent isn't Jewish, they must be passed through certain filters to ensure that they have internalized the general pro-Israel stance. Creepy Eel is right that the NYT will sometimes criticize certain aspects of Israeli policy. But those criticisms fall within what's *allowed* as far as the MSM is concerned. Chomsky wrote about this in Manufacturing Consent. The major news outlets, being the pussy-whipped corporate drones that they are, all agree on certain things: Israel is good, American foreign policy is benevolent, Russia is evil etc.

Post: #24

I read the NYT almost every day (print edition, but I don't pay for it). But I often read articles elsewhere online "fisking" or ripping apart their stories even before I get to the print version. So it's sad but amusing reading their articles knowing there's so much in there that is not factual (or knowing certain facts were omitted from stories, which is just as bad.)

Again, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect applies...

Quote:“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

― Michael Crichton

They've even dumbed down the crosswords, which irks me the most.

Post: #25

(10-31-2013 12:03 PM)Sombro Wrote:  I read the NYT almost every day (print edition, but I don't pay for it). But I often read articles elsewhere online "fisking" or ripping apart their stories even before I get to the print version. So it's sad but amusing reading their articles knowing there's so much in there that is not factual (or knowing certain facts were omitted from stories, which is just as bad.)

Again, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect applies...

Quote:“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

― Michael Crichton

They've even dumbed down the crosswords, which irks me the most.

The thing Crichton is referring to would be the inverted pyramid style of writing. Once upon a time I wanted to be a journalist.

The best places to get your news are where the people with $$$ get their news.