[normhead]

When I was a kid my dad used to say "The New York Times is the paper for people who can't think, Life is the magazine for people who can't read."

IN "Against Neutrality " The times shows it can think, a little bit.

The photograph and the words arrive simultaneously. They guarantee each other. You believe the words more because the photograph verifies them, and trust the photograph because you trust the words. Additionally, each puts further pressure on the interpretation: A war photograph can, for example, make a grim situation palatable, just as a story about a scandal can make the politician depicted look pathetic. But images, unlike words, are often presumed to be unbiased. The facticity of a photograph can conceal the craftiness of its content and selection.

[normhead]

Considering that despite their various slipups over the years, the NYT easily has the best track record of any major US daily for nuanced critique, balanced analysis (William Safire, Bill Buckley, and Molly Ivins on the same op-ed page?), and high journalistic standards, I'd say that your dad was the one who was "against neutrality."

Seriously, who are you going to hold out as better? The WSJ? Washington Post? LA Times? The Hearst rags? Any of the tabs on either side of the ideological spectrum? The Daily Worker?

My dad read research journals and he was a social scientist, conducting studies on race, immigrant settlement patterns, and many other relevant social issues. He always said, don't read other people's conclusions read the source data. As good as the Times is it still publishes the results of other people compiling data and then publishing their conclusions. My fathers point was, a different person looking at the same data could come to different conclusions. If you want to know what you think on an issue, you have to do the work yourself. Accepting other people's conclusions is just sloppy research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_A._Head

[dsmithhfx]

My dad read research journals and he was a social scientist, conducting studies on race, immigrant settlement patterns, and many other relevant social issues. He always said, don't read other people's conclusions read the source data. As good as the Times is it still publishes the results of other people compiling data and then publishing their conclusions. My fathers point was, a different person looking at the same data could come to different conclusions. If you want to know what you think on an issue, you have to do the work yourself. Accepting other people's conclusions is just sloppy research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_A._Head

We can't all be social scientists.

And there are no conclusions -- much as some newspaper columnists (and even some social scientists) might want us to think -- just the story so far. It's not over until the fat lady sings.

[normhead]

We can't all be social scientists.

Thank god.

[stevebrot]

The times shows it can think, a little bit.

Interesting article and quote. Written, spoken, and visual content are processed by different areas of the brain each influence our thinking and decision making in different ways.


Steve

BTW...it is not everyone who has a family member with their own Wikipedia article. Cool

[tuco]

...He always said, don't read other people's conclusions read the source data.

So what if a person needs a PhD in Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, etc to read/interpret the source data? Clearly, we still have to rely on conclusions much of the time.

[panoguy]

So what if a person needs a PhD in Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, etc to read/interpret the source data? Clearly, we still have to rely on conclusions much of the time.

The danger comes from relying on conclusions from only one source. Worse still, a conclusion written in "140 characters or less."

Images support text, and text supports images, but in the media both are designed to support a thesis. Fairly self-evident, but like the earth being round, not always noticed...

[normhead]

So what if a person needs a PhD in Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, etc to read/interpret the source data? Clearly, we still have to rely on conclusions much of the time.

The only response to that is, science has been abridged and updated many times. You can trust whoever you want to draw conclusions for you, but with that you have to accept, they might be wrong.

The best answer to a question about truth is to quote evidence you thin is relevant, look at the evidence others think is relevant, and say you don't know for sure but the evidence suggests that --- fill in the blank.

[wildman]

"One option is to resist the depiction of violence, to side with the reader who protests an unpleasant photograph and defends the bounds of good taste."

I was struck most by the simple-minded use of the term "violence" and the limits of an image to tell the truth.

A man beating his wife with a baseball bat would make a powerful image.
The same man then gets into his $3000 suit, goes to his office on Wall Street and makes a decision that will result in a 1000 families losing their homes - where is the powerful image?

-the "banality of evil".

[Niner Alpha]

If you want some criticism of the NYT all you have to do is read the Intercept. The New York Times has an agenda just like all newspapers do and have always had. It's just that the Times has the status of a national newspaper that can do more damage... or education.. depending on your point of view.

Here is a for instance of push back against the Times.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/28/paul-krugman-unironically-anoints-himsel...ters-eligible/

[stevebrot]

The New York Times has an agenda

...sell more papers...


Steve

(...and hopefully appease The Illuminati at the same time...)