Why the New York Times Gets it Wrong

"No journalist goes to work expecting to create reporting errors"? Maybe you haven't seen Breitbart.

The New York Times has no intention to hire Veterans, Conservatives, Republicans, Christians, Jews or any other group that does not fit their brainwashing and political narrative. So much for neutral and factual news. 7 more years of Adam Schiff claiming he has proof on Russia Collusion and getting daily interviews about it daily anyone?

You put a lot of faith in people who are trying to get clicks for revenue and rarely post a retraction. This sort of thing is intentional in the media.

The New York Times gets almost everything it covers materially wrong from the perspective of an expert on that topic. But they do a reasonable job of informing the average college educated reader.

Almost anyone who is an expert on anything can prove this to themselves by reading a dozen articles on their subject of expertise and highlighting all the howlers.

We should remember this whenever we read something outside of our area of expertise. It's just a newspaper, and its reporters aren't magic.

I think a fundamental problem is what the role of a journalist is supposed to be. By all accounts, the NY Times probably did their diligence by getting multiple sources on the blast. In the fullness of time, we can determine if the sources were correct. In this case, no, they were incorrect - but that doesn't invalidate the reporting, as long as there were multiple sources. Reporters "report;" it's the job of others to analyze the sources and the actual facts. I think many outlets, including the NY Times do just that. I can't tell you how many times I've screamed to the TV for a reporter to fact-check a politician in the moment.
I certainly agree that media outlets should have more staff with real-world experience, but then again, this is yet another opportunity for detractors to claim media bias.
Granted, every media outlet has a bias - this is them tailoring their product to their market. They're going where the money is. However, I don't think that makes them less trustworthy. Doing the same kind of analysis as you did for the bombing, it doesn't really makes sense for a news outlet to get it wrong (speaking only of "news" and not "punditry"). Even outlets that skew far left or far right are not necessarily wrong in their facts, just in their interpretation of them - and interpretation is not "reporting."
That said, I really like your channel. You are actually the topical expert you see lacking in media outlets.

29 out of 8700!?! I’m surprised there’s that many…

Why does the new york times get military topics wrong?
Because they have an agenda. America is bad.
You don't need to watch twenty minute video.

Former journalist. Military is not a generator of income. IMO

You went to extreme efforts to give them the benefit of the doubt when a simple check of Ground News is available. News survives off of ad revenue, and that comes from eyeballs. As long as that's true, the surest bet for any news organization is to hype the drama at the expense of the truth, and to hype it in a way that appeals to their audience.

Critical thinking goes out the window when you are emotionally involved. :/

USAF vet here. Thank you for calling attention to this issue as well as the oped regarding war and the fight to retain our humanity during inevitable conflict.

I have a problem with casually figures coming out of the war in Gaza as we have no independent confirmation from either side were told that figures come from the Palestinian authorities any figures coming from there must be considered inaccurate, the same from Israeli sources both have reason to give inaccurate numbers.

NYTimes lies

I don't trust a DAMN THING the NYT says

Thanks!

IMO...Everyone knows the NYT is told by Soros when to go poop and how much. Was great but now In failing health. NYT evolved into a declining yellow rag with absolutly zero readablity due to missing journalistic integrity. On the plus side it's great for the cat to pee on.

The current NY Times is almost completely unrecognizable from the NYT of even the World War II era much as far back as the First World War or the American Civil War. Ever since those this paper has touted it's history as a reason to trust them.
Based on the kinds of stories we've been seeing from the NYT since 2016. It's very clear that this source has lost it's way. They are no longer even close to balanced source of information.
You cannot turn them when looking for an objective story on just about anything. The Times prides itself on its left learning stories. Which I think should disqualify them from calling themselves a source of news. If you obfuscate stories to match your political philosophy you are not a news source. You are propagandists.

Archer is better with the french dubbed voices

Thanks!

Ryan, it’s not just the NYT. I was a journalism major, 1985-1989, and my professors would have kittens if you got the make of a car in a crash wrong in a story, and wax profound about how such a thing could besmirch the manufacturer, and various other potential malign effects. I had the temerity to call out a story that misidentified a military aircraft in a crash (F-14, when it was really an F-15) as equally egregious and got blank looks, or dismissive remarks that “more people own Toyotas than fly those planes,” or “no one cares”. This completely ignored that those small numbers of fliers had large numbers of family members and fellow Service members very invested in the accuracy of such stories!

Most of my professors spent their professionally formative years reporting on Vietnam and Watergate and they held a uniform political and social point of view. These were the people training journalists at one of the most prestigious journalism schools.

