What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times's Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History
Think a newspaper can’t be responsible for mass murder? Think again.
As flagship of the American news media, the New York Times is the world’s most powerful news outlet. With thousands of reporters covering events from all corners of the globe, the Times has the power to influence wars, foment revolution, shape economies and change the very nature of our culture. It doesn’t just cover the news: it creates it.
But the institution that is the New York Times is showing cracks. No longer the fact-stringing paper of record once known as the Gray Lady, the Times has become a political lightning rod that divides more often than it unites. It is frequently beset by scandal and has even emerged as a symbol of the political, cultural and social ills plaguing our society.
The Gray Lady Winked pulls back the curtain on this illustrious institution to reveal a quintessentially human organization where ideology, ego, power and politics compete with the more humble need to present the facts. In its 10 gripping chapters, The Gray Lady Winked offers readers an eye-opening, often shocking, look at the New York Times’s greatest journalistic failures, so devastating they changed the course of history.
These are the stories that mattered most, including the Times’s disastrous coverage of the:
Second World War – Holocaust – Rise of the Soviet Union – Cuban Revolution – Vietnam War – Second Palestinian Intifada – Atomic Bombing of Japan – Iraq War – Founding of America
The result is an essential look at the tangled relationship between media, power and politics in a post-truth world told with novelistic flair to reveal a uniquely powerful institution’s tortured relationship with the truth.
Most importantly of all, The Gray Lady Winked presents a cautionary tale that shows what happens when the guardians of the truth abandon that sacred value in favor of self-interest and ideology—and what this means for our future as much as for our past.
As flagship of the American news media, the New York Times is the world’s most powerful news outlet. With thousands of reporters covering events from all corners of the globe, the Times has the power to influence wars, foment revolution, shape economies and change the very nature of our culture. It doesn’t just cover the news: it creates it.
But the institution that is the New York Times is showing cracks. No longer the fact-stringing paper of record once known as the Gray Lady, the Times has become a political lightning rod that divides more often than it unites. It is frequently beset by scandal and has even emerged as a symbol of the political, cultural and social ills plaguing our society.
The Gray Lady Winked pulls back the curtain on this illustrious institution to reveal a quintessentially human organization where ideology, ego, power and politics compete with the more humble need to present the facts. In its 10 gripping chapters, The Gray Lady Winked offers readers an eye-opening, often shocking, look at the New York Times’s greatest journalistic failures, so devastating they changed the course of history.
These are the stories that mattered most, including the Times’s disastrous coverage of the:
Second World War – Holocaust – Rise of the Soviet Union – Cuban Revolution – Vietnam War – Second Palestinian Intifada – Atomic Bombing of Japan – Iraq War – Founding of America
The result is an essential look at the tangled relationship between media, power and politics in a post-truth world told with novelistic flair to reveal a uniquely powerful institution’s tortured relationship with the truth.
Most importantly of all, The Gray Lady Winked presents a cautionary tale that shows what happens when the guardians of the truth abandon that sacred value in favor of self-interest and ideology—and what this means for our future as much as for our past.
284 pages, Hardcover
First published May 3, 2021
About the author
Ashley Rindsberg
4 books27 followersAshley Rindsberg is a novelist, essayist and freelance journalist who has contributed to the Los Angeles Review of Books, The Daily Beast, Huffington Post, Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, and Publisher’s Weekly, and was founding associate editor of Washington-based outlet, The Tower.
Rindsberg, who was born in South Africa and raised in Philadelphia, Las Vegas and Southern California, attended Cornell University, where he studied Philosophy of Science and participated in an MIT-led digital archive project.
In 2003, Rindsberg moved to San Francisco to work at digital NGO, Internet Archive, where he helped bring the Internet Bookmobile to the famed Library of Alexandria in Egypt. He spent the next decade in Tel Aviv honing his literary voice. Rindsberg’s first book, Tel Aviv Stories, "an inventive, empathetic set of character studies" (Kirkus), shines a light on the underclass of a city rooted in a Levantine past but racing towards a globalized future.
In 2010, Rindsberg traveled to Nicaragua to investigate the disappearance and death of his best friend. With his research complete, Rindsberg spent a year in France working on He Falls Alone, a novel inspired by his experience in Nicaragua.
Rindsberg currently lives in Israel’s Emek Hefer region with his wife and two young sons.
Rindsberg, who was born in South Africa and raised in Philadelphia, Las Vegas and Southern California, attended Cornell University, where he studied Philosophy of Science and participated in an MIT-led digital archive project.
In 2003, Rindsberg moved to San Francisco to work at digital NGO, Internet Archive, where he helped bring the Internet Bookmobile to the famed Library of Alexandria in Egypt. He spent the next decade in Tel Aviv honing his literary voice. Rindsberg’s first book, Tel Aviv Stories, "an inventive, empathetic set of character studies" (Kirkus), shines a light on the underclass of a city rooted in a Levantine past but racing towards a globalized future.
In 2010, Rindsberg traveled to Nicaragua to investigate the disappearance and death of his best friend. With his research complete, Rindsberg spent a year in France working on He Falls Alone, a novel inspired by his experience in Nicaragua.
Rindsberg currently lives in Israel’s Emek Hefer region with his wife and two young sons.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews
August 3, 2021
For the vast majority of the book I thought it was poorly written and horribly edited. I also thought it was repetitive. I counted 4 times the story of Al-Dura was told. Every time the author referred back to that story, he told us again a synopsis of it, as if we hadn't just read it in the last chapter, and the one before that too!
However, I thought that issues he was exposing and the misreporting and the coverups and the outright lies were important. Throughout most of the book I planned to give it about a 3 stars, for important information but crummy writing, poor editing, and repetitiveness.
Then I started to realize that he was engaging in some of the practices he was calling out. Stating his opinions as though they were fact, not telling us where he sourced some of the info, etc.
And Then.
In the penultimate chapter, under the pretense of telling us why the 1619 Project represented more of the same from the NYT, he spends a chapter telling us his opinion on why critical theory in general and critical race theory specifically are wrong and dangerous. I disagree with most of his reasoning, but he has a right to his opnions. My problem is, I wasn't sold a book about this white male's opnion about how history is not actually told through the lens of other white males in a way that helps keep them in power. I was sold a book about the issues with NYT reporting.
I think in the end I'm still glad I read it, because I'd like to explore more about the alleged abuses at the NYT, (especially now that this author has so clearly shown his lack of objectivity, although I know that the Al-Dura story and how the NYT reported it and then failed to adequately correct it is at least factual) and also explore whether this happens at other major newspapers that I tend to trust. It was also a good reminder that whether malicious or negligent or just accidental, humans and therefore nespapers, will screw up. We need to look at multiple sources for big important news.
