sandorzoo says:
December 30, 2016 at 9:17 pm ~new~
“I think this is really poor journalistic practice and implies the opinion of the nation’s economists to be the opposite of what it really is. I hope the Times prints a correction.”
Hahahahahahahahahahaha…..
This was the first sentence of a 2015 NYT story:
“SAN FRANCISCO — Luxury condominiums, organic ice cream stores, cafes that serve soy lattes and chocolate shops that offer samples from Ecuador and Madagascar are rapidly replacing 99-cent stores, bodegas and rent-controlled apartments in the Mission District, this city’s working-class Latino neighborhood.” (
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/23/u...nos-from-san-franciscos-mission-district.html)
So “luxury condominiums” are “rapidly replacing” rent-controlled apartments. Pretty much every word of that is false. For “luxury”, although some buildings do include things like in-building gyms and granite countertops, all the units are tiny compared to what we’d think of as a “luxury” residence (traditional “luxury house” line is over 3,000 square feet; a typical unit here might be 600-900). Also, all developers in SF are required to set aside units for low-income people (at their own expense). For “condominiums”, the majority of new units are for-rent, not for-sale. For “rapidly”, housing was being constructed in the Mission at a rate of ~0.3% a year, which means they were building more slowly than the US was during the very bottom of the crash in 2009 (
http://www.usfunds.com/media/images.../2013-04-19/Bond-Housing-Starts-041920-lg.gif). For “replacing”, every single building I could get records for (going back to 2010) replaced abandoned warehouses, empty lots, and so on; not one replaced existing residences.
I actually emailed them to ask for a correction. Here was the reply:
“Our reporter, Carol Pogash, spent considerable time researching the piece, walking the neighbor [sic] and interviewing residents, both recent and longtime. (…) Both prosperous newcomers as well as people leaving their units talked about the cultural change of the neighborhood and the building of luxury condos instead of affordable housing. In addition, more than 400 demonstrators protested Mission development at a rally last month at city hall against the development. So while our use of the word “replacing” in the lede of our story could have been clearer, I think the piece is clear in its intent — the cultural center of that neighborhood is shifting rapidly.”
A month later, the NYT published an official statement when angry readers said they had twisted an article (about Reddit) from a neutral news story to a slanted opinion piece:
“I often hear from readers that they would prefer a straight, neutral treatment — just the facts. But The Times has moved away from that, reflecting editors’ reasonable belief that the basics can be found in many news outlets, every minute of the day. They want to provide “value-added” coverage.” (
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/sunday-review/did-reddit-boss-coverage-cross-a-line-ellen-pao.html)
The facts are arranged to fit the story, rather than the story being arranged to fit the facts.
