Asking Too Much Info To Cancel
I could not cancel because of the technical issues on their website. So I contacted support for refund after a new charge. When I contacted by chat, they started asking for my address which I never gave them. Then they wanted my card info which I never gave them before. The agent kept telling me they need to verify my account. I never gave them that info before so what are they verifying it against? The agent got my answers, asked me to wait, and then just repeated the cycle. It was like talking to a bot. I am just bothered that American companies want to collect my data when I am cancelling. They never ask for any when I subscribed and paid.
America The Only Reliable Source
-
Send any friend a story
As a subscriber, you have 10 gift articles to give each month. Anyone can read what you share.
Give this article
From the London Herald.
This estimate of the condition of the staple trade of England may seem to some unnecessarily gloomy. We believe it to be essentially just and we consider it better to speak alarming truths than to offer consolations widen are insulting to those who do know the facts of the case and deluding to those who do not. When the nation understands its position, there is hope that it may find means of self-redemption those who would deceive us as to our real peril, increase is by delaying the adoption of such palliatives as may yet be attainable.
How The New York Times Maintains Its Credibility
By Rod Hicks
Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of The New York Times, contends that the company is making progress in areas that will bolster its trustworthiness.
For 167 years, The New York Times has rigorously investigated important national and world issues and written about them with sophistication for a curious and cultured audience. There have been some serious breaches along the way, including the revelation in 2003 that one of its reporters had been fabricating details of stories and copying the work of journalists at other newspapers.
But through it all, the Times has endured, its credibility largely intact.
The staying power of the Times is reflected in its most recent subscription numbers. Third-quarter figures released last month show the Times has more than 4 million paying customers, three-quarters of them digital-only subscribers. Thats a 15 percent jump from a year earlier and a continuation of a yearslong upward trajectory.
Over a hundred years writing lots of stories, you build a credibility among your readers, said Dean Baquet, the newspapers executive editor.
People generally trust stories in the Times because despite its shortcomings, it continues to set itself apart with meaningful journalism that holds up over time, said National Public Radio media critic David Folkenflik, editor of the 2011 book Page One: Inside The New York Times and the Future of Journalism.
________________________________________
Read Also: Renew Italian Passport Nyc
How To Mitigate Bias
News articles are bound to have bias because all authors have some frame of reference within which they describe a story. Political bias ratings are helpful in understanding this framing. However, it can be more beneficial to know how factual an article is based on quantifiable metrics that can be seen across the media ecosystem, such as cited evidence, author expertise, and writing tone. This is what The Factual ascertains.Reading several, highly rated articles from across the political spectrum helps counter the bias of any news source or story. To have the dayâs most factual news stories delivered to your inbox every morning, to our daily newsletter.
This article was updated on December 12, 2021 to reflect new data.
Clearly Not All The News
The NYT does not print “All the News…” A critical example: Did it publish the news the it was sued for its unconscionable handling of subscription renewals? Look it up on Google. Nothing was reported in the New York Times about it. It’s called a Dark Pattern scheme-It was recently settled for $5 Mil+. What happened to the paper’s Ombudsman? It’s time for the NYT to apply its rigorous standards to itself.After subscribing for decades, we stopped-after being triple charged.
I don’t see why one cannot cancel the subscription directly, without going through the customer service. Terrible.
Try to lure/force ppl to pay for their socelled newspaper
Unusually bad. Log out doesn’t work. You can’t cancel without talking to customer service and suffering pitches for 15 minutes. Not worth the value of the content.
Read 1 more review about The New York Times
Waste of money. started home delivery 3 months ago and I quit.No local news.Too much on Queers.Too expensive.They also ripped me off. Never got my 12 weeks of 1/2 price. The double charged me after 8 weeks.Garbage.
Biggest scam for delivery! Never once did I receive a paper and they refuse to refund the money! Sham that the newspaper industry is dying so they have to scam people! Sham on you!
Also Check: How To Pay Parking Tickets Online Ny
Its Incredibly Detailed Reporting And Remarkable Insight Into Cable News Biggest Star And The Danger He Poses
In case you missed it, be sure to check out the stunning work by New York Times reporter Nicholas Confessore in his three-part profile of Fox News prime-time host Tucker Carlson. The three parts are:
- And an audio/video piece: Look inside the apocalyptic worldview of Tucker Carlson Tonight.
Its incredibly detailed reporting, and remarkable insight into cable news biggest star and the danger he poses. Confessores story says Carlsons show may be the most racist show in the history of cable news.
In his piece The Times Tucker Carlson series is a triumph of explanatory journalism, Northeastern University professor and media observer Dan Kennedy writes, Times reporter Nicholas Confessore has done a remarkable job of combing through Carlsons past and present in an attempt to explain his rise from stylish but obscure magazine writer and failed television host to the most powerful force in cable. And Confessore offers partial answers, at least, to some aspects of the Carlson phenomenon.
