Talk:The New York Times/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Carpal tunnel syndrome epidemic at the Times

In the mid-1990's, there seem to erupt an epidemic of carpal tunnel syndrome and repetitive stress injury sufferers. Many of those afflicted were clerks and news assistants who had been at the paper for 20 years and more. The Times's chief physician (whose first name was Howard) was fired as the sacrificial lamb for not diagnosing this affliction early enough and leaving the Times open to potential lawsuits.

An article in New York Press by Brendan Burkhart, ca. 1996 ot 1997, brought this problem to light but it is rarely if ever discussed in histories of the Times. KateRyan 13 January 2007

No good ability goes unpunished

From a memo on the proposed revision to the newsroom contract:
Work Quality

The company is proposing new language that would allow employees to be dismissed if the company determines their work is not of sufficient quality, and that the company’s determination in such cases may not be arbitrated. We have, regrettably, had a few cases like this over the years, and we have concluded that we need this flexibility in the contract. However, we can assure you that no one will be dismissed under this clause without being given plenty of warning and opportunities to improve their performance.

A style reporter was cited for having many corrections attributed to articles written by her, but was basically given a slap on the wrist. She has a best seller out touting her addiction to Botox and plastic surgery. A picture editor, recently retired at age 69, was moved from department to department because she was grossly technophobic and incompetent. She often pushed her work onto news assistants. The Times allowed it because it was afraid of age discrimination suits.

Beginning in 1992, the demarcation (based on skillsets) between editorial and production staff began to fade. But, being a unionized company, those that couldn't master fairly user-friendly programs such as Eudora, QuarkXPress, EdPage and now CCI were kept on regardless of their ability to cope with changing times (no pun intended).

Years later, there are still editors who ask clerks and news assistants if you have to dial 9 to make a call outside the building, or who don't know that control-H attaches a document to an email.

This provision in the contract is overdue. For too many years, the Times has penaiized those who are capable in favor of incapable bullies whose primary talent seems to be for having loud voices and the capacity to scream "discrimination". KateRyan 13 January 2007

The Girls in the Balcony

There should probably be a section about the evolving role of women in journalism and the Times in particular, as chronicled by Nan Robertson in her book The Girls in the Balcony, published in 1992. RahadyanS 06:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Created an entry for Nan C. Robertson a couple of weeks ago with the eventual goal of starting a section on the evolving role of women in journalism. AndreasKQ 14:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Paper of Record

The Times does not now consider itself "the paper of record" for New York or the US. It doesn't publish so many full transcripts of speeches and such any more, and (for example) it doesn't publish complete shipping information (arrivals and departures in New York Harbor), or Congressional roll calls. Some time in 2006 I believe read in the Public Editor column that the paper explicitly does not aspire to that role any more, so I changed the wording in the summary to "...is often regarded as the Paper of Record..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chester320 (talkcontribs) 06:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Aren't full transcripts published on the Times's website? AndreasKQ 00:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Relationships within and without the Times? Conflicts of interest?

Is it within the scope of this article to include a section about correspondents and/or editors married to one another? For example, Max Frankel and Joyce Purnick; Don Van Natta Jr. and Lisette Alvarez; Susan Edgerley and Lon Teter; Sam Dillon and Julia Preston; Donald McNeil Jr. and Suzanne Daley; John F. Burns and Amy Waldman; Judith Miller and Qaddafi; Kathryn Shattuck and Tunisian diplomat Samir Koubaa? GFP 22:31, 27 January 2007

The New York Times in fiction

This could probably be an article all on its own, except that it would be oft-vandalized :/ The thought came to me as I noted that the Jayson Blair incident was adapted for television by two different series of the Law and Order franchise. I don't know why the different production teams couldn't agree to have just one of the shows do it. The Howell Raines character in one was played by Judd Hirsch.

