I’ve been meaning to try this for some time, so “here goes nuthin.” These are the ethics-relevant headlines (with links) in today’s print version of the New York Times. If you tell me in the comments which ones you would like me to share in a special “gift” format that takes them out from behind the paywall (I can’t do that for all of them) I’ll go back and do that.
Here are the stories:
- “Pregnant in Gaza With Nowhere to Go.” An obvious “pity the poor Palestinians” story designed to increase reader condemnation of Israel. Similar stories could and can be written about suffering civilians on any side of any war in history, including those living under enemy regimes is any U.S. war. First tell me if Nevin Muhaisen voted for Hamas to run Gaza, and then I’ll decide whether I’m touched by her plight.
- At the Paris Olympics, Sex Testing Will Be in Full Force. How Did We Get Here? An interesting and mostly competent overview of the ethical complexities of screening athletes based on hormone levels and how they have evolved over time.. Nonetheless, pro-trans bias pollutes the essay. It concludes, “If sports officials in 1936 and after had been guided by the spirit of genuine curiosity that permeated newspaper coverage of athletes like Mr. Weston, we wouldn’t have wasted nearly a century banning athletes simply for being who they are.” When “being who the are” means that men identifying as women can cheat their way to sports victories and titles, it is most appropriate that rules and standards are applied. The writer also discredits the piece with this: “Yet little evidence supports the idea that these women have physical advantages, in strength or otherwise, over other women.” I place this in the same category as tobacco executives saying that there was no proven causal link between cigarette smoking and cancer.
-
“How Scared Should You Be of Bird Flu?” The Times is clearing its throat to start scaremongering again, just like it did with the Wuhan virus, conflating dying with the virus with dying of the virus and all the other devices it used to enable the wreckage of the economy (and more) and the most corrupted national election in modern history.
-
“The Lazy Authoritarianism of Donald Trump.” This screed is by resident Times race-baiter Jamelle Bouie (yes, I’m “poisoning the well,” but it remains a disgrace that any paper would give this guy a prestigious platform, even when he isn’t spouting is usual anti-white bile) and it is a standard issue “Trump is an idiot and an ignorant fool, never mind that Biden is demented” partisan hit job. I guess most readers aren’t old enough to recognize the exact same rhetoric and accusations that were used against Bush II, Reagan, and Eisenhower. It’s ironic to see a condemnation of a public figure allegedly not reading enough from a writer whose biased garbage discourages me from reading. Breaking news from Bouie: In recent meetings, attendees (who sought out the Times to “get Trump”) say that Trump “rambles,” was “remarkably meandering,” and “could not keep a straight thought and was all over the map.” I’m shocked!
-
“Linda Thompson Can’t Sing Her New Songs. Her Solution? ‘Proxy Music.” The non-news story of the week. A singer song-writer who has lost her voice due to a medical condition had the brilliant, ground-breaking idea of having other singers record her songs!!! She even has a new name for her innovation: “Proxy music.” This is somehow different from the ancient practice called “Having better singers than the composer sing the composer’s song.” Ever hear Irving Berlin sing “White Christmas”?
-
“Slur by Francis Lays Bare the Church’s Contradictions on Homosexuality” I know I already wrote about this, but it drives me crazy. The Times bases a story on a “slur,” and doesn’t tell readers what the slur is, probably because the news room’s LGBTQ lobby would rebel if it. you know, informed readers what the hell the the story is about. This is just crummy, dumb, insulting journalism.
And that’s the way the New York Times is, June 23, 2024.
Ethics Alarms 
Why are these ethically relevant stories? If I’m not mistaken, it looks more like “things that I can complain about” is the selection criteria. Also, bias assessment by anecdote is worth about as much as epidemiology by tarot card reading. In order to know if the Palestinian suffering story is biased reporting, we’d need to know how often and how sympathetically the NYT portrayed Israeli suffering in the aftermath of Oct 7. Answer: They covered it copiously. As always, with bias assessment of the media, the challenge is to figure out if REALITY changed, and thus the coverage, or if the coverage changed without an alteration in the reality. Today, the vast majority of suffering in this conflict is taking place on the other side of the border in Gaza. Is it bias to tell those stories? News is about what is NEW.