However, I thought that issues he was exposing and the misreporting and the coverups and the outright lies were important. Throughout most of the book I planned to give it about a 3 stars, for important information but crummy writing, poor editing, and repetitiveness.
Then I started to realize that he was engaging in some of the practices he was calling out. Stating his opinions as though they were fact, not telling us where he sourced some of the info, etc.
And Then.
In the penultimate chapter, under the pretense of telling us why the 1619 Project represented more of the same from the NYT, he spends a chapter telling us his opinion on why critical theory in general and critical race theory specifically are wrong and dangerous. I disagree with most of his reasoning, but he has a right to his opnions. My problem is, I wasn't sold a book about this white male's opnion about how history is not actually told through the lens of other white males in a way that helps keep them in power. I was sold a book about the issues with NYT reporting.
I think in the end I'm still glad I read it, because I'd like to explore more about the alleged abuses at the NYT, (especially now that this author has so clearly shown his lack of objectivity, although I know that the Al-Dura story and how the NYT reported it and then failed to adequately correct it is at least factual) and also explore whether this happens at other major newspapers that I tend to trust. It was also a good reminder that whether malicious or negligent or just accidental, humans and therefore nespapers, will screw up. We need to look at multiple sources for big important news.
January 2, 2022
Imagine reading NYTimes's coverage of past historical events and discovering to your dismay how strange and straight-up misleading the reporting was at the time. Then digging further and uncovering perverse incentives for authors and cover-ups. That's what this book is.
Although it's difficult to determine whether the author worked backward from "NYTimes is an extremely biased for-profit family business" or forward from "I wonder what the coverage was for historical events." I choose to read it as the latter, but I sense that Rindsberg took the former approach. Either way, you will probably unsubscribe from NYT after reading this book for the former reason. Presumably, other newspapers aren't much better, as their incentive structure isn't fundamentally different, perhaps except National Media (which the US doesn't have).
That way of reading it alone is illuminating. As the saying goes, today's newspapers are tomorrow's birdcage liners. News expires rapidly, and historically even the largest media companies have gotten the narrative hopelessly wrong.
NYT's coverage of Nazi Germany in the 1930s was covered by a pro-nazi journalist. So pro-nazi in fact that he was often quoted on Nazi broadcasts, and when all other journalists were put in jail when the war started, he was left alone "because of his proved friendliness to Germany." In fact, because New York Times is owned by a Jewish family, NYT didn't cover anti-semitism. They didn't want to be labeled as a Jewish newspaper and appear biased. During the war, Holocaust-related stories were only on the front-page 6 times. I can't help but wonder if we'll look at the Uyghur genocide similarly.
This is the starkest example, but each chapter tells another story: Covering up the Ukrainian famine, long-term effects of nuclear weapons through radioactive poisoning, and so much more.
Overall, it's not exactly a page-turner, but the first-hand narrative of the incentives and biases of for-profit media corporations (beyond the cheap clickbait arguments) will stay with me.
Although it's difficult to determine whether the author worked backward from "NYTimes is an extremely biased for-profit family business" or forward from "I wonder what the coverage was for historical events." I choose to read it as the latter, but I sense that Rindsberg took the former approach. Either way, you will probably unsubscribe from NYT after reading this book for the former reason. Presumably, other newspapers aren't much better, as their incentive structure isn't fundamentally different, perhaps except National Media (which the US doesn't have).
That way of reading it alone is illuminating. As the saying goes, today's newspapers are tomorrow's birdcage liners. News expires rapidly, and historically even the largest media companies have gotten the narrative hopelessly wrong.
NYT's coverage of Nazi Germany in the 1930s was covered by a pro-nazi journalist. So pro-nazi in fact that he was often quoted on Nazi broadcasts, and when all other journalists were put in jail when the war started, he was left alone "because of his proved friendliness to Germany." In fact, because New York Times is owned by a Jewish family, NYT didn't cover anti-semitism. They didn't want to be labeled as a Jewish newspaper and appear biased. During the war, Holocaust-related stories were only on the front-page 6 times. I can't help but wonder if we'll look at the Uyghur genocide similarly.
This is the starkest example, but each chapter tells another story: Covering up the Ukrainian famine, long-term effects of nuclear weapons through radioactive poisoning, and so much more.
Overall, it's not exactly a page-turner, but the first-hand narrative of the incentives and biases of for-profit media corporations (beyond the cheap clickbait arguments) will stay with me.
September 16, 2021
Ashley Rindsberg is saying that the New York Times was not only wrong about reporting on the big stories of the last 100 years, but they were often intentionally wrong in order to serve other purposes. I have been reading about Walter Durranty lying about Stalin for years. But it wasn’t until now that I learned the Times provided cover for Hitler by downplaying his anti-Semitism through the 1930s while ignoring the death camps. And this was all while William Shirer was telling the world the entire truth on CBS radio from Vienna.
Rindsberg’s theory about Hitler and Germany is that Sulzberger family was uncomfortable with being perceived as Jewish and therefore kept Jewish news out of the paper. There does seem to be another unifying theory that is maybe not entirely explored in the book. The New York Times wants the legitimacy that access provides even if that access requires not telling the actual story. They wholesale invented the entire Fidel Castro rebellion in Cuba and in that case swayed opinion toward him as a result. After reading this book, I don’t think I can trust any reporting coming out of China. But then again, how much can I trust any reporting coming out Washington DC for that matter? These Times feel strange not because they are different times, but because we now know better how the system actually operates and it's not like they tell you in school.
Rindsberg’s theory about Hitler and Germany is that Sulzberger family was uncomfortable with being perceived as Jewish and therefore kept Jewish news out of the paper. There does seem to be another unifying theory that is maybe not entirely explored in the book. The New York Times wants the legitimacy that access provides even if that access requires not telling the actual story. They wholesale invented the entire Fidel Castro rebellion in Cuba and in that case swayed opinion toward him as a result. After reading this book, I don’t think I can trust any reporting coming out of China. But then again, how much can I trust any reporting coming out Washington DC for that matter? These Times feel strange not because they are different times, but because we now know better how the system actually operates and it's not like they tell you in school.
June 2, 2021
Good book with lots of editing errors
Shocking expose of the evil nature of the owners of the New York Times but repetitive and poorly edited. Worthwhile reading.
Shocking expose of the evil nature of the owners of the New York Times but repetitive and poorly edited. Worthwhile reading.
August 3, 2021
Poorly written, woefully researched and under sourced, extraordinarily repetitive and internally inconsistent.