Other instances of the Times's appearing in fiction are: Keith R.A. Candido's novel Articles of the Federation, set in the 24th century; and the films Firestarter and Three Days of the Condor. AndreasKQ 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Is concerning the mention of the liberal bias of the Times, or the lack thereof, in fact. It does mention the bias, but seems to only quotes one study which says that it's not a biased newspaper, and otherwhere seems to be saying that any calls that it's biased are untrue. This is not proper: there is little debate that the NYT has some sort of bias: compare this with the Fox News Channel, which (correctly) mentions the bias in the lead paragraph of the article. In other words, not only are we ignoring this issue, but the only thing we're saying about it is buried in the article, and in fact only quotes people who say the Times isn't biased. I have thus tagged the article. Part Deux 01:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't just tag it that way because you feel it to be so or you think it's obvious. You have to cite some sort of poll or study. I removed the tag, there is talk of corporate and liberal bias in the article already. Quadzilla99 04:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was the tag about the lies removed?

Recently, I put up the following as an addition:

"On March 15, 2007 The Times ran an editorial titled "Immigration Misery" that had claimed a "screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken dehydrated to an emergency room so that the nation's borders will be secure." Upon further investigation, the only two babies admitted to the hospital in the area of Bedford, MA (where the raid had taken place) were due to dehydration because of pneumonia and not as a result of being "forcibly weaned." Commentators have alleged that The Times made up the facts that they based their editorial on to promote a left-wing agenda aimed at promoting illegal immigration in order to make the illegal immigrants into legal US citizens and register them as Democrats since the Democratic Party has traditionally promoted more entitlement programs that people in lower income classes (which most illegal immigrants are in) favor.[1]"

and it was reverted because of speculation? I dont understand what's speculative about it. The hospitals in the Bedford, MA area exist and don't have records for babies being admitted for dehydration outside cases of pneumonia. Though it was mentioned in a commentary, the facts of the commentary are true...The Times based its editorial on the wrong facts. There is nothing "speculative" about it. Arnabdas 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

front page item

In 1965, the Times printed a frontpage expose of a Jewish man, Dan Burros, turned Neo-Nazi and Klansman. Burros shot himself later that day, after having seen the newspaper. Should we put this into the controversy section? --LC 05:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it can be put in a different section, on stories broken by the Times, or so? --LC 14:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

facts removed from timeline

I rewrote the beginning of the history section to make it less like a timeline. When doing so, I removed a couple facts whose significance to the paper's history were unclear. Please re-add these if you can explain why they're important! Calliopejen1 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In the 1876 presidential election, while other newspapers declared Samuel Tilden the victor over Rutherford B. Hayes, the Times, under the headline A Doubtful Election, asserted the outcome remained uncertain. After months, an electoral commission and Congress finally decided the election in Hayes's favor.[2]

Between 1870 and 1871, a series of Times exposes targeted Boss Tweed and ended the Tweed Ring's domination of New York's city hall.[2]

actually on second thought I'll re-add that second one myself. Calliopejen1 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

November 6 1928, on Times Tower, the Motograph News Bulletin, known colloquially as "The Zipper" or "The News Zipper," started flashing its 14,800 bulbs with election results: Herbert Hoover defeats Al Smith. Beginning May 18 1942, the zipper went dark in compliance with wartime blackout rules.

During World War II, two Times reporters, Harold Denny, in North Africa, and Otto D. Tolischus, in Japan, were held as prisoners of war. Tolischus was tortured and accused of espionage. Both were eventually released.

In 1945, William L. Laurence, a science reporter, was drafted by the government to write the official history of the A-bomb project. On August 9, he was the only journalist on the mission to bomb Nagasaki

Family ownership

It is important to note that the Newspaper is controlled by the Jewish Sulzberger family.

Style question for another article

Hi, folks. At the FAC for Fun Home, the question has come up whether it's better to refer to the New York Times or The New York Times. I see that this article uses The New York Times, but almost always at the beginning of sentences. Does that make a difference? For some reason, my instincts want me to write "spent two weeks on the New York Times' bestseller list" instead of "two weeks on The New York Times' bestseller list." Does anyone have a copy of The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage? Presumably that would have the definitive answer to the question. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

let's talk facts

It's a fact that 79% of Americans feel that the NYT is far "left of center" so then in a consensus based encyclopedia, why is this fact not relfected in this article?--—(Kepin)RING THE LIBERTY BELL 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article. [1]. The Times has a 120+ year independent history, while Fox News is less than 11 years old. What goes in this introduction should cover all 120+ years, not just the past few. Abe Froman 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro and bias

