8
429

[–] SybilVimes 8 points 429 points (+437|-8) ago 

Because the idea of her being outed for sexism sold more papers and incited more outrage than the idea that she was a poor leader. The feminist SJW were able to point to her as a shining example of oppression towards women. And now? Now she is a shining example of reasons to avoid hiring women altogether. To hell with Pao and the SJWs that set women back decades.

3
241

[–] EndDrugAndOtherWars 3 points 241 points (+244|-3) ago 

Unfortunately it's not just women they have set back decades. Feminism and SJWism has reversed societal progress, straight up.

2
129

[–] BoiseNTheHood 2 points 129 points (+131|-2) ago 

Pretty much. Jim Crow is being rebranded as "safe spaces." Separate spheres is now known as "fighting the patriarchy."

5
37

[–] NotAnUndercoverCop 5 points 37 points (+42|-5) ago 

It makes me so happy to see that this comment doesn't have a single down voat. Could you imagine the down votes that this comment would have in their "safe space"? Fucking thousands!

0
6

[–] opinionatedduck 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

The stupid minority are so loud and aggressive that's why :((

0
5

[–] CatNamedJava 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The attitude that sjw takes makes a hostile relationship between class/race. A old white guy is going to become defenseive when confront with the aggression rather than cooperative with the unitity that used to used

1
125

[–] KoKansei 1 points 125 points (+126|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Bingo. People fail to realize how much the SJW cancer is about money and eyeballs. The SJW demographic of useful idiots eat this shit up and are notoriously easy to exploit for profit. Pandering to them is profitable, so the truth be damned, I guess.

Shame on the NY Times. How far they have fallen.

0
63

[–] Proppa 0 points 63 points (+63|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Add the guardian to that list. Warning, if you know the shit that happened with Tim Hunt and why he was fired, this "satirical article" written by an SJW is going to piss you the fuck off

And then, in response to someone pointing out the hypocrisy of destroying someone's entire life over a joke and then making those same jokes...an SJW said this in the comments.

Astonishing how even the most clear satire can totally skip over peoples' heads.

I just....I think I don't want to live on this planet anymore. These people are just so god damn fucking stupid. I seriously just don't know what else to say.

1
10

[–] derram 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Pandering to them is profitable

Depends on the market, really.

They're pretty good at funding paterons but they don't buy video games for shit.

0
2

[–] CatNamedJava 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Plus sjw people love of tweeting and posting links help spread the article axross social networks. Also if you don't know much about the audiences it is easy to get a bias view by the sheer volume of those groups

0
2

[–] Porom 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Keeps us arguing about shit that does not and has never mattered in the grand scheme of our society.

0
5

[–] Foobarbaz 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

SJWs that set women back decades.

This is what people don't get.

Allow me an example you might hear from the 70's:

Give me a chance. I can do anything a man can do.

Now look at what Pao did

Men are generally better at negotiating so we're not going to negotiate.

She essentially said women are inferior. Tell me how that's NOW a step backwards for women. The SJW's want claim to want "fairness" but in this instance they want laziness. And, let's be honest here, without negotiations and company-wide disclosure of pay -- you are going to make less than you could have.

I call the 70's feminists of the modern day feminazi's taken from Rush Limbaugh. They lack balance and tact. They have anger and spew vitriol from their mouth. They are trying to push women's goals by lowering men instead of raising themselves.

This is bad for everyone. Not just women and not just men -- both genders lose because of that.

0
4

[–] SybilVimes 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

This is what pisses me off every time I read about a feminist bitching about "stare rape", "mansplaining", or "safe spaces". I am not a delicate hothouse flower that needs to be protected from the world and any hint of disention. Modern feminists seem to be pushing towards Victorian levels of "protection".

0
1

[–] altered 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I've heard this explanation a lot but I don't know if I buy it. If it was about selling papers, why wouldn't there be just as many outrageous stories which happened to be against SJW ideology?

