Remember that time the NYT published Judith Miller's stenography for the Bush Administration's lies leading up to the war in Iraq? I'm sure they learned their lesson from that debacle, though.
I wonder what Media Bias Fact Check has to say about them?
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
What a goddamned joke.
The NYT was shitty long before that. They famously did not cover the Holocaust. Not the run up, and not even during the war.
When the camps were liberated, Americans at home had no idea who was in the camps.
The owner of the NYT was later asked about their failures in covering the Holocaust and the buildup, and said with a shrug "the NYT didn't really cover the Holocaust".
As a note the owner of the NYT was Jewish. But didn't want to be associated with poor Jews.
I really wish Rooki would listen to the community about this silly bot. But they won't, and their staunch defense in the face of criticism suggests an ulterior motive.
Tinfoil hat time: I think they got a Ground News sponsor for Lemmy (GN started an ad campaign just as this started) and are trying to look unbiased by having both GN and MBFC... in every single news post.
Yeah I had a similar feeling about ground news. I had assumed the bot was at least created by someone who works there, using whatever algorithm that site uses to rate sources. The fact that’s it’s mentioned in every post really rubs me the wrong way, on top of how shitty the bot is at doing what it’s supposed to. And yet, it’s still around. What do we have to do to finally get rid of it?
They also kept doubling down on their reporting of systemic sexual violence on Oct 7. Family members of the victims disputed that sexual violence was a component of their murders. They have not retracted this reporting.
The "great" part about how absolute shit NYT is, is how after the "great media consolidation" ~15 years ago when most of the major outlets were bought by billionaires the first thing they did was cut their investigation and research departments in favor of "copying" the NYT stories...
They don't care about quality, or content, they're the typical business school jackass type that thinks "ThE BrAnD mEAnS eVeRyThInG!" As in: you'll eat whatever I serve and you'll keep doing it because of the name I bought.
Same shit is happening with so called "AAA" game developers (Bethesda... Among others) except this isn't fucking clothing. Gucci sells because people want the name. The Washington Post can go fuck themselves, no one but Bezos cares about the name.
Paywall free: https://archive.ph/I2G3o
NYT will go further and count it as 2 separate lies and clearly demonstrate how both sides are basically the same
FUCK NYT
TRUMP: Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
Fox News: cums
For people asking what this is about, I didn't look at the NYT because of the paywall, but here's an article that's very similar in tone from NPR.
Although they do state
The dozen Harris statements lacking in context are far less in comparison to 162 misstatements, exaggerations and outright lies that NPR found from Trump’s hour-long news conference Aug. 8.
the following items are really nit-picky. It's laid out as a list of misleading statements, but reading the details of each makes me think "ok, so basically true, then".
I feel like some loud conservatives made NPR freak out and now they're trying to sprinkle in stories like this.
Because the moment conservatives run things again, they'll absolutely continue gutting public radio.
It's because back in April some right-wing nutjob editor quit NPR claiming an atmosphere of bias. So he fled to right-wing outlets (where he conveniently ignores their right-wing bias) and now NPR decides they need to go back to balancing the scales of the BoTh SiDeS bullshit.
https://www.npr.org/2024/04/17/1245283076/npr-editor-uri-berliner-resigns-ceo-katherine-maher
Some of the "misleading" statements were Harris neglecting to enumerate the reasons why a stated policy goal might not succeed, which would be incredibly unusual to include in a speech of this nature.
I guess the point the author was trying to make was that saying you "will" do something in office is a promise, and if you don't have the ability to guarantee that promise can be kept you shouldn't say that thing at all? I love me some NPR but they're really bending over backwards with some of these...
I don't get it, is the joke that NYT is secretly pro trump or something?
It's that they're fact checking trivialities. You have one fact check where Trump says "The stock market was up 10,000% during my Presidency". Then there's another fact check where Kamala says "I remember seeing the sunset in Pittsburgh that day" when she was already gone by mid afternoon. These are rated as equal lies in the tally.
It's not so much that they are deliberately pro Trump. It's that their need for false "balance" and "objectivity" stops them from calling out any one side when the lies are so much more egregious.
