We'll miss Bedbug Bret writing whiny op-eds about how people aren't allowed to be mean to him on Twitter and how those tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians deserved to die
A harrowing piece on the democracy-threatening trend of campus protests? A curious and thoughtful interview with an anti-trans activist? A 3D infographic about tunnels that israel uses as justification to bomb a school or hospital?
Pravda has been out of print since 1991. So, while I get your sentiment, it's probably good to acknowledge that propaganda has gotten a bit more... subtle in the meantime?
Aside from never, ever, ever using the NYT for elections after "the needle" debacle in 2016, I have been utterly unimpressed with the NYT more broadly. Their average, day-to-day journalism--and especially their political journalism--has been little better than gossip at best and actively hostile to healthy democracy at worst. To the extent they were ever anything special and not simply the beneficiary of huge market bias, they lost that years ago.
8pm - Hillary shows as having a 99% chance of winning the presidential election.
9pm - Hillary has a 0% chance of winning.
Turning rapidly changing and imprecisely known information into a widget was just one of their astonishing number of problems, but, more than anything, it symbolized to me their absolute arrogance that they were the source of societal trends rather than merely teasing out hints from incomplete data like any other peon.
I was hoping this would be an analysis of exactly what would happen and how NYT would handle it, but it's not. It's very one-sided of what the union claims will happen. I'm much more curious about the what the NYT has planned just in case.
I'd like to know how that impacts their reporting strategy and what their contingency plan is for it. I'm also curious if they've considered hiring outside or international assistance to fill the gaps; not sure the NLRB considerations but easier to ask forgiveness than permission? Have they considered riding it out and seeing what happens?
I'm just curious of the inside thinking of management with how to deal with this unique situation.
On a technical side NYT certainly haven't considered "riding it out" but instead boring, predictable contingency and fallback. The TechGuild union membership is not mandatory (neither is striking). Hiring strikebreakers in NYC is illegal.
To plays devils advocate a little, what happens if the union does strike and the NYT carries on like or mostly-like normal? That could show the weakness of the strike.
I mean, that goes both ways. The union doesn't see a point to negotiating with a brick wall, either, and a strike is intended to generate leverage to push negotiations forwards. That's how the whole system works.
> “Currently in management’s counter, they have proposed a one-percent general wage increase,” said Svorcan-Merola, who pointed out that publisher Sulzberger’s total compensation increased by more than 50 percent in 2023, per publicly available records. “So we think [one percent] is a little bit low.”
Continue to employ them, force them to strike on the "biggest night of the year for your company" (i'm thinking do some pay cuts or something more) - then let the striking workers watch on as nobody cares and realise that you no longer have any bargaining power.
“The second issue is return-to-office policies. Though Times management has told the bargaining unit that it has no plans to change the current hybrid-work model, Goran Svorcan-Merola, a software engineer who is on the Tech Guild’s bargaining committee, said that management wants to reserve the right to eventually have tech employees in the office five days a week. “It’s not the standard around the tech industry,” he said.”
More of this RTO bullshit from upper management? For a tech team?! Ugh. Solidarity with the Tech Guild.
ITT: A bunch of techies who would never have the guts to unionize running down their colleagues who did for flexing their leverage over their employer.
Even if every single news site went down on election night, it would be fine. People aren't gonna die if they don't find out who won the election until the next day or even the next week.
The results of this election will not be knowable the night of the election anyway. There are way too many people currently preparing too many different ways to challenge the results regardless of what actually happens.
Finding out the winner on election night is really just a modern illusion. Media "calls" have zero legal weight, and they rely on predictable geographical voting patterns and large enough win margins to build confidence on the outcome before all the unofficial tallies are in. That's way more difficult these days.
The fastest state to certify actual official results takes 2 or 3 days (Delaware), and most states are closer to 2 or 3 weeks.
Harris doesn't need to "attempt it", she somehow became the Democratic choice without a single vote for her, replacing the man who said it'd be ridiculous after all the millions of votes he got
...which says that it's based on reputation. I presume the previous poster's opinion is that the NYT is no longer deserving of that reputation. It's weird that you asked for a citation of their opinion.
It really wasn't. It wasn't difficult for anyone to get past their cheerleading for the Iraq War other than Judith Miller, who (for her service) was given a fake job at a fake conservative paper for a time that I'm sure paid her enough to retire comfortably. The Cheneys and Bushes are media and political darlings. No one paid a price for going with the herd, and doing what the administration demanded.
It was and is difficult for people who failed to cheer on the Iraq War.
The NYT has always been on the administration's side when asked, and "corrects" the record about 5 years after it could make a difference for anyone. Everyone involved gets cush editor-in-chief jobs at "liberal" magazines, or professorships at quarter-million dollar J-schools.
Given the disinformation campaign that will take place (at the very least from russian bots flooding social media), I would much prefer all sources of information be fully available throughout the election. Of course this is their highest leverage moment, but it is also critical for the future of the country (at the very least). It is somewhat akin to ambulance drivers choosing to go on strike on Memorial day weekend. I am not a fan of the tactic, since they could strike any other time and get the same thing, perhaps striking 2 days more than they would have to at this time.
Big Media thought-pieces on how Big Media is important, and/or over, and/or somehow indifferent are... over?
reply