Understand, I am sympathetic to much of their social point of view, although I’m fiscally conservative, but I was also a member of the Service. I commissioned and I never went into journalism, even upon leaving the Service, because I knew I wasn’t welcome there. You have nailed part of the problem on the head: lack of service personnel in reporting, but the root of the problem is an anti-service bias grounded in an extreme form of so-called “liberalism” that comes with a baked-in assumption that everything said by the Services or the Government is a lie and a cover-up.

This is not to say that both institutions have not earned their lumps, but baked-in hostility has also provoked a counter reaction that assumes every reporter is muck-racking scum out to make mountains of molehills and win a Pulitzer whether what they publish is true or not. And that lump is earned as well. What has been lost on both sides is any sense of perspective. Throw in the sell-out of news organizations to profit-demanding corporate masters looking only to increase profit and there is no incentive to cultivate specialized reporters, even if they were welcome with their editors.

So yes, the “main-stream media” are a mess…but too large of a proportion of alternative media is outright bought, malicious, unethical, automated, duped by maskirovka and/or incompetent. But none of this is new…it has been an observable downhill slide since at least 1989…but probably 1975. Vietnam and Watergate went to the media’s collective head and treating every authority figure as an assumed enemy…effectively made them enemies. It is one thing to question authority (an appropriate activity) it is another to assume it guilty until proven innocent (an unethical approach). That inversion of jurisprudence has also eroded the media’s repute with the public.

Well done airing this important issue, Ryan. Keep up the good analysis work.

I'm for hiring move veterans, but God just put a little effort into investigating the subject your writing about, I blame our higher education institutions for making college campuses a place where it's cool to bash America.

Your mistake is thinking the NYT sees their job as to report the factual news. The journalists see their job as to guide public opinion towards their far left agendas. It wasnt a mistake, but part of their process.

I think all your points are good, Ryan. As a vet from the 1970s who follows the military regularly, I think I would've caught that error on the M4. I do have one disagreement, though: The NYT has not been left-leaning for a long time. Their articles frequently give conservatives the benefit of the doubt while lambasting Democrats at every opportunity. Latest case in point: the Times calling for Biden to give up his campaign because of a bad debate performance, but never calling on Trump to step down when he was convicted of 34 felonies. An earlier case: but her emails, while glossing over grab 'em by the...

A little study of the late 60’s and early 70’s history might shed a clue as to why a veteran might not be on the staff of the NYT. This does not diminish your point, however.

Thanks!

It's not about keeping the message honest. It's about pushing a 'message'.

Excellent critique.

NYT has an agenda. They're fake news.

Dude, that German pilot literally got up in the morning with a thought of crashing his plane.

Some veterans are not journalists but rather propagandists or even shills for the military-industrial complex.

New York Times does not lean left. They are a service for the business community.

Any military journalist. ?? CNN does have military experts regularly responding. It’s who owns the media. Always a smart way begin to start

Nyt is a propaganda paper 😂

Let’s talk about how the NYT made up the story of mass rape used as a weapon of war etc.

They get most of the big things wrong

Silly ryan. gun goes bang. bomb goes boom. Man in helicopter bad guy. Man in mountainside good guy. Im pretty sure ive passed the NYT millitary credentials criteria to write

I dunno, complaining about "inaccuracies" in the same video as stating Newsmax "tends to lean right" is pretty on the nose.

Also the activism influenced reporters.

While i do generally agree with your point - i think there are some flaws in your logic.
1. The nyt or any other major outlets that cover the world have, - and need to have - local reporters, photojournalists, producers etc. filtering military knowledge as only being a veteran of the US army is quite weird when talking about a conflict that does not involve the US army.
2. serving in the US army or in the IDF won't give you any knowledge about the inner workings of terrorist organizations unless you served in specific units.
3. The problem that underlays those mistakes is the rise of "copy & paste" journalists, who seat in a newsroom and just quote claims and reports from other sources.

Ryan your the best!

I do disagree, I think c.N.N puts a good effort in the just making shit up

The problem is not lack of knowledge, but rather tailoring the news to fit the editorial line. Once upon a time the Times did "all the news that's fit to print" now it prints the news that fits.

For broadcast news a better place to check for veteran contributors would be to look at producers rather then on air “reporters”

For broadcast news a better place to check for veteran contributors would be to look at producers rather then on air “reporters”
Another area of broadcast journalism to look for veterans is the writing staff, most on air reporters just read copy written by someone else.

It is simpler than lack of vets. They have proven to be anti-Israel. Simple as that.

From your lips to the ears of the nyc times.

You assume this isn’t part of the agenda

ryan the zionist supporter wow tic toq yesterday and pushed only the china game..... to funny but its all about isreal brother and that narrative they lost to who the new york times come on isreal lost narrative with 40 dead babies brother all your defelection on research please find them 40 babies for them zionists so far i found one anyways get back on ukraine support