Later than you think. Creating the news at the New York Times

A peek inside the editorial world at the New York Times.

I don’t know how many readers took this bit of news seriously or how many readers realized the implications of the exposé. Personally, I was not surprised, as I had long suspected it. But the implications of this are quite disturbing. It means, in layman’s terms, that the news that you read has been pre-determined by the Editors and has little to do with actual events (real news) that happen in the real world. Those of you who have recently read Orwell’s 1984 will recognize some of the features of the Ministry of Truth (writ small at the NY Times’ “Page One meeting”). At the NY Times, the profession of journalism has been turned to the task of pushing the narratives of editors down the throats of the people. Newspeak is rampant.

This entry was posted in Rafe, Western Civilsation. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Later than you think. Creating the news at the New York Times

  1. Every time I look for information for another blog story that I want to write about, something like this pops up, as well as a couple from the Age that I posted in Jo Nova’s blog, and things start to fall into place.

  2. Percy Popinjay

    This is why the braindead lamestream meeja is going the way of the dinosaurs.

    Why would you pay to subject yourself to such crap?

  3. Ellen of Tasmania

    I suspect the MSM is another putrid swamp that could do with some draining. I wonder how much of their income comes, not from advertising or sales, but from payments made for positions posited.

    Didn’t the CIA admit they have people nestled into the networks? Well, they won’t be alone.

  4. Dr Fred Lenin

    Typical of the unknowing left,they think they are so superior to everyone else that every lie they invent will be believed because their readers are stupid and iferior , a good example is the socialist Hitler untermensch theory ,everyone was inferior to the national Socialist supermen and their blonde blue eyed superkid breeders ,and they talk about “mizojenee “ .

  5. Roger

    This could also have been written about the ABC’s news department(s).

    Just the other evening, after a day fraught with international tensions, the ABC’s Brisbane radio 6:00PM news bulletin led with a protest against Adani by a couple of hundred university students/socialists.

    They just can’t let it go.

  6. MACK

    Been happening at television current affairs for years – producer decides on the story, then the reporters go out to find the opinions that fit. Contrary views are edited out.

  7. W Hogg

    Just the other evening, after a day fraught with international tensions, the ABC’s Brisbane radio 6:00PM news bulletin led with a protest against Adani by a couple of hundred university students/socialists.

    It is not just them; it is the entire MSM running that garbage where is they just sneered at the convoy of no confidence.

  8. Ivan Denisovich

    At the NY Times, the profession of journalism has been turned to the task of pushing the narratives of editors down the throats of the people.

    JournoList is alive and well, apparently.

    In a key episode, Journolist members openly plotted to bury attention on then-candidate Barack Obama’s controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Washington Independent’s Spencer Ackerman, for instance, suggested an effective tactic to distract from the issue would be to pick one of Obama’s critics, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

    Conservative critics of Washington’s journalistic establishment have long charged the media with a striking liberal bias. But those critics have also said the problem was mostly unintentional, the result of a press corps made up mostly of Democratic-leaning scribes.

    Yet Journolist’s discussions show an influential left-wing faction of the media participating in a far more intentional sort of liberal bias.

    Journolist’s members included dozens of straight-news reporters from major news organizations, including Time, Newsweek, The Associated Press, Reuters, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Politico, Bloomberg, Huffington Post, PBS and a large NPR affiliate in California.

  9. Rafe Champion

    The daddy of them all is the man who went to Russia while in the Ukraine 5M were starving to death. He got a Pulitzer Prize for a story about how great it was all going in the New Society and it is still on the wall in the New York Times.

  10. Drr Fred Lenin

    Rafe , bit like that old fraud Bertrand Russell who was feted by Stalins Gang and came back t the UK saying
    “I have seen the future and it works “ . Meanwhile in the cellars at Lubyanka and the gulags the future wasnt so rosy . I think that was in the 1920s or 30s ,so the bullshit was on even then 100 years ago.
    About that time Philby ,Burgess,Mclean ,Blunt ,Cairncross and others at Cambridge were being groomed as soviet subversives . A new slogan for universities ,” proudly training grounds for the fascist left for 100 years “ and where do they train “journalists” ?

  11. tombell

    “Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda.”
    –New York Times, August 23, 1933

    Walter Duranty. What a hero.