The core idea has some merit, we should not rely on any one source, however trusted, but always check reporting, sourcing, and seek multiple sources. Unfortunately that message is lost in all the completely ridiculous over the top claims, statements, and hypocrisy. This is basically a long angry blog Article masquerading as a work of historical scholarship. I’m not at all shocked he couldn’t get it published and I don’t believe that had anything to do with the NYT’s power. No reputable house would publish this mess.
Ultimately, his message, no one should trust any institution, however lauded, blindly, is too damaged by his own poor scholarship and clearly biased opinions presented as fact. Too bad, could have been an interesting examination if he’d followed any of the scholarship/journalist rules he excoriates the Times for messing up.
The core idea has some merit, we should not rely on any one source, however trusted, but always check reporting, sourcing, and seek multiple sources. Unfortunately that message is lost in all the completely ridiculous over the top claims, statements, and hypocrisy. This is basically a long angry blog Article masquerading as a work of historical scholarship. I’m not at all shocked he couldn’t get it published and I don’t believe that had anything to do with the NYT’s power. No reputable house would publish this mess.
Ultimately, his message, no one should trust any institution, however lauded, blindly, is too damaged by his own poor scholarship and clearly biased opinions presented as fact. Too bad, could have been an interesting examination if he’d followed any of the scholarship/journalist rules he excoriates the Times for messing up.
September 29, 2021
A book that could only be published Indie
I’m a retired reporter who has lived through an unbelievable amount of journalistic fabrication. I was at USA Today when Jack Kelley invented stories out of whole cloth, just as Jayson Blair did at the NYT. I wrote an historical novel where the protagonist is a fictional lying inventor of the news named Jayson Kelley. Things have moved beyond fabrication to cancellation and I hope other novelists are willing to take that on. Hopefully, the NYT and other great publications will pull their heads out before it’s too late. This terrific book implies that’s not likely. — Del Leonard Jones.
I’m a retired reporter who has lived through an unbelievable amount of journalistic fabrication. I was at USA Today when Jack Kelley invented stories out of whole cloth, just as Jayson Blair did at the NYT. I wrote an historical novel where the protagonist is a fictional lying inventor of the news named Jayson Kelley. Things have moved beyond fabrication to cancellation and I hope other novelists are willing to take that on. Hopefully, the NYT and other great publications will pull their heads out before it’s too late. This terrific book implies that’s not likely. — Del Leonard Jones.
May 20, 2021
There's no surprise in the fact that The New York Times is engaging in malicious journalism, especially when you see it's reporting related to Asia and specifically India. This book just gives you more ammunition and historical context to not get swayed by such journalism.
October 4, 2021
tl;dr: wildly one-sided, repetitive, mix of fact and opinion, covers some stories i knew and lots that i didn’t
in rindsberg i have finally found someone who hates the nytimes more than i do. he writes 10 chapters, each covering a single scandal, or a series of scandals, where the nytimes betrayed its covenant as an objective source of the news. the first few are more clear (a writer spreading nazi propaganda, a writer hired by the soviet union to spread propaganda, a writer hanging out with castro, etc.) the latter are better examples of decisions the newspaper took that the author, or some, disagree(d) with.
the first few chapters are incredibly valuable. i didn’t know many of the stories, but they appear to be well-publicized. the research, to my knowledge, is not new, but rindsberg does a good job compiling the story. one of the difficulties is in pinning down how much the paper knew at different levels. he uses intuition and guesswork to imply blame at every level he possibly can, but he comes short of making false accusations. it’s clear he wants to, and this comes across.
the later chapters seem like criticisms of the paper’s editorial decisions, like to run years of stories undermining the war in iraq, and to promote critical race theory. some of it is editorial criticism, like that the times is using half-baked sources often on important stories. the general theme is that the times is trigger happy with stories that further its writers’ and publishers’ world view (stories about israeli brutality that were complete fiction, murders committed by us troops back from iraq, etc.). this is a big problem, but rindsberg doesn’t do the hard work of backing this theory with more concrete evidence (like data about them firing editors, and pushing to go to press with stories very quickly). instead, he writes colorfully and lets his passions drive the story.
the writing is disorganized, haphazard, and repetitive. the book was quick to get through, but could easily have been a long form piece. rindsberg should have stripped down the bullshit and either published it as an article or built on it with more concrete evidence. the book covers almost 100 years of history - surely there are more than 10 big scandals.
someone more forgiving of the times might come away with the argument that no organization is infallible, every paper has fake stories or unethical reporters, and these mistakes are only magnified by the prominence of the times.
in rindsberg i have finally found someone who hates the nytimes more than i do. he writes 10 chapters, each covering a single scandal, or a series of scandals, where the nytimes betrayed its covenant as an objective source of the news. the first few are more clear (a writer spreading nazi propaganda, a writer hired by the soviet union to spread propaganda, a writer hanging out with castro, etc.) the latter are better examples of decisions the newspaper took that the author, or some, disagree(d) with.
the first few chapters are incredibly valuable. i didn’t know many of the stories, but they appear to be well-publicized. the research, to my knowledge, is not new, but rindsberg does a good job compiling the story. one of the difficulties is in pinning down how much the paper knew at different levels. he uses intuition and guesswork to imply blame at every level he possibly can, but he comes short of making false accusations. it’s clear he wants to, and this comes across.
the later chapters seem like criticisms of the paper’s editorial decisions, like to run years of stories undermining the war in iraq, and to promote critical race theory. some of it is editorial criticism, like that the times is using half-baked sources often on important stories. the general theme is that the times is trigger happy with stories that further its writers’ and publishers’ world view (stories about israeli brutality that were complete fiction, murders committed by us troops back from iraq, etc.). this is a big problem, but rindsberg doesn’t do the hard work of backing this theory with more concrete evidence (like data about them firing editors, and pushing to go to press with stories very quickly). instead, he writes colorfully and lets his passions drive the story.
the writing is disorganized, haphazard, and repetitive. the book was quick to get through, but could easily have been a long form piece. rindsberg should have stripped down the bullshit and either published it as an article or built on it with more concrete evidence. the book covers almost 100 years of history - surely there are more than 10 big scandals.
someone more forgiving of the times might come away with the argument that no organization is infallible, every paper has fake stories or unethical reporters, and these mistakes are only magnified by the prominence of the times.
June 18, 2021
A Must Read
Regardless of one's race, sex, political beliefs or other differences, this book will be an illuminating discovery of a news organization which has mislead the world with falsehoods, half-truths and lies of omision for decades. The reader can look at historical events of the last 120 years and see how the New York Times mislead their readers on the start of World War II, Israeli - Palestine relations, Vietnam, the Gulf War's weapons of mass destruction and much more. Do you want to know who the puppet masters are that have been deceiving you and manipulating your thoughts and beliefs, read this book. It is not politicians. The only question not answered is why.