0
1

[–] SybilVimes 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think that a good portion of it is intimidation. Being labeled negatively (sexism, racism) can have a huge impact on journalists. We've seen how quickly SJWs can turn on anyone that they disagree with.

0
1

[–] Imapopulistnow 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Absolutely correct. It really has nothing to do with clicks and everything to do with the type of people who enter journalism in the first placed coupled with a cosmopolitan progressive culture that encourages it. The NYT clearly lost a good number of readers over this thing.

3
234

[–] In_Cog_Nito 3 points 234 points (+237|-3) ago 

I often hear from readers that they would prefer a straight, neutral treatment — just the facts. But The Times has moved away from that, reflecting editors’ reasonable belief that the basics can be found in many news outlets, every minute of the day. They want to provide “value-added” coverage.

There it is folks, straight from the horses mouth. NYT is basically no different from Gawker now.

0
137

[–] DeeBased 0 points 137 points (+137|-0) ago  (edited ago)

As a person with a Journalism degree and who worked as a professional Journalist and was president of my college chapter of The Society of Professional Journalists, this sickens me. They're admitting they're biased and claiming it as a virtue!

Also, I was one of the people who wrote into the Times to correct the mistaken impression redditors' hated Pao because of sexism.

1
22

[–] In_Cog_Nito 1 points 22 points (+23|-1) ago 

Sadly, that's what sells these days...

0
15

[–] JoshMcinJosh 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

It seems more and more that journalists with your ideals are a scarce rarity. I have no hope for journalism these days.

0
2

[–] spacedanspliff 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

can we start calling them tabloids now?

0
2

[–] sneakybells 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They need the viewership and everyday it's getting harder. People are scrambling to find ways to monetize their content, one of the most atrocious attempts being native advertising and these are huge outlets doing this.

I don't know what's going to happen in the future but I think we're going through a tectonic shift in the world of journalism and a lot of these major bloated newspapers are going to need to slim down.

It really bums me out because I wanted to be a journalist. I thought it was an honorable profession. The fact is I think it's a dying industry.

0
19

[–] PotatoFarm 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Objectivity died in Journalism some time ago, all it left behind is its ugly, challenged "transparency" cousin in charge... sadly for these "journalists" such painfully low bar is still too much.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] kanjiwatanabe 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is absolutely the necessary take-away from this article. The Times public editor has gone on record saying that they no longer strive to be a reliable unbiased source of the news. They are a Daily Mail aspirant, hoping that by being as loud a voice as possible in the echo chamber, they will draw enough patrons to remain viable. It's a pragmatic buy cynical strategy. The Gray Lady has resorted to Botox, and we are all worse off for it.

0
3

[–] CatNamedJava 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The economist is a "value added " coverage paper that does a good job. They try to present thier viewpoint clearly and they have principles that the paper, not the author, stick too. So it is consistent.

3
95

[–] BoiseNTheHood 3 points 95 points (+98|-3) ago 

Are they going to address how they sold their endorsement to Hillary in 2008 next, or just keep pretending it never happened? The New York Slimes lost all credibility a long time ago, and a half-assed apology over one article doesn't change anything.

0
37

[–] EndDrugAndOtherWars 0 points 37 points (+37|-0) ago 

There really are no news sources that I trust, sadly. Some for some things, some for others. Really you have to read a bunch of sources and try to parse together bits of each and try to sort out the truth. But nobody has time for that, unless it's your job.

0
26

[–] markh110 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

Somebody should parse through all the bits of information of stories to work out the truth, and then publish their findings as... what do you call it... a news article?

0
1

[–] Imapopulistnow 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Some are trying to be objective such as CBS, BBC, CNN. Not that they always succeed and bias creep always is there, but they are not all over the top like the NYT and The Guardian.

