Says A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, quoted in "Joe Kahn Is Named Next Executive Editor of The New York Times" (NYT).
Mr. Kahn, 57, currently the No. 2-ranking editor at The Times, will take on one of the most powerful positions in American media and the global news business. He is to succeed Dean Baquet, whose eight-year tenure is expected to conclude in June...
Mr. Kahn has in recent years spearheaded the paper’s efforts to re-engineer its newsroom for the speed and agility required of modern media. He dismantled the print-focused copy desk, expanded the use of real-time news updates and emphasized visual journalism as much as the written word....
At the same time, The Times is grappling with shifting views about the role of independent journalism in a society divided by harsh debates over political ideology and cultural identity. Mr. Kahn said securing the public’s trust “in a time of polarization and partisanship” was among his top priorities....
I've been relying on the NYT for longer than Joe Kahn has been alive, and I have never seen anywhere better to go to follow the news and the culture. I criticize what I find in the NYT. That's the #1 thing I do on this blog, but I dearly hope for it to be as good as possible, and I wish Joe Kahn the very best.
पोस्ट्स
५१ टिप्पण्या:
"I have never seen anywhere better to go to follow the news and the culture. "
As long as you don't mind getting lied to, and not hearing what they don't want you to know.(Hunter's laptop, the fake Russian collusion, ect..ect..ect..)
It would be hard for the new guy to be worse than the old guy. But in a Woke Wonderland, why not some person with intersectional gravitas and trendy pronouns? At least Baquet was Black, although that’s just my guess: I’m not a biologist.
Honesty. Even when it makes The Party look bad.
that's all I want.
He is to succeed Dean Baquet, whose eight-year tenure is expected to conclude in June.
It seems to me that it was about eight years ago that NYT reporters stopped using the word "allegedly" and began using the expressions "said falsely", "said without evidence" and "has been debunked".
Look up John Tierney NYT "The Big City; Monkey Business: Strippers, Testosterone and the Dow" 1998/11/09
Jane Gross NYT "Diana's Death Resonates With Women in Therapy" 1997/09/13
for typical good content in the NYT of the time that's very unlikely to turn up today.
I don't think links to them are likely to work universally because I bought the articles and the NYT remembers that.
Welcome to the new NYT, same as the old NYT….
All of the news that’s fit to print?
I don't read newspapers anymore.
I don't watch ANYTHING* on TV anymore.
The media has lost all credibility.
Good luck, Mr. Kahn.
* I'm not even gonna watch football. Did I mention that the Seahawks traded Russell Wilson to Denver?
Another Democrat with a byline.
Joe brings impeccable news judgment, a sophisticated understanding of the forces shaping the world and a long track record of helping journalists produce their most ambitious and courageous work."
I'd trade all of that for 'honesty' or 'integrity', because that's what the NYT has been sorely lacking.
"At the same time, The Times is grappling with shifting views about the role of independent journalism"
Translation: the Times is responding to demands of its prog readership to turn journalism into advocacy of the right opinions on approved causes.
"in a society divided by harsh debates over political ideology and cultural identity."
Translation: in a society where deplorable yahoos still have a vote, as long as not all elections have been fixed and the Electoral College and the Senate still give them a fighting chance.
"Mr. Kahn said securing the public’s trust “in a time of polarization and partisanship” was among his top priorities..."
Translation: I will do anything to secure the liberal public's trust that we will put out all the convenient talking points that are fit to print.
Kahn is part of the problem at the NYT. A Harvard alum who is certainly part of the failed East coast liberal establishment.
The thing of it is there are very few newspapers left in America. The Omaha World-Herald is a shell of its former self. It is all about Big Red and crime. And obits.
Can you become editor of the NYT's without being a Jew or a black?
Looking through the list of the ones from 1980 and onward, it doesn't look like America. No asians. No Hispanics. Few women. Very few Catholic/Protestant Whites.
Maybe they need some Affirmative action.
The NYT was an active player in trying to bring down the Trump presidency through what it reported falsely and what it chose not to cover.
That doesn't meet my idea of the best place to follow the news.
But does he have the number one criteria for the New York Times? Is he a democrat propagandist?
"I have never seen anywhere better to go to follow the news and the culture. "/"As long as you don't mind getting lied to, and not hearing what they don't want you to know."
That's a complete non sequitur. I said "I have never seen anywhere better...." — you don't seem to mind avoiding the main problem.
"That's a complete non sequitur. I said "I have never seen anywhere better...." — you don't seem to mind avoiding the main problem."
It's especially irritating to speak to me that way when I have spent every day for more than 18 years criticizing specific things in the NYT. It's the main thing I do on this blog as I said in the post!
The New York Times, huh?
I think I see yer problem, Lady!
An only slightly more professional version of the nations High School Newspaper of Record. The Washington Post.
"Mr. Kahn said securing the public’s trust “in a time of polarization and partisanship” was among his top priorities...."
So, the NYTimes is going to stop lying?