Regardless of one's race, sex, political beliefs or other differences, this book will be an illuminating discovery of a news organization which has mislead the world with falsehoods, half-truths and lies of omision for decades. The reader can look at historical events of the last 120 years and see how the New York Times mislead their readers on the start of World War II, Israeli - Palestine relations, Vietnam, the Gulf War's weapons of mass destruction and much more. Do you want to know who the puppet masters are that have been deceiving you and manipulating your thoughts and beliefs, read this book. It is not politicians. The only question not answered is why.
August 31, 2021
MUST-READ - This book basically confirms, and provides more supporting evidence for, what rational people have been witnessing about the New York Times, especially in the last couple of years. Being from a country that has been misreported with military precision in NYT, the book revealed that we are not alone and it is not a recent phenomenon.
Ashley also highlighted how Pulitzer prizes became a tool to vindicate reporters from any accountability on fake news or propaganda. And NYT never bothered to take any responsibility for peddling false narratives.
It was almost frustrating (on NYT) reading through this book. And I am sure NYT is not alone. Such books need to be written for other news media outlets as well.
Ashley also highlighted how Pulitzer prizes became a tool to vindicate reporters from any accountability on fake news or propaganda. And NYT never bothered to take any responsibility for peddling false narratives.
It was almost frustrating (on NYT) reading through this book. And I am sure NYT is not alone. Such books need to be written for other news media outlets as well.
September 1, 2023
Interesting stuff in this book: In 1924, the NYT wrote that Hitler “was no longer to be feared”. The NYT later wrote of Hitler’s 1938 Appeasement as an unqualified success. When the NYT reported that Poland invaded Germany, it was reporting the Nazi PR version (NSDAP), used as official pretext for Nazi aggression. A Nazi undersecretary wrote in his official memorandum that the New York Times Berlin chief was to be left alone “because of his proved friendliness to Hitler.” In 1933, the NYT wrote there was no famine under Stalin. After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, the NYT wrote that all stories of radiation sickness were just “Japanese propaganda.” The author also mentions that Marshall Islanders weren’t evacuated until fifty hours after US atomic tests there, and they were returned quickly when it still wasn’t safe (resulting in many birth defects - shapeless deformities). Also, to the credit of the author, he points out the NYT falsely reported on WMD in Iraq.
But in spite of my first paragraph, this is a right-wing book which otherwise attacks the NYT only from the right. From the blurbs, you are supposed to believe that Leftie Glenn Greenwald really liked it (reading his blurb, I doubt he ever read the book) and that sometimes Leftie Mark Crispin Miller (who wrote the foreword) uncritically approves all the rightward talking points of this book. Only two times in this book (both mentioned above) did I notice the author taking the NYT to task from the Left. To my dismay, Crispin Miller in his short two-page foreword manages to attack Noam Chomsky and Gerald Horne for (their “crackpot notion” of) suggesting a big reason the American Revolution was fought was to keep slavery going. Why is it the world’s job to teach Crispin Miller and the author about the Somerset Decision of 1772? …or that Chomsky and Horne more precisely believe that the “main cause” was both the Somerset Decision and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (settlers itching to take land from natives). In the forward, Miller states if you agree to the Chomsky/Horne position, then you are “presenting ‘woke’ fantasy as fact.” Groan. I so hoped to like this book, and hoped it was written without an agenda. This book begins saying: “No one is watching the watchdog”. Actually, many people from Noam to FAIR are known for watching the NYT watchdog other than author Rindsberg (but they critique it from the Left, not Right).
Right Wing Slant: The author retreats to the Right for most of his NYT critique (page 160) accusing the NYT of being irresponsibly anti-Zionist. The author cherry-picked two cases (Muhammad Al-Dura and Tuvia Grossman) where the NYT wrongly jumped to the Palestinian side. Chapter 7 implies the NYT is run by self-hating Jews (Daniel Pipes says it openly in his blurb on this book). Good grief. On page 193, the author is upset because the NYT didn’t mention enough of the positive effects of soldiers returning from combat. In Chapter 9, the author states the NYT peddles stories of US soldiers as victimizers and that its reporting spins our returning servicemen into crazy vets. On page 220, the author again is aghast that at a commencement speech, NYT publisher Sulzberger Jr. reminded the audience that Iraq wasn’t our country, and we were its occupiers. Two accurate comments. That commencement speech was never printed in the Times, so what’s the author’s point?
In the same chapter on Vets, the author wants you to know that the NYT was shamelessly sycophantic towards Castro in Cuba. Ashley will mention “Cuba’s horrendous human rights record”, while comically pretending that the dozens of dictators boldly propped up by the US over the past 100 years had better records. Ashley, there’s an acknowledged “horrendous” human rights problem in Cuba that you won’t mention – it’s called Guantanamo. Ashley writes about the NYT’s “sordid” history with Cuba and Castro by pretending both the US and his home state of Zionist Israel don’t have an even worse “sordid” history of human rights abuse.
On page 196, the author peddles the Robert Conquest’s right-wing tract Harvest of Sorrow, which led fellow Russia hater and right-winger Daniel Pipes to write a glowing blurb about this book. Throughout this Cancel Culture book, Stalin and Castro never did a single thing positive for their country, Palestinians get no sympathy, and Zionism is blameless.
Next up for Ashley’s selective attack is the 1619 Project (focusing on beginning of slavery) which he says turns the real 1776 Project from “the triumph of liberty” into “the scourge of human bondage.” Don’t be so dramatic, Ashley. On page 232, with a straight face, Ashley compares the NYT Sunday Magazine article on the 1619 Project with a propaganda feat that would impress Mao and Stalin. Ashley calls to his defense three famous historians, James McPherson, Gordon Wood and Sean Wilentz. Sean Wilentz is a logical choice because he is known as a right-wing historian but what about Gordon and James? Noam Chomsky and Gerald Horne have both written many times how they saw the main causes of the American Revolution was twofold: first, through the Royal Proclamation of 1763, Britain had momentarily stopped westward expansion (thwarting settler-colonialism) second, in 1772 the Britain had just put an expiration date on British slavery (racial capitalism) in the colonies (with the Somerset Decision). The Chomsky/Horne thesis is two pronged; the 1619 Project is single pronged. Noam literally says these two subjects are “the two core crimes in the history of the United States.”