Media Matters for America is a liberal nonprofit organization and media watchdog, and a frequent and harsh critic of Fox News. Still, it should be pointed out that Media Matters Matt Gertz wrote a scathing column about Fox News in wake of the Times investigation.
Over The Weekend The Times Published A Stunningly Detailed And Deeply
Over the weekend, The New York Times and investigative reporter Nicholas Confessore put out a stunningly detailed and deeply-reported three-part series on Fox News Tucker Carlson. The three parts were:
Confessore writes, Mr. Carlson has constructed what may be the most racist show in the history of cable news and also, by some measures, the most successful.
Others agree with the assessment. Speaking on CNNs Reliable Sources on Sunday, media analyst David Zurawik, the former longtime media critic at The Baltimore Sun, said, Hes right up there. No one has ever had the kind of audience that he has and has preached the kind of racism he preaches. I would say thats absolutely certain.
Zurawik also added this: You cant separate Tucker Carlson from Rupert Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch allows this stuff to go out over his airways.
The Times analyzed 1,150 episodes of Tucker Carlson Tonight and Confessore tweeted that the story was based on interviews with dozens of current and former Fox employees, Carlsons friends and former colleagues, and an array of public records.
Confessore adds, Mr. Carlson is powerful at Fox not merely because he is the networks face but because he is also its future a star whose intensity and paranoid style work to bind viewers more closely to the Fox brand, helping lead them through the fragmented post-cable landscape.
Read Also: Wax Museum Times Square Nyc
How Reliable Are The Social Sciences
The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.
Public policy debates often involve appeals to results of work in social sciences like economics and sociology. For example, in his State of the Union address this year, President Obama cited a recent high-profile study to support his emphasis on evaluating teachers by their students test scores. The study purportedly shows that students with teachers who raise their standardized test scores are more likely to attend college, earn higher salaries, live in better neighborhoods and save more for retirement.
Beware the journalistically exciting result.
How much authority should we give to such work in our policy decisions? The question is important because media reports often seem to assume that any result presented as scientific has a claim to our serious attention. But this is hardly a reasonable view. There is considerable distance between, say, the confidence we should place in astronomers calculations of eclipses and a small marketing study suggesting that consumers prefer laundry soap in blue boxes.
Second, and even more important, there is our overall assessment of work in a given science in comparison with other sciences. The core natural sciences are so well established that we readily accept their best-supported conclusions as definitive. Even the best-developed social sciences like economics have nothing like this status.
Related
How Factual Is The New York Times
The Factualâs news rating algorithm analyzes more than 10,000 articles a day along four metrics: author expertise, publication history, writing tone, and cited sources and quotes. For this study, we analyzed 1,000 articles each from 245 major news sources.
Over a dataset of 1,000 articles, the New York Times scored an average Factual Grade of 69.6%. This is well above the average of 61.9% for all 240 news sources and places the site in the 84th percentile of our dataset.Like any news source, scores for articles from the New York Times varied widely based on factors like author expertise and cited evidence. For example, some scored above 90%, while others scored below 50%.
Please check your email for instructions to ensure that the newsletter arrives in your inbox tomorrow.
The Factual also measures how opinionated an article is using a sophisticated natural language processing algorithm, producing a score we call the Writing Tone. For this metric, the algorithm looks for signs of subjective commentary , as well as the emotional nature of selected words, and sees how prevalent they are for a given length of text. Text which is less opinionated gets higher ratings, with â0â being the most opinionated and â1â being the most neutral.
Recommended Reading: New York Times Paywall Smasher For Google Chrome
‘that’s Not Ok’: Bash Reacts To Hannity’s Texts To Mark Meadows
New York The future of the press is in play at the “libel trial of the century,” chief media correspondent Brian Stelter said on “Reliable Sources” Sunday about the Sarah Palin v. New York Times case.
CNN’s Sonia Moghe contributed to this report.
About The New York Times
The New York Times was founded in 1851 by Henry Jarvis Raymond and George Jones and has been published continuously ever since. The newspaper is ranked 2nd in circulation in the U.S. and 17th in the world. The paper has won 125 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization. The Sunday New York Times has an average print circulation of over 1.1 million papers.
Don’t Miss: Can You Register A Car Without A License In Ny
Scholarly Vs Popular Sources
Please note: If you are not an expert researcher, the general discussion below will help you understand some of the questions involved with selecting sources. But what qualifies as evidence or as a reliable source is different in different disciplines, and sometimes among different courses in the same discipline. Its very important to check with your teachers about appropriate sources for the research youve been assigned.
Gingrich Likens Bidens To A Criminal Family In The Old
Dont be confused about why The Washington Post changed its tune this week, admitting that the Hunter Biden laptop is the real deal, or why The New York Times fessed up last month: Reality forced their hand, and they cant downplay the scandals impact on President Joe Biden without acknowledging the facts.
Eighteen months ago, both papers joined in the drive to suppress The Posts reporting off the laptop, playing up bogus, clearly partisan claims that it was somehow Russian disinformation.