And the Hamas election was in 2007. You’re saying she if she voted for Hamas back then, she’s responsible for her own suffering today? Gazan democracy has been deeply flawed since birth. An individual living there is not responsible for the shitty choice presented to them in 2007–a corrupt and failed PA, or untried religious extremist Hamas which was, then, far less corrupt. A Trump supporter should certainly be sympathetic to people facing a choice like that faced by most Republicans in 2016–do we go with the crazy guy who knows almost nothing about policy, never been elected dog catcher before, dodged the draft, self-confessed sexual assaulter who is a loose cannon with the attention span of a fruit fly and the emotional maturity of a cranky toddler after a box of Twinkies or do we go with what we PERCEIVE to be a corrupt old dynastic figure? If she did what Republicans did in 2016, and went with option 1…you never have sympathy for her again? Seems…a little harsh?
As for Jamielle–the question with op-eds is do they present a balanced set. The NYT still publishes strong conservative voices, both as regulars and as guests. You pick one of their regulars on the left, and you hate his column. But isn’t that to be expected? That’s a dog bites man story around here. The bias assessment is–do they present a range of views? And by that standard, the NYT looks a fuck-ton better than Fox News, than WSJ, than an awful lot of outlets.
As always, with bias assessment of the media, the challenge is to figure out if REALITY changed, and thus the coverage, or if the coverage changed without an alteration in the reality. Today, the vast majority of suffering in this conflict is taking place on the other side of the border in Gaza. Is it bias to tell those stories? News is about what is NEW.
I suppose the New York Times reported similar stories about the suffering of civilians in Germany and Japan in the first half of the 1940’s.
And, for all I know, my supposition might be correct.
I did a lot of research on media in wartime for my third book. Our MSM did NOT report about civilian suffering in the Axis countries. I like to think about government control of media during wartime as almost non-existent in Civil War except for the most heavy handed “we shut down papers that sympathize with the South too much” (the South was, unsurprisingly, much worse) but it was otherwise able to print what it wanted about suffering, to VERY heavy handed in WWI, with distribution of propaganda and lies generated by our government, tight control on information, including information about US casualties, to a lighter control (less lying) in WWII, but still a lot of censorship, to lighter in Korea, and lighter still in Vietnam, The shift occurs again with Gulf War, where the media was kept away from the battlefield to a great extent, a tactic practiced by the military in Grenada and Panama, and then, after much criticism, they opted for more access and embedding in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two things also changed in the 20th century–the media began to attempt to apply its objectivity to the lens of patriotism–imperfectly. And I think the American public became a bit more sophisticated about the media in war time.
I wonder why the government did not retain tight control during the wars in Korea and Vietnam.
That’s a fair criticism. I disagree with it, but it’s not an unsupportable perspective.
Regarding #1, as Claudine Gay would say, it’s all about context. The progressive radicals are pushing for Israel to stop the war before Hamas is crushed, and the “Poor women and children!” angle is the weapon being used to demonize Israel. Yes indeed, I regard stories like this anti-Israel propaganda. If she voted for Hamas, does that means she’s responsible for her own fate? Absolutely. Hamas was known as a terrorist organization when it was installed as Gaza’s leadership.
Obviously the sex testing article is ethics related, so you must conceded that your intro is misleading on that one.Ditto the Times already ginning up the terror machine with bird flu. Yes, I hold the Times complicity in the extreme and reckless reactions to the Wuhan virus
I am not and never will be a Trump supporter, and nothing could be clearer from the content of Ethics Alarms. My field, in addition to ethics, is leadership, and no one like Trump should be a leader of anything but, maybe, a company. At best, he’s a horribly risky and imperfect engine of needed political reform. I wish there was someone else, anyone else.
All of Times conservatives timidly slide to the left. They are barely tokens. David Brooks is no longer a reliable conservative. Bret Stephens argued for the abolishment of the Second Amendment. Ross Douhat (I can’t spell his name) apparently wanted to write a post about Biden’s failed foreign policy but either was forced to or felt he had to “balance it,” weirdly, by contrasting what Biden has done with, as usual, what Trump has said. That’s the “Get Trump” trick. The last one, about the news media censoring a word when the story is ABOUT the word? I view that as incompetent, pandering journalism. Don’t You?
As for the “Wow, a composer is having other people sing her songs!” piece: fake news. If someone was from Mars, they might think what is being described is unusual, rather than the norm on this planet.
Hey, I’m sorry you don’t like the genre. I could do the same kind of piece pretty much every day of the week. Don’t worry: I won’t.
