Quality journalism? The NYT? The "most scrutinized newspaper in the world"? You clearly don't get out of the America bubble much. You're a prime example of why the world considers Americans to be clueless. And you're even one of the educated ones. Scary!

@1 Golly. Then enlighten us, oh wise one.

You failed to inform us of what newspaper is more scrutinized (and I assume has a comparable circulation of 1,865,318) that held in such universal higher esteem.

And remember to show your work.

Christopher,
Dunno that I agree with your assertion. I just read about her being replaced on the NYTimes site a few minutes. I remember when she was appointed in 11'. Seems like a short time ago. So, something tells me there is more to it. I think it an abrupt departure.

However, just because a newspaper has no scandal under the tenure of a particular editor doesn't make that paper necessarily excellent. She was there around 3 years, a relatively short time to establish excellence. And yes, the NYT is scruntinized perhaps like the Washington Post and others but that too, doesn't necessarily make it an extraordinary newspaper.

I think the NYT a very good newspaper. It's unabashedly liberal (that doesn't necessarily make it a good newspaper either) but it does have excellent international reporting. I read it daily but I also read other periodicals. I believe the reader must cross-reference and read other other editorial opinions not just the party line to have a comprehensive viewpoint.

The NYT certainly had its warts. The Jayson Blair scandal is a good example. Read what Leonard Pitts has to say about him:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/03/40…

I'm a NYT subscriber and I'm not sure if I've changed or they've changed, but the paper doesn't grab my attention like it used to. I used to read the op-ed page a lot but it has badly calcified in recent years.

@4, three years in today's media environment is darn near an epoch. And thanks for that MH link.

How about The Guardian? Maybe you missed the NSA leaks?

Please don't compare CNN to the New York Times again. Otherwise I'll have to compare the Stranger to the Daily Mail.

It does suck when someone whose sharp, conscientious, and insightful work gives a paper a memorable and distinct voice departs abruptly.

The Guardian is indeed a very good paper. But the circulation of the Guardian in Feb 2014 was 196,425.

So not even one quarter of the NYT.

The metric was "most scrutinized." Not "trusted." And I'd say Chris is mostly correct.

The NYT is more "scrutinized" than the Guardian just in terms of having more eye balls (and those of more powerful people) looking at it alone.

#2: I'm sorry, but overall the Guardian isn't that great. 90 percent of what they publish is click bait or editorial. One big story--the NSA leak--doesn't change that fact.

The NY Times is probably on of five of the most important newspapers on the planet. None of the UK tabloids or Berliner papers come close to the Times in the scope or reporting or overall quality of coverage.

Now with fewer typos: The NY Times is probably one of five of the most important newspapers on the planet. None of the UK tabloids or Berliner papers come close to the Times in the scope of reporting or overall quality of coverage.

See update.

@3

I would say The Economist is held in considerably higher esteem than the NYT.

Why're we still saying "African-American" for anyone black? Unless I missed something and dude just got here from Namibia.

17- African-American is a phrase with a meaning. Someone who moves to the US from Africa is an African immigrant regardless of race. Black people are people with dark skin of sub-Saharan African descent regardless of nationality or ethnicity. Brown people are people of any descent with dark skin. African-Americans are specifically Americans with ancestors from Africa who were enslaved by white Americans.

@15, the Economist has an obvious and quite snarky conservative viewpoint.

Where is the DOJ?

Or are they too busy lying about Bank Execs stealing so they won't go to jail?

Or lying about the NSA actions being Constitutional?

@20 is correct

@4

NYT excellent international reporting? Nicholas Kristoff? Are you kidding me? lol

@15

Yup, the Economist is way better and highly esteemed worldwide. They're snarky because they're fucking smart. Much smarter than you. Yes, it has a more conservative bias but its international coverage is fantastic and not filled with the kind of overladen, sensationalist tripe that the NYT shits out. Anytime Kristof hits Africa, I get ready to spew.

I know this probably makes me an asshole, but at the executive level, I have a really hard time giving a shit. She didn't negotiate as high a salary as her predecessor. Is that evidence of bias? Not really. They brought her salary up when she went back to them upon finding out his salary. She went public anyway.
There must be much more going on here (or I'm misunderstanding the basic facts), because any idiot in an executive at-will position like that should expect to be fired immediately upon going public with that kind of thing.
My experience in this? I, a cis-male penis person, replaced a woman in a management job and was paid less than she had been, mainly because I didn't know more was on the table and so didn't ask for it.

And I don't see the NYT as particularly liberal-leaning. In today's U.S. media environment, absence of conservative bias seems like a lean to the left to a lot of people.

@20, 23

The Economist is good weekly glossy. The Economist is not a daily newspaper. So the comparison is moot.

It is also far more neoliberal than the NYT and it overtly endorses precisely financial policies that does the NYT more covertly. In fact The Economist has never met a Globalist or Banker that it didn't love.

The only policy position that could even remotely be described as more 'liberal' than the NYT (in the US, anyway) is the Economists generally more scientific view on global warming.

However, they also tend to enthusiastically support the very economic policies that promote global warming and shit on any actual policy to mitigate it on the industrial level.

And all of that is an irrelevant strawman because it wasn't the metric what Chris set in the originating post.