0
25

[–] ItsThatCanadian 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

As someone about to enter the Journalism/Photojournalism work force in two years, it baffles me the credibility decline in all the once big name news sources. Nothing is sacred anymore, the more and more click bait style headlines I see from major news companies, the more fearful I grow for wanting to pursue my dream :(

0
16

[–] ObiWannaBlowMe 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

Be the change you wish to see.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Apex211 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I hope you chose to pursue it, if only to know there is someone out there trying. Your first challenge will be to find an outlet that will allow you to pursue truth in it's entirety. Maybe VICE? You may have to take something a little more obscure to find that, but when you do. Stick with it and remind us you are there and you are making it happen. A lot of people here and even outside this site will support fresh truth. Good luck!

0
1

[–] ellenpaohate1 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I was getting my degree in journalism in 2000 at the same time as the rise of Fox News and the Supreme Court appointing George Bush as president. I left, and I do not regret the decision. The major news companies have been tainted ever since Rupert Murdoch crossed the pond in a big way.

0
1

[–] mcseanerson 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Was there an apology somewhere? I must have missed that. This was the closest thing I saw to one.

In general, I think that The Times handles breaking news well, and I see no reason to flag readers about most online changes.

0
0

[–] unsweetenedsoymilk 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

She kinda looks Emperor Palpatine-y in that picture.

0
40

[–] Shrikeker 0 points 40 points (+40|-0) ago 

Anyone remember when The NYT was a good, reliable source of information? I miss those days. I can see the appeal of opinion pieces, but I want at least one place I can get just the straight facts as they are available. Anyone know a good place for that?

5
15

[–] LamiaMiia 5 points 15 points (+20|-5) ago 

BBC is my go-to. They've been nothing but reliable in every article I've seen published by them.

0
20

[–] Airbreather 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

except the ones on immigration and their hit jobs on Nigel Farage

0
6

[–] InsectGuy 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

In what context? As they are still extremely biased in what they report as well as favouring sides in political matters.

The BBC in general, as well as BBC Scotland are both extremely biased against both pro-Independence and SNP groups that on sheer volume of coverage both those groups are unrepresented, in addition to the spin placed on many stories to tarnish both groups.

0
1

[–] Shrikeker 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thanks, I'll check them out!

0
0

[–] RedSocks157 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Except for the idiotic PC people who fired Jeremy Clarkson, who are slowly taking over the rest of the org.

0
12

[–] something_went_wrong 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Weren't they vital in helping expose Watergate and the Pentagon Papers to the American public? My how the mighty have fallen.

0
6

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

The Pentagon Papers story was NYT. Watergate was the Washington Post (Woodward and Bernstein).

0
1

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

To be honest, no I do not remember that. You'd have to go back to 50s. They've been biased and only mildly reliable as long as I can remember which admittedly only stretches into the 80s as I did not read a lot of newspapers before reaching adulthood.

0
1

[–] namealreadytaken 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You have to look back more than 20 years ago to find a time when the NYT was credible. In my view, their most spectacular failure began on 9/11 and the War on Terror when the entire media and country was in denial & busy deep throating the neo cons and chickenhawks to prove their patriotism.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 30 points (+30|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] Balrogic 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

We'll have to tell the libraries to move their articles into the fiction section.

0
26

[–] Lodley 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

Archive link

0
4

[–] something_went_wrong 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Thanks. Hard to believe archiving news articles is even necessary...

0
0

[–] Tipman79 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's almost meta that the author in question is basically explaining in the archived article, WHY it's necessary.

0
3

[–] OhBlindOne [S] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Thanks for this!

0
1

[–] Eutropius 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thanks.

Avoids clicking through to their website, and provides a snapshot in case things change again.

0
24

[–] something_went_wrong 0 points 24 points (+24|-0) ago 

Too late. Damage done.

0
21

[–] Lullabyt 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago 

I don't feel like journalists should be making these mistakes still. Actually, it wasn't a mistake. It was a calculated article to frame the narrative immediately. They can always go back and rectify it in an editorial later, but the article's intent was already carried out.

load more comments ▼ (58 remaining)