ADDENDUM: Don’t you agree that the “Poor sympathetic Gazan” story is entirely political? I compare it to the Times’ “Good Illegal Immigrant” stories, where the Times tells us how hard it is when your illegal husband finally gets deported after living here illicitly for decades. Isn’t the intent obvious? There are literally millions of people all over the globe having hard times. The story of Nevin Muhaisen isn’t news except for what the Times wants to highlight. There are suffering pregnant women in East St. Louis.” Hey, let’s do a story about the woman who worked three jobs and sacrificed for years to pay off her student loans and did: look how she’s been affected by her debts, and now Biden’s letting people not as determined as her get off the hook!” The Times would never do THAT story, but it it did, it would be to make a partisan point. “Hey, let’s do a story about this ethicist who got blacklisted from NPR because he told the truth about sexual harassment, and now he’s eating cat food!” Again, that’s a point the Times doesn’t care to make, but if it did write that story, the idea would be to show how media bias adversely affects professionals who won’t pander to a progressive agenda. (OK, I’m not really eating cat food. YET…)Same here. The choice of news and feature stories isn’t based on what’s “Fit to print” or objectively highest priority, but often, as in this case, what the Times wants its readers to think about.
Yeah, I should have been clearer in the post…Where did I put those Little Friskies?
Correction: “what the Times wants its readers to think.”
Isn’t the intent obvious? There are literally millions of people all over the globe having hard times.
If this is the standard, then any article that elicits sympathy is political.
If the “hard time” is independently newsworthy, then it isn’t political. If it is chosen to create support and sympathy for a particular cause, group, or circumstance, then it is. This story is in the latter category.
That’s a rigid standard. There are other reasons to write a story on a topic than it being “independently newsworthy”
Who would decide that anyway? A story about the old baker in the neighborhood finally retiring after 50 years isn’t necessarily “independently newsworthy” nor is it political.
My point is that these kinds of features aren’t chosen by throwing darts or flipping coins. Maybe there is no agenda in choosing to highlight the plight on a pregnant Gaza woman while pro-Hamas demonstrators are accusing Israel of genocide because it’s decided to eliminate, for a while at least, a fanatic group that has vowed to wipe it off the face of the earth. But do you believe that?
I think the article is meant to make you think about the complexities and causalties of war, and how they exist on both sides. Like jdkazoo said, they also had articles that are “pro-Israel” so I don’t see how an article that brings sympathy to the citizens on the other side can be seen as bias.
It humanizes the war and is an example of the reality of what is happening in Gaza.
That’s a fair interpretation, Andy, and if I hadn’t been so soaked with the Times’ proclivities, I might even see it that way too. The Times has long since forfeited its benefit of the doubt with me—cheating has consequences.
Well that’s the definition of bias then isn’t it?
Oh, absolutely! Bias makes you stupid, and sometimes, it’s stupid not to be biased. That’s what makes it so tricky!
“cheating has consequences.“
That it does!
And while there is endless suffering in the world–this woman’s pain is in part a product of American policies, and in large part a product of our close ally’s policies. We can debate whether it is right for America to supply Israel with endless munitions for free or subsidized when our own government and international orgs say they are using them in violation of the laws of war. BUT–it certainly makes her suffering more newsworthy than the suffering of, say, a Burmese woman after a government bombardment in their ongoing civil war. I don’t pay for those bombs. My hands are not even pink with blood, let alone crimson.
Isn’t the intent obvious? There are literally millions of people all over the globe having hard times.
If this is the standard, then any article that elicits sympathy is political.
She even has a new name for her innovation: “Proxy music.”
Singers have covered songs. Even Elvis Presley did that.
Did you know that Taylor Dayne covered Barry White’s song
“I Can’t Get Enough of Your Love (babe)”, a song practically no prorfessional singer would dare cover?
She clearly had balls.
The great Franz Schubert only performed in public ONCE!
Compare Don Henley’s performance of “Desperado” to Linda Ronstadt’s. (Of course, there is NO comparison.) And generally speaking, playwrights directing their own works is not a good idea.
Or Nat King Cole’s version of “The Christmas Song” compared to Mel Torme’s.
I think it’s a legit story because of the change in popular music wrought by the Beatles and Dylan. Prior to them, it was the norm for the singer and the songwriter to be two different people. You see it on their first couple albums–a mix of cover songs and originals, and then, they almost never cover anyone else again. Before them–that’s what made Buddy Holly so unusual. But since then, most of the major artists of our time write their own songs. Prince, Madonna, Bruce, Bon Jovi, Sabbath, MJ, Taylor, etc etc. It’s harder to come up with a list of pure cover artists because so few exist.
So for a singer, confronted by a disability, to not retire but to enlist others to cover–genius. I really wish Dylan had done that about 6 albums ago. His voice used to be quite marvelous example of getting the most out of a limited range and tone. Now…it’s just…croaking.