I have never seen anywhere better to go to follow the news and the culture.
You just may have created a better place for others to go. As far as I'm concerned, you have.
As someone who lives in NYC, I actually prefer the Post for news. The NYT is better for non-news (arts, books, etc.) but even that has been badly marred by a focus on race and "gender." The Sunday magazine is an embarrassment except for the puzzles.
'At the same time, The Times is grappling with shifting views about the role of independent journalism in a society...'
The NYT hasn't been 'independent' since Stalin ran the USSR.
It is the most unbelievably biased DNC house organ this side of the 'Washington Post.'
Want to read a good theater review or make a great recipe?
Fantastic...the NYT is for you.
News? Pull the other one...
"It's especially irritating to speak to me that way when I have spent every day for more than 18 years criticizing specific things in the NYT."
18 years of diligent criticism, and it just keeps getting worse! It's almost like they aren't paying attention.
'That's a complete non sequitur. I said "I have never seen anywhere better...." — you don't seem to mind avoiding the main problem.'
I have a problem with the 'Wall Street Journal's' pro-open border, cheap labor opinion policy.
But among all of the 'big' papers, I think they do the best job separating the news side from the opinion side.
anything negative about any democrat has been "debunked"... by the gatekeepers
I have never seen anywhere better to go to follow the news and the culture
True, though not as high a bar as it once was. I maintain an online subscription because it's about $10 a month. I may hate it's political coverage, and it may be true that if you depend on The Times for your news, then you can't participate in the debates of the day, but you also can't participate if you ignore The Times altogether.
Ann reads the NYT so we don't have to..
I thank you, Ann.
Interesting juxtaposition of "independent journalism" versus "public trust" and "political ideology and cultural identity."
I'll bet a whole dollar that political ideology and cultural identity continue to win out over the other two at the New York Times. Any takers?
I quit my NYT subscription 15 years ago. It was quite a chore to get rid of it. I finally had to cancel the credit card that had the renewal. They were like a rash I could not get rid of. For a while, the LA Times had a feature that op-ed writers had their email addresses attached to their columns. I had some interesting exchanges with some writers until they dropped that practice.
It's especially irritating to speak to me that way when I have spent every day for more than 18 years criticizing specific things in the NYT. It's the main thing I do on this blog as I said in the post!
I gave up on the NYT in the early 1980's. It was on the kitchen table every Sunday in my youth from the time I could read until the day I left home for college, courtesy of my active reader Dad (we also had copies of the Daily News and NY Post). In my case familiarity bred contempt. I'd express my gratitude to Althouse for reading it for me every day, so I don't have to, and providing the critical snippets of it's contents as she does.
It says something that it's been such a target rich environment for the life of this blog. That's just criticism of what they cover and how they cover it. The potential for criticism of what they don't cover and how they don't cover it is even more voluminous.
"I quit my NYT subscription 15 years ago. It was quite a chore to get rid of it. I finally had to cancel the credit card that had the renewal."
Whenever possible, I pay for subscriptions by check rather than credit card, for exactly this reason. Been thinking about giving up my Wall Street Journal subscription, just because we are gone so much.
It's especially irritating to speak to me that way when I have spent every day for more than 18 years criticizing specific things in the NYT. It's the main thing I do on this blog as I said in the post!
Then why do you allow them to sway you when it comes to things like Sandmann and Kavanaugh?
I have never seen anywhere better to go to follow the news and the culture.
This is an accurate description of what I've in the past found to be the usefulness of the New York Times. You don't have to agree with it to understand that if reflects what the elite believes is news and culturally proper.
Now, it's lost its usefulness. Our culture is so thoroughly dominated by the Left that no single outlet is needed to track what's proper.
And, its readership is 90% Democrat. It today's media marketplace, its reporters and editors could not publish the nonpartisan truth even if they wanted to. It doesn't fit the business model.
When I was 9 yo, my father saw my horrible handwriting and decreed that I should devote a portion of every summer morning to a handwritten transcription of the first two paragraphs of the Sports of the Times column, written almost always by the late, great Arthur Daley. My handwriting failed to improve in any discernible way, but I learned how sentences and paragraphs work. I would read the NY Times and the NY Daily News every day. I learned journalistic bias early.
As the years have passed, the NYT continues to attract talent to its staff, along with an increasing cohort of cheerleaders for The Current Thing. The so-called news pages are edited with a Machiavellian conviction that the ends justify the means, and the ends have become ever more detached from common sense. And the means vary from subtleties of clever nuance to outright deceit.
It concerns me that so many New Yorkers, and readers around the country, still regard the NYT as Holy Writ. For those who seek to project a demeanor of self-satisfied sophistication, it is indeed Holy Writ. That is sad. The NYT should be more than a training manual in Vanity 2022.
Can Of Cheese For Hunter @ 10:18: I second that.
This blog has spared me a near-infinity of stroke-inducing direct exposure to the emanations of the Gray Lady. Profuse thanks.