I believe Ashley needs to vilify the 1619 Project to keep any readers from contemplating the Chomsky/Horne thesis (American Revolution = Freedom for unchecked Racial Capitalism + Settler Colonialism). I’ve never read Gerald and Noam actually mentioning the 1619 Project, but I’m sure they’d both disagree with the Project’s comment that all US History has ONLY the lens of slavery – what bullshit that is – instead, use the two lenses supplied by Noam and Gerald’s: one lens not of slavery but harsh racial capitalism (in which the North was guilty as well) and a second lens of harsh settler-colonialism. Ashley says, “the Project stated America’s DNA is racist.” Noam and Gerald don’t simplistically say America’s DNA is racist. Neither does the NYT say that. Is Ashley angry at the NYT or the Project here?
The book then conflates believers in critical theory with those who think 2 + 2 can equal 5 (p. 250). In conclusion of this book, Ashley writes how we should not replace a flawed history with a more flawed history, but comically that is precisely what Ashley has done in this book. To the author the NYT are a bunch of self-hating Jews with a history of Nazi collaboration as well as spreading communist propaganda. This book might make the Anne Applebaum/Richard Pipes/Robert Conquest/Atlantic Magazine/Victoria Nuland/Zionist crowd feel warm and yummy, but as much as I hoped I would love this book, I didn’t. Yes, this book will tell you the centrist concern about how the NYT covered up post-Hiroshima radiation sickness but ignores the Left concern that a NYT editorial praised the US funded Iranian coup that overthrew democratically elected and nationally beloved Mosaddegh in 1953. Ashley, in a critical book about the NYT won’t dare mention how the Times editors made the CIA proud writing that the 1953 Iran coup will send a message to other countries who similarly “go berserk with radical nationalism.” Another obvious omission of Ashley’s is that NYT “leading liberal correspondent” James Reston referred to the 1960’s ruthless slaughter of over 500,000 people in Indonesia, supported by the US, as “a gleam of light in Asia.” WTF?
Can someone explain to me why in a book ONLY about mistakes of the NYT that the author won’t also tell us about the NYT’s approval of both the Indonesia slaughter and the Mossadegh ouster? I say it’s because the author was morally fine with both crimes. This book intentionally leaves out a lot of other stories the NYT got wrong simply because including those stories would benefit the Left, not Right. To be nice, I’ll give it two stars instead of one – This book was written with a right of center agenda, many intentional omissions and zero mention by Ashley of the NYT peddling wrong/false/misleading stories against labor, or for neoliberalism, bipartisan permanent war, and Israel’s occupation – only the stories Ashley chooses to let us see.
Instead of this book, read lots of Noam. In most of his books Noam mentions the many good and bad things that the NYT reported and how we readers must look critically at everything we read in the NYT. If all those separate NYT Noam recollections were compiled in book form, then this present book would offer nothing. I honestly thought this book was going to be great - what a disappointment.
But in spite of my first paragraph, this is a right-wing book which otherwise attacks the NYT only from the right. From the blurbs, you are supposed to believe that Leftie Glenn Greenwald really liked it (reading his blurb, I doubt he ever read the book) and that sometimes Leftie Mark Crispin Miller (who wrote the foreword) uncritically approves all the rightward talking points of this book. Only two times in this book (both mentioned above) did I notice the author taking the NYT to task from the Left. To my dismay, Crispin Miller in his short two-page foreword manages to attack Noam Chomsky and Gerald Horne for (their “crackpot notion” of) suggesting a big reason the American Revolution was fought was to keep slavery going. Why is it the world’s job to teach Crispin Miller and the author about the Somerset Decision of 1772? …or that Chomsky and Horne more precisely believe that the “main cause” was both the Somerset Decision and the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (settlers itching to take land from natives). In the forward, Miller states if you agree to the Chomsky/Horne position, then you are “presenting ‘woke’ fantasy as fact.” Groan. I so hoped to like this book, and hoped it was written without an agenda. This book begins saying: “No one is watching the watchdog”. Actually, many people from Noam to FAIR are known for watching the NYT watchdog other than author Rindsberg (but they critique it from the Left, not Right).
Right Wing Slant: The author retreats to the Right for most of his NYT critique (page 160) accusing the NYT of being irresponsibly anti-Zionist. The author cherry-picked two cases (Muhammad Al-Dura and Tuvia Grossman) where the NYT wrongly jumped to the Palestinian side. Chapter 7 implies the NYT is run by self-hating Jews (Daniel Pipes says it openly in his blurb on this book). Good grief. On page 193, the author is upset because the NYT didn’t mention enough of the positive effects of soldiers returning from combat. In Chapter 9, the author states the NYT peddles stories of US soldiers as victimizers and that its reporting spins our returning servicemen into crazy vets. On page 220, the author again is aghast that at a commencement speech, NYT publisher Sulzberger Jr. reminded the audience that Iraq wasn’t our country, and we were its occupiers. Two accurate comments. That commencement speech was never printed in the Times, so what’s the author’s point?
In the same chapter on Vets, the author wants you to know that the NYT was shamelessly sycophantic towards Castro in Cuba. Ashley will mention “Cuba’s horrendous human rights record”, while comically pretending that the dozens of dictators boldly propped up by the US over the past 100 years had better records. Ashley, there’s an acknowledged “horrendous” human rights problem in Cuba that you won’t mention – it’s called Guantanamo. Ashley writes about the NYT’s “sordid” history with Cuba and Castro by pretending both the US and his home state of Zionist Israel don’t have an even worse “sordid” history of human rights abuse.
On page 196, the author peddles the Robert Conquest’s right-wing tract Harvest of Sorrow, which led fellow Russia hater and right-winger Daniel Pipes to write a glowing blurb about this book. Throughout this Cancel Culture book, Stalin and Castro never did a single thing positive for their country, Palestinians get no sympathy, and Zionism is blameless.
Next up for Ashley’s selective attack is the 1619 Project (focusing on beginning of slavery) which he says turns the real 1776 Project from “the triumph of liberty” into “the scourge of human bondage.” Don’t be so dramatic, Ashley. On page 232, with a straight face, Ashley compares the NYT Sunday Magazine article on the 1619 Project with a propaganda feat that would impress Mao and Stalin. Ashley calls to his defense three famous historians, James McPherson, Gordon Wood and Sean Wilentz. Sean Wilentz is a logical choice because he is known as a right-wing historian but what about Gordon and James? Noam Chomsky and Gerald Horne have both written many times how they saw the main causes of the American Revolution was twofold: first, through the Royal Proclamation of 1763, Britain had momentarily stopped westward expansion (thwarting settler-colonialism) second, in 1772 the Britain had just put an expiration date on British slavery (racial capitalism) in the colonies (with the Somerset Decision). The Chomsky/Horne thesis is two pronged; the 1619 Project is single pronged. Noam literally says these two subjects are “the two core crimes in the history of the United States.”
