[tkahn6]

> - note the lack of front-page coverage of this story in the New York Times

1. As of right now, the story is linked to on the front page in the Opinion box since this is an opinion piece and not a news piece. If you want opinion as news, I refer you to Fox News or Buzzfeed or Upworthy.

2. The story of the NSA surveillance was front page on the NY Times when it broke and for about a week or two after.

3. The Mainstream media has been reporting on this consistently, both on the Snowden drama and the actual substance of his leaks.

It's sad to see both longer-time and newer users running around with this chicken little reddit-level bullshit. The mods seem to be complicit in it so oh well. The upside is that I waste less time here.

[ferdo]

> If you want opinion as news, I refer you to Fox News or Buzzfeed or Upworthy.

All "news" is someone's, or a group of someones, opinion. There's no such thing as objective journalism.

> chicken little reddit-level bullshit

It's only been a couple of weeks since people became aware that the largest spy agency in the world is spying on pretty much anything they can get a bead on.

Perhaps cutting people some slack until 24/7 surveillance becomes the New Normal might be in order?

[hobs]

In my opinion, there is about a 30 minute wait on the I9, and now in sports news, in my opinion the raiders beat the muskrats last night.... etc.

There is definitely such a thing as reporting the facts, and just because there are levels of opinion doesn't mean that all outlets of journalism are somehow comparable. Fox News != Anyone with credibility.

[mcpie]

Nobody is claiming all news is objective. I also think that the constant claims about 'msm' 'ignoring' important stories is annoying, incorrect and in fact distracting from the proper discussion to be had.

There is in fact a very distinct difference between opinion articles and 'proper' news articles. You see, journalism is not a claim to objective truth, but a procedure aimed at achieving a minimum level of validity where it comes to events. When you read a news article, you should (to some extent) be able to trust its contents on the merits of the journalistic method. Whereas with an opinion piece, it's not bound by this procedure. Note - nobody is arguing 'absolute objectivity' here. It's a matter of trust in a procedure. Of course, it's fine to distrust the journalistic method, to not see it as absolute truth, but to deny or entirely dismiss the distinction is annoyingly daft.

Also, afaik, this story is still everywhere. If you want it to remain that way, start working for change - newspapers report on events, not 'the truth'. Make events happen, and it stays in the cycle.

[dllthomas]

Just because they're all grey doesn't mean there aren't significant differences in the shade.

[jacoblyles]

The Times puts plenty of opinion on the front page. It just does so obliquely. I can't forget their headline for the IRS scandal: "I.R.S. Scandal Gives G.O.P. Issue to Seize On", as if the politicization of the government's taxing power were only regretful to the extent that it might slow down the Democratic Party's policy agenda.

[tkahn6]

As if that was the only headline or angle the NY Times displayed on the front page about that story as that story evolved.

C'mon man.

[anigbrowl]

Thank you for that interjection of sanity.

[trevelyan]

If you need a sanity check, visit the Internet Archive:

http://web.archive.org/web/*/nytimes.com

The last time this story was front page news for the NYT was June 23, when they reported on Hong Kong officials letting Snowden go. On June 22 they reported on Snowden being officially charged. And prior to that on June 20, when there was a story about the "complex reality" of Silicon Valley. All of these stories are sympathetic in tone and focus to the administration. Is anyone really going to characterize them as hard-hitting investigative reporting on the substance of the allegations?

There is no lack of investigative reporting that could be done on this story (most obvious question: did Congress intend to authorize warrantless dragnet surveillance), some of which is happening elsewhere, making it hardly a paranoid leap to point out that NYT coverage has been muted and uncritical at best.