back to top9 Comments to “All the news that’s unusual to print”

1. BY janie 11.20.07 AT 11:19 AM

   I noticed that too, Harrison. So unusual. I’m not going to get worried enough to get a subscription, though, until I see it becoming a longer-term trend.

   Report comment to moderator

2. BY outkast 11.20.07 AT 11:42 AM

   I thought the same thing this morning, when I received the NYT headlines online and saw something positive about Baghdad getting back to normal.

   It’s probably George W. Bush’s fault?

   Report comment to moderator

3. BY Random Name 11.20.07 AT 11:53 AM

   As technology progresses, the NYT will be able to create individual “customized” editions.

   The old thought on this was that a “customized” newspaper would cover the topics of interest to each reader. Obviously, a much more sophisticated version would be to provide the selectivity and slant desired. One edition would tell you everything is getting better in each way; another edition would tell the reader everything was getting worse in every way. Each edition would contain “facts” and “truth” but would be “properly selected and filtered” to suit the desired outcome.

   Actually, George has been getting such a customzed version of the world for quite a few years; I guess that was the beta test.

   Actually, we were the beta test.

   It’s not George Bush’s fault. It’s George Bush’s credit.

   Report comment to moderator

4. BY Anlir 11.20.07 AT 1:06 PM

   I have always read the NY Times. I go to my local Barnes & Noble just about every day and read it. I buy the Sunday NY Times. There is simply no other paper that can deliver what they do on Sunday.

   One must be careful to distinguish between the news content of the NY Times and it’s editorial pages. However, I will grant that over the last 10 years it has lost some of it’s integrity over it’s news coverage due to reporter scandals and poorly written/researched stories. The addition of the Public Editor was a step in the right direction.

   Still, there is no better paper for in depth coverage. One must be a serious reader because some of the articles are quite lengthy.

   Report comment to moderator

5. BY outkast 11.20.07 AT 2:42 PM

   It’s not just the editorial pages, Anlir. I can’t remember the last time (before today) the NYT had a front page story that reported on anything positive happening in Iraq.

   And yes, I read it every day too.

   Report comment to moderator

6. BY Harris 11.20.07 AT 4:39 PM

   Or instead maybe we should admit that yes, things are getting a little better in Iraq. That more to the strategy of Petreaus than of Bush (but even Lincoln got credit for Grant).

   Also, it is news driven by real metrics and not by spin. The recorded acts of violence are down and not just a little. That’s good news for all concerned. I think the reluctance to cover happy stories is that they are so often (and patently obvious) propaganda plants, spin, and not especially anchored in reality. This is.

   And again, emphasize, this is good news.

   Report comment to moderator

7. BY ZZ 11.20.07 AT 5:02 PM

   Since we all know the war is already lost, the only possible explanation for this is that Bush operatives have infiltrated The Times and are supressing the fact that the slaugter in Iraq still claims lives by the thousands…

   well, maybe hundreds…

   maybe dozens…

   Whatever, Bush is Hitler.

   Report comment to moderator

8. BY hrw 11.20.07 AT 7:20 PM

   Can we finally put to rest this false idea of a liberal media? American media is complacent, lazy and generally plays it safe.

   Report comment to moderator

9. BY outkast 11.20.07 AT 9:30 PM

   No, HRW, we can’t, because we still have a liberal MSM in the U.S.

   Report comment to moderator