I believe Ashley needs to vilify the 1619 Project to keep any readers from contemplating the Chomsky/Horne thesis (American Revolution = Freedom for unchecked Racial Capitalism + Settler Colonialism). I’ve never read Gerald and Noam actually mentioning the 1619 Project, but I’m sure they’d both disagree with the Project’s comment that all US History has ONLY the lens of slavery – what bullshit that is – instead, use the two lenses supplied by Noam and Gerald’s: one lens not of slavery but harsh racial capitalism (in which the North was guilty as well) and a second lens of harsh settler-colonialism. Ashley says, “the Project stated America’s DNA is racist.” Noam and Gerald don’t simplistically say America’s DNA is racist. Neither does the NYT say that. Is Ashley angry at the NYT or the Project here?
The book then conflates believers in critical theory with those who think 2 + 2 can equal 5 (p. 250). In conclusion of this book, Ashley writes how we should not replace a flawed history with a more flawed history, but comically that is precisely what Ashley has done in this book. To the author the NYT are a bunch of self-hating Jews with a history of Nazi collaboration as well as spreading communist propaganda. This book might make the Anne Applebaum/Richard Pipes/Robert Conquest/Atlantic Magazine/Victoria Nuland/Zionist crowd feel warm and yummy, but as much as I hoped I would love this book, I didn’t. Yes, this book will tell you the centrist concern about how the NYT covered up post-Hiroshima radiation sickness but ignores the Left concern that a NYT editorial praised the US funded Iranian coup that overthrew democratically elected and nationally beloved Mosaddegh in 1953. Ashley, in a critical book about the NYT won’t dare mention how the Times editors made the CIA proud writing that the 1953 Iran coup will send a message to other countries who similarly “go berserk with radical nationalism.” Another obvious omission of Ashley’s is that NYT “leading liberal correspondent” James Reston referred to the 1960’s ruthless slaughter of over 500,000 people in Indonesia, supported by the US, as “a gleam of light in Asia.” WTF?
Can someone explain to me why in a book ONLY about mistakes of the NYT that the author won’t also tell us about the NYT’s approval of both the Indonesia slaughter and the Mossadegh ouster? I say it’s because the author was morally fine with both crimes. This book intentionally leaves out a lot of other stories the NYT got wrong simply because including those stories would benefit the Left, not Right. To be nice, I’ll give it two stars instead of one – This book was written with a right of center agenda, many intentional omissions and zero mention by Ashley of the NYT peddling wrong/false/misleading stories against labor, or for neoliberalism, bipartisan permanent war, and Israel’s occupation – only the stories Ashley chooses to let us see.
Instead of this book, read lots of Noam. In most of his books Noam mentions the many good and bad things that the NYT reported and how we readers must look critically at everything we read in the NYT. If all those separate NYT Noam recollections were compiled in book form, then this present book would offer nothing. I honestly thought this book was going to be great - what a disappointment.
March 9, 2022
Poorly edited, repetitive, and later chapters seem based more on the author's opinion than verified by facts. I do understand the New York Times is fallible but I do not feel the author proved his title hypothesis of "radically alter(ing) history."
October 30, 2021
Worse editing than a college journalism class essay. This book could be 150 pages easily and deliver all the major beats/points.
Lessons: Get your news from multiple sources, don’t trust everything you read and be concerned if there is only one media/news outlet that gives you your information. Organizations that don’t hold their staff accountable to their values spend much more on covering up mistakes than they do on the mistakes themselves. Also don’t read this book, read something else.
Lessons: Get your news from multiple sources, don’t trust everything you read and be concerned if there is only one media/news outlet that gives you your information. Organizations that don’t hold their staff accountable to their values spend much more on covering up mistakes than they do on the mistakes themselves. Also don’t read this book, read something else.
October 21, 2021
Writing is repetitive and badly needs editing. The author's accusations about bias/misinformation are provided with little to no historical context. The author does not provide the backup necessary to prove his opposing viewpoints, thus not holding himself to the same standards that he claims the NYT violates. This may be the worst book I've ever read.
May 29, 2021
A must read for both liberals and conservatives
An eye opening and sometimes shocking callousness of one of the world's most prominent newspapers one can only hope this book will lead to changes in the journalistic field
An eye opening and sometimes shocking callousness of one of the world's most prominent newspapers one can only hope this book will lead to changes in the journalistic field
August 19, 2022
The amount of blah-blah-blah I had to wade through just to get to the first chapter was very off-putting. It’s never a good sign when the author says in the preface (not to be confused with the foreword or the introduction which sandwich said preface) that no one wanted to publish it because the New York Times is too powerful. Sigh. Or maybe it’s not well structured and full of typos? The first couple of chapters indicate clearly that the author is not interested in informing or entertaining readers with tales of how faulty journalism can have far-reaching consequences but treating the newspaper in question as a villain in their imaginary culture war. DNF cause of how bad the writing is.
May 5, 2022
Absolutely terrible. I can’t think of a more awful book that I have read in my entire life. Poorly researched, highly subjective, poorly edited, riddled with conspiracy. At least if you’re going to be a conspiracy theorist make it entertaining and interesting, this is just garbage, and a perfect example of the dumbing down of society.
January 15, 2022
My whole (adult) life I have believed in the New York Times. When I stayed in New York many years ago for a couple of months I read it every day. But even before I thought it was the best paper in the World. Whenever there was a problem, so I have learned watching old movies, you could always go to the Times. I have a subscription and I still read the paper regularly.
A while ago I unfortunately was forced to admit that maybe the paper was not perfect after all. When all major papers reprinted the Muhammad caricatures out of solidarity the Times did not so. When a teacher was beheaded by an extremist in open daylight in France the way the Times reported the incident was bizarre.
But reading this book is yet another story. I was not prepared to learn that not only had the Times some dark spots it basically is directly responsible for everything bad in the world. (I am exaggerating slightly.)
I always wondered why Nazi Germany propaganda bothered to put the blame for the war on Poland. It seemed absurd. Apparently the NYT fell for it. The slaughtering of millions of Jews never made it to the front page. The fact that Jews were the main victims was something the Times thought wise to ignore.
The killing of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin (through starvation) was also not reported. And the journalist who received a Pulitzer prize for his work later admitted that he knew about the killings.
Fidel Castro was created by the Times (and the man came to NY to thank them personally). The Vietnam war would have ended in 1971 if not for the New York Times. - This is obviously exaggerated again, but reading Rindsberg gives me the impression.
And finally with the 1619 project they try nothing less than creating a new history of The United States (not just rewriting). This is an ongoing process and maybe the most disturbing. Eminent historians have protested about factual errors and it seems the NYT more or less ignores criticism.
Racism, they say, is part of the DNA of the country. I believe that they have the best of intentions, but this is a really bad metaphor. Some of the claims are obviously untrue (as far as I can see) like saying that everyone white benefitted from slavery.
