89 Comments
Feb 23Liked by Parker Molloy

“I’m totally happy to accept criticism, just not the criticism that anyone actually has.”

Expand full comment
Feb 23Liked by Parker Molloy

This simple headline fail is an example of why the NYTimes, as it currently is (and has been for longer than most in major media are willing to admit) needs to be kneecapped at every opportunity.

All they have to do to not get the sh** kicked out of them is what they did at first - which as you so accurately and thoroughly point out in today's newsletter, is actual journalism, as compared to the biased bs they added later.

They simply have to not f*** things up.

Expand full comment
Feb 23·edited Feb 23

If we're throwin' adjectives around, the one I'd pick for Biden on this issue is "persistent." Joe Manchin wouldn't go for the broader student-loan forgiveness that Biden had promised, but Biden didn't give up, he then tried loan forgiveness through executive action, which was reined in by the Supreme Court, but even then he didn't give up. I've got a lifetime of experience of Democrats throwing up their hands and saying "Gosh, we'd love to help you, but what can we do?", pointing to the latest setback as a reason to simply give up. Oh, have I got my issues with Biden, but on this one issue he's won my heart. And a note to other Democrats: No, I don't expect Big Rock Candy Mountain results, but what I do want to see is EFFORT.

Expand full comment
founding

Fascinating, I had no idea such things were edited so much. Is it all based on clicks? Edit the headline until they are high enough?

Expand full comment

Aren't all contextualizing headlines editorializations? The problem with a straight headline is that it doesn't invite a reader in. What they're looking for is: X happened and here's why it matters. If the story was about for example voters loving Biden's cancelation record, then it would probably read more positively. But I don't think that's part of the story. (I'm not looking to defend this headline anymore than I already have it certainly reeks of bias)...

Expand full comment

Does the article include the factual numbers initially in the headline? I wonder if the NYT is baiting for online engagement while preserving the option to go "We reported the facts! It's not our fault most people don't read the article."

Expand full comment

I'm a bit of an old fart when it comes to website optimization, but doesn't screwing with a headline over and over again seriously impact their analytics and SEO?

Expand full comment

Excellent piece Parker, and spot on IMO. I was generally apolitical but read newspapers to stay informed. Those included the NYT, San Francisco Chronical, WSJ and two local City newspapers. I read fast, and world consume the A sections, the business sections and the opinion sections cover to cover. It until around W’s last term when I noted incremental but profound changes that can be described as left subtle but consistent left political bias. Later this bias was confirmed by a landmark study by UCLA.

My work to understand what was happening concluded in there being five primary causes.

1. Changes to the media business because of tech, resulted in fewer seasoned reporters and more younger, lower-paid employees with the control of their season editors and more senior peers.

2. Theory based content and curriculum in college humanities thus cementing a certain worldview in the minds of journalism graduates. That world view includes a general cynical view of facts and truths being a construct of white male patriarchal oppression, and everything is relative to power. Already tuned to idealism, these young writers would reflect these views in their work without editors stopping them.

3. Somewhat related to #1, social media combined with shrinking paid subscribers (ironically the drop was concentrated with younger consumers not buying print), the pursuit of followers because a side hustle for reporters, and the general shift was the news organizations seeking niche followers favorable to biased political/ideological reporting.

4. There has been a giant consolidation of media business with Wall Street owning a controlling interest. This connects the media to the elite establishment managerial class, the same that likes to collude with elite establishment administrative and ruling class (aka government and politicians). The media narratives and reporting approved is that which pleases the owners, and the owners have a globalist agenda because it supports greater Wall Street returns. Republicans want to pull back to focus on domestic issues and note that the long-run Global Order pushed by the elite establishment has decimated domestic working class economic opportunity while jacking up the cost of living despite cheap Walmart crap. The elite cabal the owns the media knows the damage their money pursuits are causing and are using the media to foment political was to detract the voters from seeing the truth and coming together to reject the elite cabal.

5. Infiltration of the NGOs that publish standards of professional journalism. There was a code of journalistic conduct from the Society of Professional Journalism. It has been changed to a woke agenda.

Expand full comment

At least once per week I am reminded "Citizen Kane" first came to Public knowledge 05 SEP 41 and it mysteriously, at that time, rather tanked, possibly because too many powerful men were looking into a mirror and didn't like what they saw so blamed the mirror. Gold mines, emerald mines; not much of a difference when it comes to controlling The Narrative. How much longer until the Ondatra zibethicus (re)invents the snow globe and claims credit for an existing idea? Much more credit to the guy whose dad was a mechanic and repo-man, who actually did work to earn his kudos (Jobs). Every publisher whomever was, is, will be, is Charles Foster Kane.

Expand full comment