Vin - I grew up in home that had a subscription (paper on the doorstep) and viewed the NYT as almost godlike (from a credibility and elite/intellectual perspective). I was a loyal NYT reader for over 40 years. But it seemed that almost every time I read a story that I had expertise and direct knowledge of, I found problems, from minor to major, and these were not on foreign policy stories. Still, that did not shake my confidence in the paper, I assumed (mistakenly) that the errors were due to a reporter's lack of knowledge, laziness, or just honest mistakes in getting spun by sources. I maintained my subscription.
I was far more skeptical of the foreign policy coverage and always read it through an ideological lens.
My "awakening" came with the Iraq/WMD coverage - after which I cancelled my subscription and would only sometimes lurk and submit critical reader comments.
Still, I am disgusted even more by the Ukraine coverage, which set to tone for the Genocide propaganda.
Bill, since my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, my experience is not all that different from yours in terms of the Iraq/WMD fiasco representing a turning point, although I'd have never characterized myself as a loyal reader once I got out of grad school. And I still periodically glance at the online version because there's often interesting cultural stuff worth a read. But since Iraq, I tend to approach the "gray lady" already informed by more reliable sources, hence it's almost a game of seeing how aghast I can be by how much the Times can distort reporting, or in Max Blumenthal's vernacular, how much journalistic malpractice I can accuse them of. Pretty sad.
I'm pretty much in the same boat now, but when I left grad school, I had shaken off the loyal reader posture (Ivy grad school replaced my working class intellectual elite identity and confidence needs) but I was very, very, very narrowly focused on my work.
Vin - I grew up in home that had a subscription (paper on the doorstep) and viewed the NYT as almost godlike (from a credibility and elite/intellectual perspective). I was a loyal NYT reader for over 40 years. But it seemed that almost every time I read a story that I had expertise and direct knowledge of, I found problems, from minor to major, and these were not on foreign policy stories. Still, that did not shake my confidence in the paper, I assumed (mistakenly) that the errors were due to a reporter's lack of knowledge, laziness, or just honest mistakes in getting spun by sources. I maintained my subscription.
I was far more skeptical of the foreign policy coverage and always read it through an ideological lens.
My "awakening" came with the Iraq/WMD coverage - after which I cancelled my subscription and would only sometimes lurk and submit critical reader comments.
Still, I am disgusted even more by the Ukraine coverage, which set to tone for the Genocide propaganda.
Bill, since my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, my experience is not all that different from yours in terms of the Iraq/WMD fiasco representing a turning point, although I'd have never characterized myself as a loyal reader once I got out of grad school. And I still periodically glance at the online version because there's often interesting cultural stuff worth a read. But since Iraq, I tend to approach the "gray lady" already informed by more reliable sources, hence it's almost a game of seeing how aghast I can be by how much the Times can distort reporting, or in Max Blumenthal's vernacular, how much journalistic malpractice I can accuse them of. Pretty sad.
I'm pretty much in the same boat now, but when I left grad school, I had shaken off the loyal reader posture (Ivy grad school replaced my working class intellectual elite identity and confidence needs) but I was very, very, very narrowly focused on my work.
The parallels in our experiences seem fairly robust.
I had a similar experience
Bill, you are the man— sorry to collapse to old signage.. I really like what you’ve got to say