An Arrest in Canada Casts a Shadow on a New York Times Star, and The Times
NYT isn't just reviewing reporting and editing of "Caliphate," but some of ’s other stories, reports .
Wow. Terrible day for . with a devastating piece on Rukmini Callimachi, a reporter I’ve always liked. So war and even race reporting are open to question... but their #covid sensationalism is still a sacred cow. Until November 4, anyway.
The New York Times is reviewing the reporting and editing process behind the Caliphate podcast and some of Rukmini Callimachi's other stories, which have drawn scrutiny from people inside and outside The Times, writes.
Two observations 1) Many people screwed up big time on NYT's Caliphate 2) Some of the people gunning for are mad she portrayed ISIS terrorists exactly as the bloodthirsty murderers they are and didn't paint a sympathetic portrait of them
is an amazing & honorable reporter who contributed significantly to putting spotlight on ISIS crimes and humanizing story of their victims. Her stories on enslaved Yazidi women helped greatly their cause. Not sure what is this nonsense.
On the NYT's internal review of its podcast Caliphate and other stories by reporter Rukmini Callimachi, who has been criticized by NYT staff & Middle East scholars and journalists of sensationalism, orientalism, and a pattern of inaccuracies & omissions
Two NYT pieces published over the weekend air the paper's dirty laundry in a very public way, to its credit: Ben Smith's look at the problems in the reporting of Rukmini Callimachi and Bret Stephen's look at the 1619 project
., the NYT's media columnist, writing about a star reporter at the NYT whose controversial podcast is now undergoing an internal review, along with some of her other stories, has this disclaimer:
The subtext is starting to become the text, which is an interesting development.
Leaving aside the factual trouble people are after Callimachi about, there was always an issue of alarmism—a strain to make ISIS sound as capable and centralized as the facts would allow. As this piece notes, this isn’t unique to Callimachi.
In my experience, this kicker to 's story about the Callimachi saga is almost always the real truth behind reporter fuckups.
1/ Thread: I'm waiting for Rukmini Callimachi to give her official side of the story, but for now, here are my reactions to some of the material and accusations in this article.
"While some of the coverage has portrayed her as a kind of rogue actor at The Times, my reporting suggests that she was delivering what the senior-most leaders of the news organization asked for, with their support.
Bret Stephens critiquing the 1619 project. raising questions about the reporting of Rukmini Callimachi. Suddenly, the NY Times has more intramural disputes than the Village Voice in the 1970s. Mostly I see this as healthy.
An Arrest in Canada Casts a Shadow on a Star, and The Times #journalism
An Arrest in Canada Casts a Shadow on a New York Times Star, and The Times - The New York Times
"The paper is in the midst of an evolution from the stodgy paper of record into a juicy collection of great narratives."
Quite the parenthesis in this good piece by on questions about New York Times’ Caliphate podcast and the reporting of .
An intriguing observation from on his employer: "The paper is in the midst of an evolution from the stodgy paper of record into a juicy collection of great narratives, on the web and streaming services."
I thought the BBC were the world leaders of critical reporting on themselves but hats off to NYT, this is next level
"If you get something wrong, you probably won’t get a call from the ISIS press office seeking a correction.”
NYT #journalism "With Rukmini, it felt like the story was pre-reported in her head and she was looking for someone to tell her what she already believed, what she thought would be a great story"
"But while some of the coverage has portrayed [Rukmini Callimachi] as a kind of rogue actor at The Times, my reporting suggests that she was delivering what the senior-most leaders of the news organization asked for, with their support.”
"The is in the midst of an evolution from the stodgy paper of record into a juicy collection of great narratives, on the web and streaming services." ~
A fascinating and cautionary tale of journalism in the digital age. This is very relevant for qualitative social scientists -- we are not fact checkers, but we do need to be critical and aware of the agendas of people we speak with.