i mean aiui compared to most mainstream media the nytimes has a pretty topdown driven culture where they decide what they ~editorial line is and search for stories about it
this is known fact about the nytimes?
---
RT @mattyglesias
Am open letter demanding that you stop covering a subject is pretty anti-persuasive.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1625962816627740673
this is of course different from the claim that they are unusually unscrupulous about reporting true things
eg see this thread
---
RT @KelseyTuoc
People might think Matt is overstating this but I literally heard it from NYT reporters at the time. There was a top-down decision that tech could not be covered positively, even when there was a true, newsworthy and positive story. I'd never heard anything like it. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1588190763413868553
https://twitter.com/KelseyTuoc/status/1588231892792328192
in general this feels less like a "we interviewed people involved who were randomly selected to give a good picture of what this looks like" kind of line and more of a "we must take a Centrist Even-Handed Approach" kind of line
(i think people who do the "we interviewed randomly selected people in an attempt to work out what is going on" thing probably get slightly too much shit though)
generally very annoying when the overton window on this stuff is the result of a bunch of chinese whispers rather than talking to boots-on-the-ground folk
tbh this seems like an enormous improvement on the previous method of complaining about media bias which was "i will quit this newspaper and urge no trans person to talk to you so you can't write positive pieces even if you wanted to"
that seemed ... counterproductive
even if it's against newspaper policy you run into the "so fire me, i am sure that will give you a reputation for being very free speech" problem