Never mind that we had not only authenticated the info and produced confirming sources like former Hunter business partner Tony Bobulinski, but also openly reported how we got it unlike both the other papers endless, anonymously sourced reporting on the Trump Russiagate scandal, which eventually proved to be utterly fake, the product of Clinton-campaign disinformation.
And where Big Tech gleefully promoted the Russiagate nonsense, it censored The Posts scoops.
But federal prosecutors have been working on the laptop since before we ever got it. A federal grand jury is now hearing evidence Hunter committed tax fraud and violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, among other charges. Indictments will soon follow.
So Joes defenders have to minimize the damage to the president they helped elect by suppressing the story in the runup to the 2020 election.
For shame.
Read Also: Disability Application New York
The Christian Science Monitor
Founded in 1908 by Mary Baker Eddy as a response to the sensationalist journalism of the early 1900s, The Christian Science Monitor is a non-profit news agency that publishes daily articles online along with a weekly print magazine.
As opposed to its name, you will not find any religious doctrine preached in the magazine. However, upon the founders request, a daily religious article is published in every issue of the Monitor.
The Monitor has maintained a positive reputation over the century while also being independent from influence of the mainstream media corporations.
How Reliable Is The M
First of two parts
Few issues are more personal to soldiers than the question of whether they can trust their rifles. And few rifles in history have generated more controversy over their reliability than the American M-16 assault rifle and its carbine version, the M-4.
In recent weeks, a fresh round of complaints about weapon malfunctions in Afghanistan, mentioned in an Army historians report that documented small-arms jamming during the fierce battle in Wanat last year, has rekindled the discussion. Are the M-16 and M-4 the best rifles available for American troops? Or are they fussy and punchless and less than ideal for war?
Dont expect a clear answer any time soon. Expect several clear answers at once many of them contradictory. This is because when talk turns to the M-16 and the M-4, it enters emotionally charged territory. The conversation is burdened by history, cluttered with conflicting anecdotes, and argued over by passionate camps. This much is indisputable: Since the mid-1960s, when at Gen. William C. Westmorelands request an earlier version of the M-16 became the primary American rifle in Vietnam, the reputation of the M-16 family has been checkered.
A series of technical changes sharply reduced the incidence of problems. Intensive weapons-cleaning training helped, too. But the M-16 has struggled over the decades for universal and cheerful acceptance. Some soldiers and Marines have always loathed it, and its offspring, too.
Also Check: Disability Application Ny
Why the New York Times Is The Best Newspaper In The World
Former reporter for the New York Times and Daily News taught Political Science at NYU
As someone who has often found fault with The New York Times in the past, I can tell you that Ken Kurson’s cover story in the Observer today does not reflect the reality of the paper I read every day.
Kurson’s attack on the editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal and his so-called “tyrannical regime” is based on 24 anonymous interviews with Times staffers — always a dicey proposition.
But Kurson, a former Rudy Giuliani staffer who apparently disagrees with Rosenthal’s liberal positions, does not really quote any objective journalism critics as to the quality of the editorial product. Where is his editor? Oops, he is the editor.
As someone who has followed the editorial pages for decades, I can attest that there are still many, many things wrong with the Times, but the editorial pages and the Sunday Review are the best part of it.
I can say with confidence that they are better than they have ever been .
Today’s editorial on Obamacare, dealing with possible job losses, is a perfect example of turning conventional wisdom on its head.
On Morning Joe this morning, the Times editorial actually changed Joe Scarborough’s mind on some issues — for example, the fact that Obamacare might be good for entrepreneurs, because workers don’t have to stay with one job simply because of health benefits.
An original thought, which none of the other newspapers pointed out.
Most Reliable News Sources
Journalism, in essence, is the profession that deals with the gathering, production, and distribution of reports regarding recent political, social, criminal, and other societal/regional activities.
However, contemporary News agencies have been known to spread propaganda, biased news, and fake news. With a plethora of news agencies in the market, it has become easier to spread fake news to promote political, social, or financial agendas of certain groups.
Many news agencies get funding from certain political parties or corporations and in turn, spread the news that promotes their agenda and favors it.
Also Check: How Many Tolls From Baltimore To New Jersey
Gender Discrimination In Employment
Discriminatory practices used by the paper long restricted women in appointments to editorial positions. The newspaper’s first general female reporter was , who described her experience afterward: “In the beginning I was charged not to reveal the fact that a female had been hired”. Other reporters nicknamed her Fluff and she was subjected to considerable hazing. Because of her gender, any promotion was out of the question, according to the then-managing editor. She remained on the staff for fifteen years, interrupted by World War I.
In 1935, Anne McCormick wrote to Arthur Hays Sulzberger: “I hope you won’t expect me to revert to ‘woman’s-point-of-view’ stuff.” Later, she interviewed major political leaders and appears to have had easier access than her colleagues. Even witnesses of her actions were unable to explain how she gained the interviews she did.Clifton Daniel said, ” I’m sure Adenauer called her up and invited her to lunch. She never had to grovel for an appointment.”