|
| 
 enlarge | Publisher: New York Times
Category: Magazine
Buy New: $828.40
Avg. Customer Rating:  9 reviews
Sales Rank: 2155
Format: Newspaper Subscription
Type: Trade magazine
Subscription Issues: 365
Subscription Length: 12 Months
Issues Per Year: 365
First Issue Lead Time: 2-4 Weeks
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 2 to 4 weeks
|
| Customer Reviews:
| Showing reviews 6-9 of 9 | | « PREV | | |
 New York Times November 27, 2004
4 out of 6 found this review helpful
The New York Times is the most influential publication in the United States. Though not impervious to the political pressures media empires are influenced by in today's journalistic environment, the Times is probably as independent as any other of the "major" players. When comparing the quality of journalism in the New York Times to other news agencies, few even come close to the NYT's intellectual potency. You can count on pieces in the NYT to be very well written, and you'll be getting the best investigative journalism in the country. Read a smart article in the New York Times this morning and chances are the cable network talking heads will be screaming with their sixth grade vocabulary about that article for the entire "news cycle".
All the news the editors see fit to print February 26, 2006
6 out of 13 found this review helpful
The 'New York Times' is generally regarded as the world's most important and influential newspaper. It is 'the paper of record' and the one which has the greatest intellectual and cultural prestige.
It has a great staff of many of the world's finest journalists. It often provides investigative reports of great depth.
I have enjoyed reading it for so long as I can remember. A family ritual was my father Reuben Kelly Freedman (of blessed memory) buying the Sunday paper on Second Street in downtown Troy, New York for a quarter from the old Greek newsweller Teddy Popalapus. The huge paper would be taken home and taken apart in sections, with of course the sports section taken out first. I now have reached the age where another favorite of my fathers,'the obituary page ' also interests me.
I would like then thinking of all the years of reading the 'Times ' simply love to sing its praises.
But of course the problem is when you happen to know something about the subject covered.
My own personal pique and more than that at the 'Times' is for the political line it has promoted all these years. The over- liberal Times seems to me to not have been as politically astute and patriotic as it might have been. Certain of the 'Times' publications through the years such as 'The Pentagon Papers' of Daniel Ellsberg seemed to me to be a national disservice.
Even more importantly I have the sense that historically the 'Times ' has done more than one injustice . The 'Times' knew more than it told about the Holocaust when it was happening. It covered up what it should not have. I do not know if this might have made a difference in saving lives. My guess is it could have.
For a long-time now the Times 'balanced Middle - Eastern coverage' has concealed the real nature of the Middle East conflict, the tremendous hatred and violence of the Arab and now Islamic world against Israel. The 'Times' long faulted for its 'Jewish ownership' has bent backwards to show it is not - pro-Israel'. In so doing it often injured the Jewish people.
The 'Times' can be faulted in other ways. Consider a story that has recently become very prominent, the Iranian nuclear weapons development issue. Times' reporters(David Sanger and William Geertz) made important revelations along the way on this story(Thanks to Pentagon sources) But on the whole the 'Times' has taken a quite slow approach to perceiving the danger involved. This by the way is very typical of the 'Times' as it very often promotes liberal non- violent balanced solutions where they simply are not relevant.
What I have written here I know is unfair as it does not even touch upon so much 'The Times ' does daily. It provides reports and articles of interest on a great variety of subjects. I think it would be a shame if the 'Times' decided to 'dumb- down' to have broader appeal. There have been certain signs of it especially as it feels more threatened by other kinds of 'media'.
On the whole the 'New York Times' still provides great reporting in many different areas (Science, Health,) and is an institution which I hope will prosper and improve( politically) in the years ahead.
 Loved it until I got a subscription December 17, 2006
6 out of 14 found this review helpful
I always liked the NY Times--I started reading it because we had a program in college where you could get it for free. After I graduated, my boyfriend bought me a subscription for a present. I received maybe 3 papers a week. The delivery driver managed to get it everywhere except someplace where I could find it. I called to request that the delivery person at least get it in the vicinity of my yard, to no avail. I cancelled it long before the subscription was up, because it was too frustrating to not receive my paper and to deal with customer service.
I ended up getting a subscription to The Economist instead, and I have been a very happy subscriber for more than 5 years. With the relatively recent scandals at the Times, and some of the more overt political pressures they cave to, I'm glad I made the switch. The Economist is a British paper, and it's nice to get an outsider's view of the US. They also do a MUCH better job of providing world news, as well as backstories and stories in progress or events that have the potential to shape world events. It's only published weekly, but they update their website daily. Consider it a viable replacement. People who like the Times for its progressive views may be hesitant because The Economist is conservative, but only fiscally so, it is not usually socially conservative.
No news is good news January 29, 2008
0 out of 6 found this review helpful
I picked up the New York Times recently after a 15-year hiatus. I admit it was better than it had been circa 1988; at that time anything any Washington insider said was reported uncritically and the NYT had and has its share of the responsibility of pushing our nation closer to barbarism. But overall, I found the paper nearly as complacent, banal, thoughtless and ignorant as before.
Now I am man who used to read the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Economist and Christianity Today every day (I know not all are dailies, but you have to spread it out). I was frighteningly informed on most things. I did not read the Sunday paper which even then made me sick. But I began to notice that something I'd devoted hours and hours to reading over the past years was false. That is, I had learned about some series of events that turned out merely to be statements made by one "source" to a reporter. I noticed that huge stacks of words formed piles on the floor until they were taken out to the "paper drive." They started as words--not facts--and they stayed that way. (Perhaps we should call it a "unwanted words" drive and we could put all the other words that won't change our lives in the same bins--words like "kindness," "decency," "sweepstakes," "fortitude," "help wanted.") I noticed that I wasn't a better person for knowing what one horrible person was doing to another somewhere else. I began to think it strange that the NYT had quarter page advertisements for watches that cost $10,000 and tiny letters urging us to "remember the neediest" at the bottom. And I noticed something in myself--a deeply insane belief that simply by knowing about something I was doing something about it, that I was a cut higher than the average man on the street.
So I stopped reading this or any other paper. I did more. I moved out to the country (not immediately, but within a year) and changed trades. And yet, that was not the most important, or even the most revolutionary, change that I was to find I had to make. But it was a start. [1]
|
|
|
Powered by Search-Save.com
| |
