Reply to DEI at Michigan--NYT article

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "DEI at Michigan--NYT article"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]It seems telling that the critique of the work done by an NYT investigative reporter largely centers on his reference to the Heritage Foundation -- to wit, so many commentators saying the legitimacy of the article fails there for them. Assume every bad thing you wish about Heritage Foundation, but the merit of the article is in the thoroughness of the reporting.  If the reporting is fair and substantiated, then any critique ought to deal with those facts.[/quote]

Read the rebuttal then, and stop worrying about what made some DCUMers stop reading the NYT.  There are plenty of points to chew over in the rebuttal.[/quote]

I love this comment because it highlights how corrupt and self indulgent much of the reporting is these days.

The credibility of every source is dependent upon your political view.  If the source disagrees with you, it's not legitimate.  If they support your position, it's totally legit.

Is the NYT or Times Magazine legit this week or not?  
[/quote]

PP.  You're quoting me.  Think about what I wrote.  I read the whole article and the rebuttal.  I didn't stop reading the article because I saw the words "Heritage Foundation".  I've posted in this thread many times.  I like to read both sides of a discussion and I will hear out both.  I mentioned earlier before the rebuttal was issued that I was going to wait to learn more because the article was spicy/provocative enough that I expected a response with clarifications.  And it came.  I also mentioned that at times, I've seen stories reported that were inaccurate in outlets that I trust to be generally on track.

As we learned from the rebuttal, part of this sum of money that's talked about covers the low-income scholarship fund.  The NYT author can be correct in reporting the sum without reporting what it was spent on.  There are other examples.

Everyone knows that even high-quality writing has a POV.  It's a bit of a game how hidden it is or should be.  Everyone reading about controversial topics should be thinking about facts vs. opinions and assessing for themselves.

TL;DR - the author wrote a long, thoughtful article but did not have all the facts, maybe was a bit sexist in how he discussed the executive in charge of DEI, and can't "prove" much because he doesn't have any clean data.  It's still worth reading but I conclude the author could have done a more even-handed presentation.  I'm still going to read the NYT.  I also read Fox News online...mainly to see what concerns they are obsessed with at any given time.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics