This was my subscription cancellation email to the NYT:
To Whom It May Concern:
At the outset, I note the irony of my salutation, for the main reason I have canceled my subscription is that there does not seem to be anyone operating the New York Times who is the least bit concerned about much of anything. That has been obvious to me for some time, but as I viewed my recent bank statement (and saw the recurring monthly payment to your previously reputable publication has crept up to $23 a month), I find I can no longer in good conscience continue to line the pockets of the people who run The Times, especially its nepo-baby publisher. If I want "news" like you have been providing since Trump darkened the doorway of our White House once again, I could just tune into Fox or read the claptrap they post online for free.
The first time I should've canceled my subscription was when it became well known that A. G. Sulzberger ordered that any article about Joe Biden remind readers of his age. Sulzberger denied that, but we know better, now don't we? The second time was on inauguration day of the convicted felon, Donald J. Trump. On that day, The Times actually published a news article with this headline: "Elon Musk Ignites Online Speculation About the Meaning of a Hand Gesture.” Only a moron (or someone fearful of potential consequences being imposed by the "dictator only on day one”) would report that as anything other than what it was, a Nazi salute. Twice. We know that because you are not morons, plus the New York Times has in its archives actual footage of and reporting by responsible journalists of Mussolini and Hitler doing exactly what Elon Musk did. Musk did that for the same reason as Hitler, because Elon is a Nazi. And you know that too.
The third reason I canceled is your complete abandonment of responsible reporting in favor of transcription and stenography of anything Trump says. Look at your ridiculous coverage of the tariffs. The lead story in The Times by Swanson and Romm parroted Trump's ludicrous claim that these tariffs are “reciprocal” and were imposed on "dozens of other countries who had treated the United States unfairly.” Please tell us how the penguins that inhabit Heard and McDonald Islands have treated the United States unfairly. In fact, perhaps you can also tell us about what must be a very intricate and unique inter-species economic relationship. I should rethink my position on whether you are morons. Maybe your ignorance is owing to the fact that Paul Krugman isn't around to tell you how stupid you are. But it really doesn't matter, as.the stupidity of Trump is now matched only by your sycophancy of him.
One other thing. When I called to cancel my subscription, I was asked by the man on the other end of the line why I was canceling. After I told him about the Nazi salute thing, he suggested that I provide my specific reasons for cancellation to this email address. The ultimate irony of that is that among your stenography of Trump and repetition of his ridiculous claims that his tariff policies will return jobs to the United States, there was no mention of this fact: the people who man your phones don't live in America, but rather in the Dominican Republic.
You're most welcome. I can identify with your anger. I would've simply just cancelled online, but for the fact that the NYT people pretend that they give a damn. Of course there is only one thing they give a damn about: money. After all, the NYT is owned by billionaires. In fact, nearly all media is owned by billionaires, and this little parlor game they all play by gaslighting us about their motives is something we need to rise up against.
Patrick Healy has been a hack for a very long time, with multiple hit pieces on Hillary Clinton leading up to the 2016 election. And not just about “but her emails.” Their “bothsidesism” is a front for something a lot more disturbing and duplicitous, IMHO. Thank you for continuing to call them out.
Like WaPo, the NYT is simply returning to its roots as the Right-of-Center publication it has always been. During Trump1 it swerved somewhat to the Left, becoming decidedly Never-Trumpist, and nearly doubling its readership in the process.
But now, with the exception of Liberal *social* content--like defending a woman's right to choose--its *economic* content is considerably more conservative. It's Gaza coverage is also considerably more Israel-friendly than that of WaPo; which may be just for NY metro area readers, who tend to be very pro-Israel.
The billionaire owners of WaPo, NYT and LA Times have all voluntarily forced their possessions to voluntarily edit both news and opinion pieces critical of Trump2, and adding more pro-Trump op-eds. It all smells like...fascism.
"Provoked sharply different reactions." JFC. The ultimate meaningless copout. Virtually everything these days "provokes sharply different reactions" in this divided country but that doesn't mean all of those reactions are credible, fact-based or made in good faith.
Maybe the NYT should be devoting this type of "investigative" energy to remind readers how about how Pam Bondi was entangled in the collapse of the Trump Foundation. For just a start. Not that the NYT paid much attention to the illegal activities and self-dealing of the Trump Foundation back in 2016 because they were too busy casting aspersions on the A-rated, still-doing-good Clinton Foundation that somewhere in about the 26th paragraph of each article said "There's no evidence of wrongdoing but the optics aren't good"—optics the NY Times was creating! According the the Columbia Journalism Review, FIVE TIMES more of these aspersion-casting articles about the Clinton Foundation than about the law-breaking Trump Foundation. FIVE TIMES. I'd better stop before I remember all the other things this "news" paper has done to piss me off. I'm still waiting for the flood of articles on Trump's obvious cognitive decline to equal those they did on Biden in a mere three weeks last summer.