"Ann reads the NYT so we don't have to..
I thank you, Ann."
Someone has to maintain the local sewer system, and I do thank them- it is an important and necessary job, and one I would not want to do, ever. No one has to read the NYTimes- it isn't important and it isn't necessary. In fact, I think paying to keep it a going concern is a small ethical crime.
Related?
Tim Maguire said:
"... it may be true that if you depend on The Times for your news, then you can't participate in the debates of the day, but you also can't participate if you ignore The Times altogether."
That's pretty much my opinion, only I hate the NYT so much due to their abortion-promoting attitude that's I still don't read it. I use "secondary sources" to find out what the NYT is promoting or hiding and what their sources are. It's satisfying to become aware of another false narrative by reading an Althouse dissection - sometimes even a vivisection. But I always know that the NYT is the "Iron Gate" in the Info War. We have to take it back. This new editor will be, I think a pretend normie. He's charged with making the Dems seem normal in the run up to 2022 but it'll be a bait and switch like Joe Biden. Back to hard left grooming after the election - whatever happens.
Joe brings impeccable news judgment, a sophisticated understanding of the forces shaping the world and a long track record of helping journalists produce their most ambitious and courageous work."
I am highly leery of terms like "news judgment" and "most ambitious and courageous" - both seem to speak of something other than reporting the facts and separating the facts from opinion.
"... it may be true that if you depend on The Times for your news, then you can't participate in the debates of the day, but you also can't participate if you ignore The Times altogether."
It's my understanding that the NYT's take is repeated endlessly in the MSM. As such, ignoring it is not an option.
You just may have created a better place for others to go. As far as I'm concerned, you have.
Our hostess has an army of fairly intelligent commenters that act as field reporters.
"Hey, I've met that guy!"
"I've been there. That RR crossing is gated."
That beats the shit out of "Anonymous sources have indicated......."
If this new guy were any good, he would have resigned in protest after James Bennett got forced out for printing Tom Cotton's editorial, or when Bari Weiss got forced out for being a decent journalist.
Fuck him.
So the largest stockholder in the New York Times is BlackRock, and the second largest is a Mexican billionaire and looks like Klein has passed muster with them.
Mr. Kahn has in recent years spearheaded the paper’s efforts to re-engineer its newsroom for the speed and agility required of modern media
Oh, you mean like firing the editor who allowed US Senator Tom Cotton's opinion piece to be published?
Mr. Kahn said securing the public’s trust “in a time of polarization and partisanship” was among his top priorities
That's an obvious lie.
Well, no, I'm sure he does want to "secure the public’s trust". But what he absolutely refuses to do is act in a way that anyone besides a hard-core lefty would trust.
See Bari Weis' Substack for the details
Son of a New England supermarket magnate. Joe will go over well with the proles. My mom used to shop at Purity Supreme, so I'll be expecting my cut from Lil' Joey.
I've been relying on the NYT for longer than Joe Kahn has been alive, and I have never seen anywhere better to go to follow the news and the culture.
Ever think that's part of your problem?
Mining the NYT for material is one thing.
Relying on it . . . ?
As if one can discern some small corners of that corrupt edifice that have not been pervaded by the ideological rot at its heart?
I follow the news and culture via Althouse. I read the Times too, or at least I try to read it. I find the Trump-hate and hatred of Republicans in it to be off-putting. I have my own hatreds to manage without having to wade through someone else's. Kahn has an elite pedigree, part of the American aristocracy. Experience in Asia and knowledge of Mandarin must be a plus. It's interesting that his middle initial F doesn't stand for anything. His parents just wanted him to have the same initials as JFK.
Used to read Jay Rosen's "Pressthink". Interesting. Covered a lot. Not inrequently, some NYT clangers.
Hard to tell if Rosen denied liberal bias or thought it was a damn' fine idea.
Back in the day of the public editors, there were some doozies. A letter from a guy being called up for one of the GWOT activities was so hashed up that he threatened to sue. The excuse was that there were editors in charge of making changes and editors in charge of taking the changes out, or something, and the latter step hadn't happened prior to publication.
At one point, they got the Purple Heart mixed up with he purple star, whatever that is. Excuse was it's such an arcane bit of military trivia that nobody can be expected to know the diff.
Ann Althouse said...
"That's a complete non sequitur. I said "I have never seen anywhere better...." — you don't seem to mind avoiding the main problem."
It's especially irritating to speak to me that way when I have spent every day for more than 18 years criticizing specific things in the NYT. It's the main thing I do on this blog as I said in the post!
4/19/22, 9:41 AM
It was more of a criticism of the New York Times and their lies. I don't get how you or anybody else could keep on reading a rag that is as truthful as The National Enquirer anymore.
"Kahn worked in Red China for four years for The Wall Street Journal in the 1990s and later spent a few years covering Red China for NYT. That didn't make him a Maoist. Two degrees from Harvard did." - Don Surber
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा