Talk:The New York Times

Sourced content

An anonymous editor added this content. The references need to be formatted and the sourcing and writing sorted out, but notable content should be included in the encyclopedia.

Early in the 2008 presidential election, the New York Times published an article alleging that Republican candidate John McCain may have had a relationship with a female lobbyist, but the article was criticized by the Times' ombudsman for not being accurate.

The ombudsman wrote: "The newspaper found itself in the uncomfortable position of being the story as much as publishing the story, in large part because, although it raised one of the most toxic subjects in politics -- sex -- it offered readers no proof that McCain and (Vicki) Iseman had a romance."

The New York Times was also accused of spiking a story about Democratic candidate Barack Obama's relationship with the group ACORN during the election. Times reporter Stephanie Strom had been working on some stories about ACORN, using a source within the organization named Anita Moncrief. A phone call between Ms. Strom and Ms. Moncrief had Ms. Strom saying, "Hi, Anita, it’s Stephanie. I have just been asked by my bosses to stand down. … They want me to hold off on coming to Washington. Ah, sorry, I take my orders from higher up, ah, sometimes." The Times responded to inquiries by saying, that "Political considerations played no role in our decision about whether to cover this story."

Is the The New York Times reliable?

I have posted a question on the reliability of this newspaper on the reliable sources noticeboard. Could someone who is more knowledgeable than I am on the relative position of this local newspaper in the American media please comment there. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The New York Times and The New Yorker magazine as sources in a WP:BLP. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this a prank or something? AaronY (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Joni Mitchell Reference to Dylan Plagiarism

Few artists can lay claim to the controversy that has surrounded the career of songwriter James Damiano. Twenty-two years ago James Damiano began an odyssey that led him into a legal maelstrom with Bob Dylan that, to this day, fascinates the greatest of intellectual minds.

As the curtain rises on the stage of deceit we learn that CBS used songs and lyrics for international recording artist, Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan’s name is credited to the songs. One of those songs is nominated for a Grammy as best rock song of the year. Ironically the title of that song is Dignity.

Since auditioning for the legendary CBS Record producer John Hammond, Sr., who influenced the careers of music industry icons Billy Holiday, Bob Dylan, Pete Seger, Bruce Springsteen and Stevie Ray Vaughan, James has engaged in a multimillion dollar copyright infringement law suit with Bob Dylan.

http://jamesdamiano.yolasite.com/seeking-attorney-to-refile.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.159.44 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

New York Times before 1851

Hi. Was there a predecessor of the New York Times before 1851? On [1]/[2] it is mentioned, that John McLoughlin (McLoughlin Brothers) worked for New York Times in 1827. Does anybody know about New York Times in 1827? Greetings --Heiko (talk) 13:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

thumb|225px|right|The new front page image used in the infobox.

The infobox image has been changed recently from a 1914 front page (i.e. on which the copyright has expired), to the September 12, 2001 front page. I certainly think the 1914 image is not ideal -- it is extremely old and is not representative of the paper today -- but I also think the 2001 image currently being used, from the day after 9/11, is perhaps better suited to the September 11 attacks article, rather than this article. I think the best solution is just to upload a recent front page (at low resolution) and use that. Any thoughts? --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The image should be recent, and representative of what the paper normally looks like. The 9/11 edition is not representative of a "normal" front page, simply because it has an overly large headline, which is not normally characteristic of the paper. I would like to see a front page image from a day without much big news, so the image is not distracting from the subject of the article.Blazerbryant (talk)

I also agree that a typical image would be better.   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've uploaded a more typical front page from the "Today's Paper" feature on the Times' website (they keep an archive of previous front pages; I didn't uploaded today's because of the unusual layout and content devoted to the midterms). It's from September 29, 2010; I browsed randomly through a few recent front pages until I found it, because I wanted to skip ones with unusually large images and those which were otherwise unlike the majority of the Times' front pages. --Jatkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 20:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Lede paywall paragraph overly long

The last paragraph in the lede has become overly long for an overview, per WP:LEDE. It contains almost all the information on the metered paywall. I think it should be cut at least in half, and that content moved/merged to the pricing section where the rest of the paywall and subscription content resides. — Becksguy (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The paywall information should be mentioned in the lede, but the graf is far too long. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I waited a few days for additional comments. Receiving none but MP's above, I'm going to be bold and rewrite per discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. — Becksguy (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The WWII section should be before the 1980s & Reagan section for chronological reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.32.33 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Really it should go before any of those subsections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.201.32.33 (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Keller handoff

I believe the handoff by executive editor Bill Keller, announced today, deserves mention in this piece, and probably in the lede. I would suggest a one-sentence recap like this: "The newspaper's editor is Bill Keller, but it was announced on 2 June 2011 that Keller would step down in September, and be replaced by Jill Abramson, who will become the first female executive editor in the paper's history." One might argue that personnel changes in the newsroom don't warrant mention, but in this case I believe that's incorrect. As The Guardian points out [3], the fact that The Grey Lady has chosen a woman as top editor for the first time in its 160-year history is important. Given Times staffer Nan Robertson's 1992 book (Girls in the Balcony) on the history of gender relations at the newspaper, such a handover at the paper of record warrants inclusion. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not in the lede, for sure, but certainly in the "Discrimination in Employment" section. That section, indeed, needs some whacking down in view of WP:WEIGHT; there's no evidence that the NYT's hiring policies were more or less discriminatory than other papers' back then. PhGustaf (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the 'Discrimination in Employment' section is way too long, but disagree about placing the news about Abramson in that section. By putting it there, you're suggesting that its only relevance is to rebut claims of discrimination. It might have a bearing on that, but as The Guardian's piece suggests, the news has broader ramifications. Placing it within the discrimination section trivializes it. I believe the news needs a brief, one-sentence mention in the lede. MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MarmadukePercy, per my comments at User talk:Becksguy#Your opinion, and the following comments. The appointment of a female executive editor at the NYT is of major and broad significance. And it's not just our opinions. Multiple sources now report on this story:

1. The Guardian [4]
2. Reuters [5]
3. PBS Newshour [6] Broadcast interview of Abramson by Jim Lehrer
4. Politico [7]
5. Huffington Post [8]
6. Wall Street Journal [9] (Paywall)

Quotation from Abramson, as mentioned by MarmadukePercy, in the PBS Newshour interview with Jim Lehrer that ties into the Roninson book: "But I also did shout-outs to people like Nan Robertson, who I never even got to meet, who wrote "The Girls in the Balcony" and was part of a generation of women who had such a hard time being hired as reporters. And she went on to win a Pulitzer Prize." The one sentence recap by MarmadukePercy belongs in the lede. — Becksguy (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It definitely warrants inclusion in the article, just not in the lede. First, per WP:LEDE, the lede is where you summarize the most important aspects of the article, not where you put unique information that doesn't appear elsewhere. Even after we do mention it in the article, it's doubtful this is one of the most important aspect of an overview of the Times and its 150+ year history. But it again, it does deserve a place in the article (and I agree with the comments above about the discrimination section. Including it in that section would be incorrect and verging on Synthesis.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

NY Times in discussions to sell 16 regional papers DECEMBER 19, 2011, 4:59 P.M. ET. by Associated Press in the WSJ 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)