A shout-out for the investigative piece on the LA law enforcement activities. Superb, standard-setting reporting exposing actual events and eviscerating the falsehoods of official denials. It appears the NYT was willing to go fearlessly where the facts took them when it was 3,000 mi away. Use that piece as measuring stick for how to do journalism in Washington and your own backyard!
Nicely done. I think I would quarrel only with the idea that source motives matter and should be disclosed. I get why you say that in this instance, but as general guidance I don't think it works. First, ascertaining a source's motives may not be possible, and it's often the case that people act for multiple reasons. Second, if it has no bearing on the veracity of the information who cares? And if there's reason to doubt veracity it's the doubts that need to be reported, not the source's motives. This story was disgraceful for the reasons you describe, and a principled editor wouldn't have run it at all, but source protection was the least of its problems, imho.
Good point. But to the extent that a source's motive can be ascertained, I think the reader deserves to know if they're being manipulated and why. It doesn't change the facts, but it could change the perception of the facts.
Nothing new. They've always had an elitist, condescending attitude towards minorities and women. I refuse to subscribe to crap like that. I'd rather pay $35 a month for the Philadelphia Inquirer,where voices of color are represented.
I've been a Times reader for seventy years and I believe the paper needs a masthead change from "All the News that's Fit to Print" to "All the Right-Wing Bias We Can Find." The Post is little better. What these people do best is paint lipstick on pigs.
When Mamdani wins in spite of the best efforts of the NYT, the billionaires, the Democratic establishment and the combination of Schumer and Jeffries, it will be interesting to see how they all decide that they supported him all along...while subsequently doing all they can to thwart his agenda.
If elected, Mamdani will mess up some things because mayors always do, and because of his lack of administrative experience and his pie-in-the-sky, undeliverable ideas. He won't need them to thwart his agenda. But they will make it clear "Hey, WE never supported him." They will gloat. Because of that, they cannot be a credible source for honest appraisal of what he's doing right, what he's doing wrong, and what wasn't possible. They've forfeited any claim they have to making a clear-eyed assessment on the governance of their own city because this hit piece showed they're not neutral or objective. That's pretty sad.
This was my subscription cancellation email to the NYT:
To Whom It May Concern:
At the outset, I note the irony of my salutation, for the main reason I have canceled my subscription is that there does not seem to be anyone operating the New York Times who is the least bit concerned about much of anything. That has been obvious to me for some time, but as I viewed my recent bank statement (and saw the recurring monthly payment to your previously reputable publication has crept up to $23 a month), I find I can no longer in good conscience continue to line the pockets of the people who run The Times, especially its nepo-baby publisher. If I want "news" like you have been providing since Trump darkened the doorway of our White House once again, I could just tune into Fox or read the claptrap they post online for free.
The first time I should've canceled my subscription was when it became well known that A. G. Sulzberger ordered that any article about Joe Biden remind readers of his age. Sulzberger denied that, but we know better, now don't we? The second time was on inauguration day of the convicted felon, Donald J. Trump. On that day, The Times actually published a news article with this headline: "Elon Musk Ignites Online Speculation About the Meaning of a Hand Gesture.” Only a moron (or someone fearful of potential consequences being imposed by the "dictator only on day one”) would report that as anything other than what it was, a Nazi salute. Twice. We know that because you are not morons, plus the New York Times has in its archives actual footage of and reporting by responsible journalists of Mussolini and Hitler doing exactly what Elon Musk did. Musk did that for the same reason as Hitler, because Elon is a Nazi. And you know that too.
The third reason I canceled is your complete abandonment of responsible reporting in favor of transcription and stenography of anything Trump says. Look at your ridiculous coverage of the tariffs. The lead story in The Times by Swanson and Romm parroted Trump's ludicrous claim that these tariffs are “reciprocal” and were imposed on "dozens of other countries who had treated the United States unfairly.” Please tell us how the penguins that inhabit Heard and McDonald Islands have treated the United States unfairly. In fact, perhaps you can also tell us about what must be a very intricate and unique inter-species economic relationship. I should rethink my position on whether you are morons. Maybe your ignorance is owing to the fact that Paul Krugman isn't around to tell you how stupid you are. But it really doesn't matter, as.the stupidity of Trump is now matched only by your sycophancy of him.
One other thing. When I called to cancel my subscription, I was asked by the man on the other end of the line why I was canceling. After I told him about the Nazi salute thing, he suggested that I provide my specific reasons for cancellation to this email address. The ultimate irony of that is that among your stenography of Trump and repetition of his ridiculous claims that his tariff policies will return jobs to the United States, there was no mention of this fact: the people who man your phones don't live in America, but rather in the Dominican Republic.
Stephen E. Hooper
Thank you. Saved me the pain of writing pretty much the same cancellation letter!
Yes, I agree. Good for you writing this letter. When I cancelled, I was so angry, I couldn’t express my feelings, so I just called and canceled.