I really did not like reading this book (it is also not very well written) but I think it is very important.
[There is no index in this book. This fact alone costs one star.]
A while ago I unfortunately was forced to admit that maybe the paper was not perfect after all. When all major papers reprinted the Muhammad caricatures out of solidarity the Times did not so. When a teacher was beheaded by an extremist in open daylight in France the way the Times reported the incident was bizarre.
But reading this book is yet another story. I was not prepared to learn that not only had the Times some dark spots it basically is directly responsible for everything bad in the world. (I am exaggerating slightly.)
I always wondered why Nazi Germany propaganda bothered to put the blame for the war on Poland. It seemed absurd. Apparently the NYT fell for it. The slaughtering of millions of Jews never made it to the front page. The fact that Jews were the main victims was something the Times thought wise to ignore.
The killing of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin (through starvation) was also not reported. And the journalist who received a Pulitzer prize for his work later admitted that he knew about the killings.
Fidel Castro was created by the Times (and the man came to NY to thank them personally). The Vietnam war would have ended in 1971 if not for the New York Times. - This is obviously exaggerated again, but reading Rindsberg gives me the impression.
And finally with the 1619 project they try nothing less than creating a new history of The United States (not just rewriting). This is an ongoing process and maybe the most disturbing. Eminent historians have protested about factual errors and it seems the NYT more or less ignores criticism.
Racism, they say, is part of the DNA of the country. I believe that they have the best of intentions, but this is a really bad metaphor. Some of the claims are obviously untrue (as far as I can see) like saying that everyone white benefitted from slavery.
I really did not like reading this book (it is also not very well written) but I think it is very important.
[There is no index in this book. This fact alone costs one star.]
February 1, 2022
What would you think of a newspaper whose reporters a) Ignored a famine in the Ukraine caused by Stalin(Walter Durante) which killed an estimated 4 million people and then when this perfidy was pointed out refused to return a Pulitzer he received for his coverage; b) ignored the plight of the Jews in Germany leading up to WWII(Guido Enderis) and when American journalists were detained by the Nazi regime he was pampered, c) ignored the brutality of Castro on multiple occasions (Herbert Matthews); d) Allowed one of their reporters to be simultaneously being employed by the military (William Lawrence) and ignored the toxic effects of radiation ; e) created a false story and then perpetuated it about the sources of the second intifada (Debra Sontag); f) hired and maintained a reporter who engaged in egregious misrepresentations of several major news stories including the DC sniper until it could not longer be tolerated (Jason Blair); g) did a series of stories about post war traumas for returning vets from Afghanistan and Iraq which had little or no basis in fact and ignored major reports coming to a different impression; h) created a false narrative called the 1619 project which claimed to be transparent but is in fact a biased treatment of US history with an ideological purpose? You might have guessed who that paper is (here is a Microsoft News Service listing of their 10 biggest whoppers - https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/... ). This book should be an eye opener about the veracity of the Gray Lady and the family that has controlled "all the news that fits (our ideological view of the word) we print". This is a detailed summary of many of those failings. It is worth the read.
December 26, 2021
Social media doesn't have a monopoly on fake news. It began much earlier, and Ashley Rindsberg tells the story like no one else has by focusing on The New York Times (NYT) reporting and various major events throughout history. He’s a young philosophy graduate, and he wrote this book not to oppose the NYT but to unearth the truth. The book had to be independently published since publishers were afraid of offending the paper. Journalism, as they say, is the first draft of history, so naturally mistakes will be made. But this book documents so many errors and outright lies it makes you wonder what has happened to journalism.
The chapters are a historical tour of the NYT reporting from Hitler’s Germany and the Holocaust; Stalin’s Soviet Union and its famines; Fidel Castro’s Cuba (it’s said the NYT got him his job due to its misleading reporting regarding his “revolution”); The Vietnam War; The Bombing of Japan; The Middle East; all the way to the 1619 Project. There’s a lot here, some of which is infuriating, especially when Rindsberg compares the NYT reporting with other journalist’s reporting from the same location. It’s fair and balanced look at the facts, and although I’m sure some devoted readers of the NYT will not agree with everything, I believe the weight of the evidence is compelling. If you’re interested in journalism, and history, you’ll enjoy this read, even if you don’t agree with everything in it. Rindsberg might not have uncovered the whole truth, but this book moves us closer to it.
The chapters are a historical tour of the NYT reporting from Hitler’s Germany and the Holocaust; Stalin’s Soviet Union and its famines; Fidel Castro’s Cuba (it’s said the NYT got him his job due to its misleading reporting regarding his “revolution”); The Vietnam War; The Bombing of Japan; The Middle East; all the way to the 1619 Project. There’s a lot here, some of which is infuriating, especially when Rindsberg compares the NYT reporting with other journalist’s reporting from the same location. It’s fair and balanced look at the facts, and although I’m sure some devoted readers of the NYT will not agree with everything, I believe the weight of the evidence is compelling. If you’re interested in journalism, and history, you’ll enjoy this read, even if you don’t agree with everything in it. Rindsberg might not have uncovered the whole truth, but this book moves us closer to it.
January 6, 2022
This will destroy any remnants of faith you may have had in the press.
5 stars for importance, 3 stars for editing and organization.
You won't find this one on the New York Times bestseller list! It's a whistleblower account of blatant bias (inexcusable in any newspaper, let alone America's supposed "flagship newspaper") and worse, deliberate deception passed off as truth by respected reporters who should know better. The negligence of the organization's management in printing this stuff likely cost millions of lives, including Jews in World War II and American troops and Vietnamese and Iraqi civilians in those respective wars. The NYT also supported Castro to the detriment of Cubans' freedom.
And we thought fake news was a new thing.
5 stars for importance, 3 stars for editing and organization.
You won't find this one on the New York Times bestseller list! It's a whistleblower account of blatant bias (inexcusable in any newspaper, let alone America's supposed "flagship newspaper") and worse, deliberate deception passed off as truth by respected reporters who should know better. The negligence of the organization's management in printing this stuff likely cost millions of lives, including Jews in World War II and American troops and Vietnamese and Iraqi civilians in those respective wars. The NYT also supported Castro to the detriment of Cubans' freedom.
And we thought fake news was a new thing.
June 30, 2022
Un libro con intenciones interesantes, un "debunking" de un medio de comunicación ampliamente afamado. Sin embargo, suena como una larga queja que apunta con precisión a los errores cometidos por la institución. Es un útil compilado de casos sobre fracasos en el periodismo de The New York Times que incluso explica las consecuencias que la desinformación causaron, pero es tedioso para la lectura y en más de una ocasión el enfoque está en el recelo del autor frente al medio.