There's a recent Behind the Bastards podcast that covers how the liberal media handled the rise of Adolf Hitler, including the New York Times. The reasons for their behavior haven't changed, they never did any post-war introspection on what went wrong, and they're making exactly the same mistakes with Trump. The only media that can look back on that time and be proud of how they reported it were explicitly communist newspapers that never tried to hide their bias.
Trump can complain about the "liberal media" as much as he wants. He needs them to behave in exactly the way they do or he wouldn't get anywhere.
That’s exactly why he’s complaining. He knows they’ll pull this shit so they can claim to be fair. He may be an idiot, but he’s an expert at manipulating the press.
Where do you see they fact checked Kamala harris about a sunset in Pittsburgh? I searched and couldn't find it.
Also, it's not like any fact checkers are obligated to report 1 lie for harris for each lie for Trump. They focus more on Trump because trump tells more lies. I couldn't find this data for NYT, but the Washington Post logged 511 misleading claims for Trump in the first 100 days of his presidency and 78 for Biden over the same time period.
Those numbers seem fair to me. You suggest that liberal news outlets are more likely to call out Democrats than Republicans for equally small falsehoods, but the numbers don't seem to back that up and it doesn't make any sense to me. Unless you can provide any evidence I don't believe it.
The job of independent media is to be honest and truthful. It is not to do whatever is necessary to prevent a given candidate from being elected, with the ends justifying the means.
Listening to that Behind the Bastards episode right now: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0Xt4xGrdzNvjIZe75bRdkq?si=72c4d10962674f57
Secretly? Ever read a Maggie Haberman column?
I read through a few of her articles just now. I'm not detecting any pro-Trump bias: she seems very skeptical of the Trump/Gabbard/RFK alliance and has been in the news for talking about how "shaken" Trump was after the DNC. Also, even if she was a secret conservative that is not indicative of NYT as a whole.
By this point it's well established fact that the Times is far more likely to attack Democrats over relatively trivial points when it ought to be attacking Republicans over important points. There's various speculation as to why. Ownership of the newspaper is a factor. Trying to appear centrist is definitely a second factor.
And that newspaper does a very bad job of it. But I sympathize with any paper who tries to be centrist because at some point you either align your reporting with reality or you lose credibility. And many of us realize years ago that the Times just doesn't have much credibility to spare.
Is it? Is it a well established fact exactly? Because nobody has shown me any evidence of it and the only people who ever bring this up are leftists.
It’s hard for sociopaths to believe that there are people who aren’t sociopaths
NO.
The aspects of a day are assigned to the quarters of the day in the same way as the seasons of the year are broken up between the solstices and the equinoxes.
Ergo, as it is for a year:
- winter: winter solstice to spring equinox
- spring: spring equinox to summer solstice
- summer: summer solstice to fall equinox
- fall: fall equinox to winter solstice
So is it for a day:
- night: midnight to 6am
- morning: 6am to noon
- afternoon: noon to 6pm
- evening: 6pm to midnight
I think the point here is it's a really stupid and pedantic criticism that they don't apply equally to Trump and Vance.
That's a pretty controversial take. I don't think anyone would call 5am "night" if they woke up at that time, but just really early morning. Same with 11pm being evening is more to do if weather you're still awake or not. These are fuzzy definitions that are more about vibes than precisely what the clock says.
Same with the seasons really. There's the definition you've given, and then there's the one that's more about the seasonal differences in the region. Winter where I live for example starts in November (probably around Remembrance day if I were to pin it down). It's silly too wait until the solstice to consider it winter when there's been over a month of snow on the ground and freezing temps.
The dictionary is...literally (hello self-evidence) full of words for which there has long existed an 'Objective Definition' but which usage has brought a consensus based 'Subjective Definition'. Etymology is the study of a shifting process, and both you and them are correct:
Them in the expected usage a publication should use to apply it to a discreet entity, and you in the fact that the subjective shift in meaning gives us words that map anecdotally to our lives.
Truly...language is awe-some.
I worked for a customer that defined midday as 12pm to 4pm. Afternoon starts at 4pm. They were surprised we used exact hours for everything with them after the first meeting.
Where I live, in December, it's already night by 4pm, whereas in July, 4pm isn't even the peak of heat yet. But if someone said "good evening" to me at 4pm in either of them, I'd prob accept it either way, and I'm a meteorologist
Also: In the UK and the US, the typical meteorological standard is just to split seasons by month (DJF MAM JJA SON) for easy stats reasons, but other countries have entirely different standards based on climate. Different people have different definitions and it's completely fine
Isn't midnight supposed to be in the mid of the night?