1. I’d say Elvis is a major example of a cover artist. Never wrote a single song.
2. Michael Jackson, “the King of Pop,” had many hits he did not write, including “Thriller”
3. Linda Ronstadt also sang songs written by others exclusively. Of course, all of the balladeers like Sinatra, Dean Martin, Bing Crosby and Tony Bennett (with the notable exception of Bobby Darin, who wrote many of his own songs) were singing someone else’s songs.
4. Chuck Berry, Little Richard and Jerry Lee Lewis, well before Dylan and the Beatles, wrote their own songs.
5. But not Janis Joplin, Judy Collins, Peggy Lee or Bette Midler.
“I really wish Dylan had done that about 6 albums ago. His voice used to be quite marvelous example of getting the most out of a limited range and tone. Now…it’s just…croaking.” Can’t argue with that, though.
I concede MJ belonged on the list of mostly cover, although he did write or cowrite most of his big hits. The Jackson 5 were mostly covers I think, so you could probably carve out a huge exception to the norm of writing your own stuff for teenybopper bands of all varieties. Osmonds, Partridges, Monkees (until late career) all the way up to NSync and Menudo and more modern boy bands and girl bands. You might even be able to come up with a formula–the more Dancing is key to your act, the more your audience is young, and/or the more TV plays a role in your popularity–the more likely you are to be a cover act.
Elvis was pre Dylan and Beatles, and so makes my argument stronger.
As for Ronstadt–I didn’t say there weren’t cover artists. Just that they were more the exception after D and Beatles, whereas before they were the norm. Similarly, I didn’t say Holly was the only person performing his own songs–just that it made him unusual in his day, and it did. I actually think Ronstadt is a great example of how HARD it is to be a cover artist with a long career. She had an epic generational talent in her voice. Not many do.
It’s the same with Elvis, Judy Garland, Jolson (although he co-wrote some of his songs—if a singer’s voice is remarkable enough, people will write music for you. Karen Carpenter is in that category: The Carpenters were mostly post-Beatles, and their biggest hits were by people like Paul Williams and Burt Bachrach. The whole Broadway music genre still involves performers covering the works of non-performing composers and lyricists. Cabaret too. I was just perusing who plays Vegas these days. Singers like Mariah Carey and Carrie Underwood mostly sing other artist’s music—others too.
I think your thesis is a bit overstated, but yes, singer-songwriters have a clear majority.
The “too much faggotry in the rectory” coverage is hilarious. What he’s saying is not that complicated or controversial. The Church takes the position you can be a homosexual, but you must not engage in homosexual sex. Which, I suppose, is pretty much what they say for heterosexual priests, come to think of it. You can be a heterosexual, but you can’t have heterosexual sex. Both of which I’ve found preposterous for most of my life. Particularly insofar as I’m of the opinion the Catholic hierarchy has been a gay cabal for centuries. And there’s been all sorts of faggotry going on in the rectory forever, including with minors. So, basically, the Pope was saying, “there’s too much homosexual sex going on in the rectory, that’s a sin, and it needs to stop.” But of course, birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim. So, the church is hoist by its own petard because, as I’ve said, … the Church takes the position you can be a homosexual, but you must not engage in homosexual sex. This stance is obviously unacceptable to the gay and lesbian advocacy groups, but it’s where the church has determined to stand. But if you don’t like the church’s stance, there are lots of other churches. But of course, that’s not acceptable to advocacy groups. Nothing short of total annihilation of the “enemy” is ever acceptable to advocacy groups. (At which point, they move on to a new item to advocate for.)
All this is exactly what I would expect from the New York Times, which is why I don’t use them as a source except second-hand anymore.
It’s almost as if they want the bird flu to be the next pandemic, for example. Breathlessly warning people of a possible pending Apocalypse is so frustratingly formulaic.
Prognosticators only follow up on their prognostications in the rare instances where they are correct. I get such a kick out of NFL pregame shows where all the “experts” make their choices. I’m still waiting for Monday morning shows where all the “experts” get to explain why they were wrong.
Heh. Indeed, and I expect you’ll be waiting a long, long time 🙂
It’s just one of those things that’s so blatantly missing and never gets talked about, Glenn. And they’re back the following weekend, blathering away as if they’re infallible. Of course, don’t ever tell a gambler or a stock trader you can’t predict the future, and might was well just flip a coin.
The prediction that always amuses me is the ESPN expert who predicts what the NCAA tournament bracket is going to look like — at 4pm on selection Sunday. When all the underlying facts are known, and boasts that he is 98% accurate.
Give us a prediction in mid February that 90% accurate and I’ll be impressed.