January 15, 2023
So interesting! A must read for anyone who blindly trusts news articles just because they come from these established newspaper companies (I was one of these people!). It's horrific to discover the blatant misconduct of NYT's leaders, editors, and biggest reporters, especially while they're reporting on critical events and have such widespread influence.
March 2, 2022
Never believe the New York Times.
Well documented, original sources, devastating evidence of the complicity of the Times with the worst atrocities of the 20th century. And still lying today.
Well documented, original sources, devastating evidence of the complicity of the Times with the worst atrocities of the 20th century. And still lying today.
March 11, 2023
A stomach-churning account of the century of failures of journalism and the implosion of credibility of The NY Times.
February 11, 2022
These stories:
"Second World War – Holocaust – Rise of the Soviet Union – Cuban Revolution – Vietnam War – Second Palestinian Intifada – Atomic Bombing of Japan – Iraq War – Founding of America" all exhibited just how wrong "the Gray Lady" can be in her reporting of "all the news that's fit to print." Rindsberg has, indeed, pulled back the curtain and shown us some of the truly muddled (and worse) reporting that has been a relatively regular feature of what many would like to believe is a venerable news institution.
One could try to make the case that the NYT is a big organization and any such entity will at times be bound to get a few things wrong. I can no longer accept this argument as some of these stories went on for long periods of time and corrections have been exceedingly hard to drag out of the organization or are still denied as problematic. Reader (of the NYT) beware.
"Second World War – Holocaust – Rise of the Soviet Union – Cuban Revolution – Vietnam War – Second Palestinian Intifada – Atomic Bombing of Japan – Iraq War – Founding of America" all exhibited just how wrong "the Gray Lady" can be in her reporting of "all the news that's fit to print." Rindsberg has, indeed, pulled back the curtain and shown us some of the truly muddled (and worse) reporting that has been a relatively regular feature of what many would like to believe is a venerable news institution.
One could try to make the case that the NYT is a big organization and any such entity will at times be bound to get a few things wrong. I can no longer accept this argument as some of these stories went on for long periods of time and corrections have been exceedingly hard to drag out of the organization or are still denied as problematic. Reader (of the NYT) beware.
November 11, 2022
Interesting story on how New York Times journalism have some really bad skeletons in the closet based on their influence!
The audio book has some bad editing in it and strange volume control. That is why I gave it 3. The content is interesting enough to be 5
The audio book has some bad editing in it and strange volume control. That is why I gave it 3. The content is interesting enough to be 5
November 15, 2022
Legacy media sucks and has always sucked. But there are alternatives nowadays. Smart people stay informed via Substack, Twitter and my WhatsApp status.
February 15, 2022
Important book. Long overdue. The idea that certain powerful institutions like The NY Times should not get a pass in terms of scrutiny re their core competence and function in society is so important. The NYT has too long been an unquestioned truth teller so many look up to at the pulpit each day each week. As consumers, we should wonder what journalistic shortcuts or errors have influenced our understanding of the world and also we should understand what (if anything) systems are in place to ensure corrections occur when needed.
The examples of journalistic issues - ranging from unintentional benign errors that result in huge consequences and uglier, lazy or fraudulent reporting given in this book are well-documented and recounted. All examples have had clear implications in global dynamics and public opinion - now that we can look backwards and see how history has played out. I seriously think these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. As a reader I don’t care about misspellings or grammatical corrections - I care about the rigor in fact finding and truth telling. This book has increased my mistrust in the paper even though I am a liberal New Yorker.
Some conclusions made re the implications of errors are softly tossed out as obvious and not as well justified / documented as each initial example of misreporting. Some of the jumps may not be as obvious or clearly meaningful to the reader as to the author.
While it doesn’t take away from the primary point and purpose of the book, it makes me realize that the author’s own biases and personal interests are not really woven in the writing beyond the introductory forward explaining the book out his career at risk due to the industry power the NYTimes holds. I want to know why the author focuses on this one paper. Why he personally picked each example (when I’m sure there were many to choose from) and whether any of the original players from any of the examples incidents had any comment re his scrutiny. What do any of these people say about their past decisions now? Especially those who no longer work at the paper or in the industry. What does their hindsight 20-20 sound like now? I’d love to see a follow up with these additional layers to further understanding on this important topic.
The examples of journalistic issues - ranging from unintentional benign errors that result in huge consequences and uglier, lazy or fraudulent reporting given in this book are well-documented and recounted. All examples have had clear implications in global dynamics and public opinion - now that we can look backwards and see how history has played out. I seriously think these examples are just the tip of the iceberg. As a reader I don’t care about misspellings or grammatical corrections - I care about the rigor in fact finding and truth telling. This book has increased my mistrust in the paper even though I am a liberal New Yorker.
Some conclusions made re the implications of errors are softly tossed out as obvious and not as well justified / documented as each initial example of misreporting. Some of the jumps may not be as obvious or clearly meaningful to the reader as to the author.
While it doesn’t take away from the primary point and purpose of the book, it makes me realize that the author’s own biases and personal interests are not really woven in the writing beyond the introductory forward explaining the book out his career at risk due to the industry power the NYTimes holds. I want to know why the author focuses on this one paper. Why he personally picked each example (when I’m sure there were many to choose from) and whether any of the original players from any of the examples incidents had any comment re his scrutiny. What do any of these people say about their past decisions now? Especially those who no longer work at the paper or in the industry. What does their hindsight 20-20 sound like now? I’d love to see a follow up with these additional layers to further understanding on this important topic.
June 5, 2023
why I Don’t Subscribe to The NYT Anymore
As a former subscriber to the NYT I read this book with interest. Little did I know about other suspect reporting from the “paper of record.” I knew about Duranty and his awful subservience to the Communists and his own publisher however, other “stories” related here shed new light on NYT coverage of more recent events. The last chapter was something I’ve been living through, today! I would agree with Mr. Rindsberg analysis on that score. I now get news from the the internet, papers dealing with a more local issue and sources more reliable than outfits with an agenda. Highly recommend to anyone that reads a newspaper anymore. Solid job, Mr. Rindsberg.
As a former subscriber to the NYT I read this book with interest. Little did I know about other suspect reporting from the “paper of record.” I knew about Duranty and his awful subservience to the Communists and his own publisher however, other “stories” related here shed new light on NYT coverage of more recent events. The last chapter was something I’ve been living through, today! I would agree with Mr. Rindsberg analysis on that score. I now get news from the the internet, papers dealing with a more local issue and sources more reliable than outfits with an agenda. Highly recommend to anyone that reads a newspaper anymore. Solid job, Mr. Rindsberg.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 78 reviews