How many articles does it take to make this notable enough to make it into the lead? 10, 100, 1000? Certainly this is a big point of the NY Times critics, and there certainly are many of them out there. So, I ask, how many articles would it take to make this notable enought for inclusion in the lead, like the way its in the lead of the Fox News article? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not going to worry about it anymore. The Evil Spartan 14:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
This is already covered in the article. [2]. The Times has a 120+ year independent history, while Fox News is less than 11 years old. What goes in this introduction should cover all 120+ years, not just the past few. Abe Froman 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Time should not matter. How long has the current publisher and editor been at the helm? The moveon.org discount is just the latest example of a liberal bias. You can't have it both ways. Fox news is the leading cable new outlet yet the conservative bias is in the elad.Kirin4 23:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that the NY Times has been exposed by it's own outbundsman of giving a discounted rate to Moveon.org can we put the liberal bias in the intro?Kirin4 13:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you are an admin would you mind giving me a reason? Thanks.Kirin4 19:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That I'm an admin is irrelevant -- I'm just expressing my opinion the same as any other editor. What language do you propose? If you want to bring up the ombudsman's opinion, you'll also need to mention that what happened was against corporate policy, which kinda weakens the argument about liberal bias (except, perhaps, in the ad sales department, where this all took place.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The outbundsman has critized the liberal bias before as has Fox News, what is sufficent to put in the introductarary paragraph, the Fox News entry has the conservative tag it and that is more moderate than the NY Times is.Kirin4 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I couldn't care less about the Fox News entry; if something bad is there, it doesn't mean something bad should be here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave you 2 examples, is that enough? Times Own outbundsman and the leader U.S cable new network.Kirin4 23:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Famous Mistakes"

This section seems pretty weak. The first entry (about Goddard) is an amusing anecdote, I guess. I'm not sure I'd call it a mistake. All the rest, though, except the ballet dancer, aren't mistakes -- they're being the victim of hoaxes. Quite different. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Two "See Also" sections?

Is there a reason there are two "See Also" sections? Clamster 22:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If there was a reason, I couldn't see it. First draft of history 01:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mr. Hussein"

The Times insists on referring to Saddam Hussein as "Mr. Hussein". As many know, however, "Hussein" is Saddam's father's first name, and hence, Saddam's "middle name". It is not a surname (Saddam's family name is "al-Tikriti"). Almost all other news publications I come across refer to the man as "Saddam", or perhaps "Hussein"; it is pretty unique to the Times to consistently refer to the man as "Mr. Hussein" - which is as nonsensical as referring to Bill Clinton as "Mr. Jefferson." I think it is worth throwing in a one-liner about the consequence of the Times' policy of not using unadorned last names - that is, the cultural inappropriateness of referring to everyone in the world as "Mr. ---". The "Mr. Hussein" controversy is a good example. See the first 6 Google results for "Mr. Hussein" and you will see my point. But my edit was deleted. 24.193.49.117 03:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Times online

(I'm not sure this should be here, but the regular editors here could probably answer....)

Looking at {{cite news|publisher=New York Times|url=}} entries, there are a number of different formats of URLs; Day care sex abuse hysteria alone has http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=… and http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=… . Any idea which, if any, is more stable? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted articles

Currently, the article has 3 images of copyrighted Times articles (4 if you count the Armenian headline). I think we should be able to replace most if not all with public domain articles. There are 70+ years to choose from. A good start is Image:Titanic-NYT.jpg, the front page from the Titanic sinking in 1912. Thoughts? Superm401 - Talk 09:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You have my support. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Jayson Blair

Narry a word about Jayson Blair? 9591353082 18:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried a long time ago to point out that people - in some cases actually closely affiliated with the Times - have been sanitizing this article of anything controversial (compare it to the similarly polemic Fox News). My complaints have fallen on deaf ears every time. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the Jayson Blair scandal, i.e., the fabrication of dozens of national news stories, which the Times itself described as a "low point in the 152-year history of the newspaper", goes completely unmentioned? 74.68.113.253 (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just fixed it. In closing, POWER TO THE PEOPLE. Swarm Internationale (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)