  12. egg_

    Hacktivism?

    Who’d’ve thunk it?

    Their GetUp! ABC, anyone?

  13. egg_

    Just the other evening, after a day fraught with international tensions, the ABC’s Brisbane radio 6:00PM news bulletin led with a protest against Adani by a couple of hundred university students/socialists.

    Tension in the Gulf, but Nimbyism at home trumps?

  14. Tim Neilson

    This is why the braindead lamestream meeja is going the way of the dinosaurs.

    Why would you pay to subject yourself to such crap?

    What’s extraordinary is that people do it even after they’ve been told that’s what’s happening by the very media outlet itself.

    Some years ago the Age was, apparently, getting flak from some of its readers for not even mentioning a climate change story that had appeared in da eeeeebil Murdoch press. The Age published an editorial in which they made no attempt to deny that the story was true and newsworthy, but they said that they had made an editorial decision not to print anything which could detract from the consensus for climate action.

    The next day, having been told by the Age itself that the paper was deliberately designed not to let them think for themselves, people kept buying it.

  15. Howard Hill

    For your entertainment re: New York Times.
    Media Hilariously Caught In Giant Lie

  16. Faye

    A busy population is the sum total of what the MSM feeds it.
    Try having a debate with a Trump-hater relative.

  17. Genghis

    Newspeak is rampant. That’s called FAKE news!

  18. chrisl

    If you don’t read newspapers you are uninformed
    If you do read newspapers you are misinformed
    Chrisl

  19. Iampeter

    The NYT is a private business. They are a terrible private business that no one is forcing you to purchase anything from, but this cannot be equated with the government organizations like the fictional Ministry of Truth, that regulates news.

    Private action cannot be equated to government action, but people who don’t know anything about politics often compare the two and cook up hair brained ideas about what should be done.

    By getting entry-level concepts so wrong, today’s conservatives are the biggest enemy of free speech.

  20. Colonel Crispin Berka

    The non-news rigged narrative continues with Brexit, where the dead-tree legacy media are demonising the new media in their battle for market share of the attention economy.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQSMr-3GGvQ

    In the first 5 minutes this person from the UK Observer paper will tell you that:
    1) There is no archived data available about who saw what advertisements and stories in their Facebook feeds nor what impact those ads had and is therefore “impossible to research”, and
    2) Brexit was definitely decided entirely by false information spread through Facebook.

    This self-contradiction is compounded by the entirely subjective judgements that she treats as universal, such as:
    • the closure of the coal mines in the 1980s being announced gleefully as though it were good,
    • that all the EU-funded gymnasiums, overpasses, and other technological trinkets should have been accepted as sufficient bribery of the town,
    • that if immigration wasn’t happening in south Wales then nobody in south wales should have worried about it.
    That’s just the first 5 minutes.

    She goes on to state that liberal democracy is broken and Silicon Valley broke it by allowing anybody and everybody to secretly pay to push whatever message they like targeted at particular preference-classes of people. Which sounds like the goal of all advertising rather than anything special. Furthermore it’s supposedly a crime in the UK for foreign money to fund an election campaign, even though the only historic example she gives to motivate the relevant law was preventing literal wheelbarrows of cash from being handed out to buy votes – something which didn’t happen in the referendum. This is in the same speech as stating that the Welsh should have voted for Remain because of all the E.U. funds handed out to them over the years – and if funds from Brussels aren’t foreign cash what the hell does the word foreign even mean to these people.

    The totalitarianism of Remoaners is more audacious than any Farage tirade in Brussels.
    The only reason the Observer hack is there is to literally capitalise on the consternation by portraying south Welshmen as idiots to a worldwide hipster audience and digitally push them back to consuming the legacy media. This is the only explanation that makes sense because she specifically claims this issue is not about political Left versus Right, and the whole False Leave argument as presented certainly doesn’t make sense either.

  21. Fisky

    Not surprised to see Iampeter running interference for the Leftist media!

  22. Fisky

    It’s really weird, Iampeter’s raison d’etre is that conservatives are wimps who fail to take on the Left, but then when people actually start criticising the Left, the first person to jump in and shush them up is…Iampeter! It’s almost as if he is a Leftist stooge.

  23. Tim Neilson

    It’s almost as if he is a Leftist stooge.

    Poor old Iamashiteater.

    He’s so desperate to strut and preen that he beclowns himself with embarrassing non sequiturs like his comment above.

    Unless he’s stating that private enterprise institutions should be beyond criticism, or he’s making a totalitarian assumption that criticism equals a demand for legal restriction, there’s absolutely no point whatsoever to his introduction of “private” vs “government” to this discussion.

    But he just needs so desperately to pronounce himself superior to other commenters that he’s oblivious to his own lack of logical competence.

  24. Tel

    It’s almost as if he is a Leftist stooge.

    Claiming to be Randian, then letting loose with a bunch of outrageous anti-libertarian rants was a good schtick for a while. Doesn’t age well … we all look forward to the next exciting personality after this one.

  25. egg_

    this cannot be equated with the government organizations like the fictional Ministry of Truth, that regulates news.

    JC’s low wattage troll puppet’s lack of logic strikes again?
    Owner’s Editorial bias affects journalists efforts and that’s not control of the meeja?
    If not, what is?

  26. Iampeter

    It’s really weird, Iampeter’s raison d’etre is that conservatives are wimps who fail to take on the Left, but then when people actually start criticising the Left, the first person to jump in and shush them up is…Iampeter! It’s almost as if he is a Leftist stooge.

    No, my raison d’etre is that conservatives represent the religious and politically illiterate arm of the left wing.
    Because of their incredible stupidity they are the worst leftists around today and are responsible for most of the issues they themselves complain about and claim to be fighting.
    In other words they are clueless leftists that are beyond parody.

    Posting boilerplate, anti-NYT talking points is a symptom of this issue.
    The NYT didn’t create the EPA, by executive order no less…
    The NYT isn’t pushing anti-immigrant, anti-trade policies of the 1919’s democrats in 2019…
    The NYT isn’t launching a massive assault on free speech and the property rights of tech companies…
    etc…

    Anyone fighting the left today has to start by fighting conservatives, NOT the NYT, because it’s nowhere near as left wing as they are.

  27. Iampeter

    Claiming to be Randian, then letting loose with a bunch of outrageous anti-libertarian rants was a good schtick for a while. Doesn’t age well … we all look forward to the next exciting personality after this one.

    It’s amazing how much wrong you managed to cram into one small post.
    Rand WAS anti-libertarian.
    But most posts at the Cat today, are anti-libertarian. Like those attacking immigration, free trade, tech companies, free speech which you idiots have confused with censorship, etc.

    So there’s no shtick. I’m not pro-libertarian but then neither are most of you…

    But at least I’m right wing and pro-capitalism, which most of you are not either…

    You simply have no clue.

  28. Iampeter

    Claiming to be Randian, then letting loose with a bunch of outrageous anti-libertarian rants was a good schtick for a while. Doesn’t age well … we all look forward to the next exciting personality after this one.

    Wait, I’ve had some coffee and have come up with a more clear response than my last one.

    Firstly, Rand was anti-Libertarian, so having anti-Libertarian ideas from an Objectivist shouldn’t be surprising. You simply don’t know what you’re saying.

    Secondly, most posters at the cat are far more anti-Libertarian than me. You are anti-trade, anti-immigration, anti-free speech (which you’ve somehow managed to confuse with censorship) and are all round anti-capitalism. So again, you don’t seem to know what you’re saying.

    Thirdly, all of the above points mark most of you as not only anti-Libertarian but firmly on the left wing side of politics.

    The fact that this even needs to be explained further reinforces my previous post #3050939, where I describe you as the politically illiterate arm of the left wing.

    So, in summary, you don’t know what you’re saying.

  29. Leo G

    Those of you who have recently read Orwell’s 1984 will recognize some of the features of the Ministry of Truth (writ small at the NY Times’ “Page One meeting”).

    In the early 1950’s the New York Times took umbrage over comments in the screenplay for the film Night People that was later produced for 20th Century Fox. The Times was upset by references to East German agents who kidnap an American soldier that described the communist agents as cannibals.
    The Times sneeringly reported that viewers might expect “an African adventure.”
    Writer, director and producer Nunnally Johnson responded by including deprecatory references in the final production to New York Times fawning to Communists.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.