This is the only correct take with the etymology partitioning of the words.
There's merit to change afternoon to mid day, midnight to its opposite, then using morning and evening for their opposites.
More correct words would be
Night = 6p-6a Day = 6a - 6p
Night= 9pm - 3am Morning = 3am - 9am Day= 9am - 3pm Evening = 3pm - 9pm
Instead day also has connotations of the entirety of the day. So in reality we just need a new word for the sunny part of the day... Sunday and Moonday! Wait... Lightday and Darkday! Wait...
Midnight... Midmorn... Midday... Mideve... Wait...
AfterNoon. AfterEve. AfterNight. AfterMorn. Wait...
You know what. Fuck midnight. I'm now calling midnight Onno. now. Since it sounds like emo, oh no, and is the opposite of noon.
I'll continue the lingual tradition of purposely mispronouncing Onno as AhNo instead of OhNo though because you can't have English being phonetic now...
OT, but as a non-native English speaker, what would you say in a greeting like that if it was, say, 1:00 AM?
What would you say, "Good _____"?
Doesn't "Good night" come with a strong connotation of leaving and going to sleep? (Or expecting the other side to do so?)
(I'm from Czech Republic and we just don't have such term.)
In Australia, G'day works 24 hours.
Honestly I prefer saying "Good Day" in Czech as well (that's the most abundant one used here).
At some point I realized that the whole thing has silent "I wish you", which also means that if I say "Dobrý den" (=="Good day") I'm actually being more generous. So correcting me to "Dobrý večer" (== "Good evening") because it's 7 PM or whatever is actually not just petty but also kind of a dick move.
(Edit: I also realize that my explanation is probably the pinnacle of pettiness, with just a little pinch of dickmoveines on top...)
Evening or Morning would work there. Good Night is typically a parting idiom. Even if it's technically correct.
You are correct. Good night means that whatever you've been doing is over. The media is bending over backwards trying to appear "fair", but it just results in moments like this.
It's the tan suit scandal all over again.
No, you'd say "good evening" in the U.S.
"Halt! You are in violation of curfew!"
I've found that the answer depends on what region of the US you're from. The UK probably does it differently, but I'm with @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world. If it's dark out, you're definitely greeting with "good evening."
what would you say in a greeting like that if it was, say, 1:00 AM?
I'd probably say: "Why are you still up? Your bedtime was hours ago. GO TO BED!" because it would most likely be one of my children at that time of night.
How it's going? What's up? Etc
You can use other greetings.
Are they teenagers yet? Because if not, good luck with that.
-- Dad of a 14-year-old
In USMC boot camp, this specific topic was addressed very early on. It's "Good Morning" up until noon, after which it is "Good Afternoon" up until you eat evening chow, then it is "Good Evening" until midnight (at which point it becomes "Good Morning" again).
Of course, it's all up to personal preference in the real world. If you're out with your friends at a club and it's after midnight but still very much dark out, you're not going to be greeting people of the gender that you prefer to look at with "Good Morning", because it is still 'evening' to you and them.
"He came to me and said, 'Good Morning!'"
"The nerve!"
"'I hope you have a great day!'"
"The nerve!!"
"And I was like, 'WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO??'"
"Fuck Walz! He's got eyeballs for testicles!"
Lying fake news media doesn't want Americans to know about our big beautiful VP candidate!! The failing New York Times once again showing it's tremendously unfair bias! Sad!
I can't read. I was thinking of Vance.
Look, I saw an "A and my brain just whatever'd.
To be fair, the guy is a black hole of charm. He's casually off-putting.
When ordering donuts don't dismissively just order "whatever makes sense".
When ordering cheesesteak, don't go to Pat's or Geno's. Both are shit, and never give the place guff for not having Swiss.
The guy just does casual interactions wrong. Like some kind of weirdo.
What kind of fucking psycho wants swiss on their cheesesteak?
When you order a dozen (or more) donuts it's absolutely normal to be asked if an assortment is ok, or if you'd like to choose. Unless you have specific restrictions or preferences, the assortment is the way to go - even then, if you see coconut go in, you just say, "oh no coconut please". You'll get the most popular kinds and maybe some that haven't been selling well that they need to get rid of. Also, you don't waste the time of everyone in the shop with "uh, 3 of these, 4 of those, wait, 4 of these and um um what's that one? no thanks". But the important part is you left the choices up to the baker to make a sensible choice.
So "whatever makes sense" is probably the best option and not even an odd way to say it.
It's certainly not "dismissive", if anything it's respectful of their knowledge and ability to put together a nice selection. I realize we're just talking about donuts here but if you're working with donuts every day even as a minimum wage employee, you know more about donuts than most people. And hey, if you're a donut connoisseur just tell them "I'll pick" and rattle them all off. They'll appreciate that too.
A hobby of mine is asking people what they mean by "good morning/afternoon/evening".... Are they wishing me a good whatever? Are they stating that it is a good whatever? Are they saying they're having a good whatever? Or are they saying I should be having a good whatever?
I usually phrase it as "are you asking, or telling?"
I've found this is a terse way to get to the intent of the words they're saying, and it usually throws people off because they didn't think about what they're saying, they're only saying it because that's what you are conditioned to do.
IDK about politics tho. Just that I really hope that the USA doesn't elect a felon.
I don't know... I think my response to such a thing would be something along the lines of looking at you confusedly and then explaining to you that saying that to someone in greeting is a societal norm and it doesn't have a lot of meaning beyond that.
When the person in the supermarket checkout line says "have a nice day" after bagging my groceries and giving me a receipt, I don't think that they actually care whether or not I have a nice day. It's just a way of ending a social interaction.
I meant it. Almost every time...almost.
"Good morning" "Isn't that really more of an opinion than a greeting?" [blank stares]
You can say good morning with an infection that makes it asking. Like if I looked over at you on the bus and go "good morning?". You'd know to reply that you were indeed having a good one. Same as if I said "rough morning?"
I would reply "Just saying"
It's totally conditioned to say it. I come from where the response to "How you doing?" Is "Good, you?", "Good"
If someone just said "Morning" to you, you've been conditioned to think something is wrong or they are having a bad day more than likely.
First impressions matter, and the first word out of your mouth better be good
I try not to lie, ever, even in my colloquialisms.
If someone says, "how's it going?" I usually deflect because I don't want to lie, but I also know they don't give any shits about how I'm doing, especially if they're just being "nice". My typical response is that "it's going", which IMO, just implies that things have happened and doesn't really give any indication if they're going well or not. Same for things like "how is your day?" They don't care. My go to is usually along the lines of "it's a day"...
Whatever ends the pleasantries part of the conversation faster. That way I can get to why I'm talking to them in the first place.
I use "are you asking, or telling?" with people that I'm familiar with and in no hurry to conclude the interaction. I usually try to reply in ways that are thought provoking; trying to challenge their use of colloquialisms and actually think about what they're asking/telling me. I only openly answer questions like "good morning?" When a friend or family member is asking and I'm pretty sure that they actually want to know the answer and aren't just placating the pleasantries of interactions with others. If I'm specifically asked "good morning?" From a relative stranger, my reply would be along the lines of: "it's a morning, that's for sure", mainly because I don't really give any shits about making complete strangers think about what they're saying. If they want to stick to meaningless colloquialisms, I have no desire to prevent them from mindlessly navigating through life without using their higher brain functions.
I deal with enough idiocy from work that I can't be arsed to care about whether someone I don't even know and I'm all probability, won't remember, nor think of again, and will likely never see again, thinks about what they're actually saying to others by habit instead of being genuinely concerned.
If I ask someone how their day is, it's because I want to know, either as an extension of my job (which is IT support, aka, fixing shit), or because I want to know if I'm able to make their day less shitty by doing something that helps them.
I'm also a certified first-aider, so when someone complains, I want to know if it's medical, and if I need to go get something that can help, whether that's a bandaid or an AED, isn't the critical point, either is important depending on context, and both are equally important and unimportant depending on the circumstances. A bandaid can be extremely important to protect against infection (and a relatively small cut becoming a very big problem), whereas the AED is extremely important when someone has chest pains, and other symptoms of AFib, while it's basically worthless for everything else.
I dunno, I'm just some guy. I'm trying my best out here.