You're most welcome. I can identify with your anger. I would've simply just cancelled online, but for the fact that the NYT people pretend that they give a damn. Of course there is only one thing they give a damn about: money. After all, the NYT is owned by billionaires. In fact, nearly all media is owned by billionaires, and this little parlor game they all play by gaslighting us about their motives is something we need to rise up against.
Patrick Healy has been a hack for a very long time, with multiple hit pieces on Hillary Clinton leading up to the 2016 election. And not just about “but her emails.” Their “bothsidesism” is a front for something a lot more disturbing and duplicitous, IMHO. Thank you for continuing to call them out.
Like WaPo, the NYT is simply returning to its roots as the Right-of-Center publication it has always been. During Trump1 it swerved somewhat to the Left, becoming decidedly Never-Trumpist, and nearly doubling its readership in the process.
But now, with the exception of Liberal *social* content--like defending a woman's right to choose--its *economic* content is considerably more conservative. It's Gaza coverage is also considerably more Israel-friendly than that of WaPo; which may be just for NY metro area readers, who tend to be very pro-Israel.
The billionaire owners of WaPo, NYT and LA Times have all voluntarily forced their possessions to voluntarily edit both news and opinion pieces critical of Trump2, and adding more pro-Trump op-eds. It all smells like...fascism.
"Provoked sharply different reactions." JFC. The ultimate meaningless copout. Virtually everything these days "provokes sharply different reactions" in this divided country but that doesn't mean all of those reactions are credible, fact-based or made in good faith.
Maybe the NYT should be devoting this type of "investigative" energy to remind readers how about how Pam Bondi was entangled in the collapse of the Trump Foundation. For just a start. Not that the NYT paid much attention to the illegal activities and self-dealing of the Trump Foundation back in 2016 because they were too busy casting aspersions on the A-rated, still-doing-good Clinton Foundation that somewhere in about the 26th paragraph of each article said "There's no evidence of wrongdoing but the optics aren't good"—optics the NY Times was creating! According the the Columbia Journalism Review, FIVE TIMES more of these aspersion-casting articles about the Clinton Foundation than about the law-breaking Trump Foundation. FIVE TIMES. I'd better stop before I remember all the other things this "news" paper has done to piss me off. I'm still waiting for the flood of articles on Trump's obvious cognitive decline to equal those they did on Biden in a mere three weeks last summer.
A shout-out for the investigative piece on the LA law enforcement activities. Superb, standard-setting reporting exposing actual events and eviscerating the falsehoods of official denials. It appears the NYT was willing to go fearlessly where the facts took them when it was 3,000 mi away. Use that piece as measuring stick for how to do journalism in Washington and your own backyard!
You are presumably talking about this? https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/americas/100000010259036/los-angeles-protests-lapd-violence.html
I agree!
Yep. Ferocious, calm and methodical. Innovative journalism ✳️✅
Another strong essay!
“All the clicks that are fit to bait.”
The crosswords are also very good.
Thanks Dan! Great post. Another reason why I cancelled my NYTimes subscripion (except the cooking section) after the election last year.
Nicely done. I think I would quarrel only with the idea that source motives matter and should be disclosed. I get why you say that in this instance, but as general guidance I don't think it works. First, ascertaining a source's motives may not be possible, and it's often the case that people act for multiple reasons. Second, if it has no bearing on the veracity of the information who cares? And if there's reason to doubt veracity it's the doubts that need to be reported, not the source's motives. This story was disgraceful for the reasons you describe, and a principled editor wouldn't have run it at all, but source protection was the least of its problems, imho.
Good point. But to the extent that a source's motive can be ascertained, I think the reader deserves to know if they're being manipulated and why. It doesn't change the facts, but it could change the perception of the facts.
Nothing new. They've always had an elitist, condescending attitude towards minorities and women. I refuse to subscribe to crap like that. I'd rather pay $35 a month for the Philadelphia Inquirer,where voices of color are represented.
Important, disturbing piece!
Thank you for this Dan.
👏👏👏👏👏
I canceled my NYTimes subscription a few months ago. Thank you for this.
Cooking, yes!
I've been a Times reader for seventy years and I believe the paper needs a masthead change from "All the News that's Fit to Print" to "All the Right-Wing Bias We Can Find." The Post is little better. What these people do best is paint lipstick on pigs.
When Mamdani wins in spite of the best efforts of the NYT, the billionaires, the Democratic establishment and the combination of Schumer and Jeffries, it will be interesting to see how they all decide that they supported him all along...while subsequently doing all they can to thwart his agenda.
If elected, Mamdani will mess up some things because mayors always do, and because of his lack of administrative experience and his pie-in-the-sky, undeliverable ideas. He won't need them to thwart his agenda. But they will make it clear "Hey, WE never supported him." They will gloat. Because of that, they cannot be a credible source for honest appraisal of what he's doing right, what he's doing wrong, and what wasn't possible. They've forfeited any claim they have to making a clear-eyed assessment on the governance of their own city because this hit piece showed they're not neutral or objective. That's pretty sad.