Filed under: News Refuting perceived negative statements against your console of choice is usually a very petty, fanboy kind of thing to do, but the New York Times' recent coverage of the Wii's terrible attach rate deserves it. The article has some problems that make the Wii seem to be in a worse situation than it is, though we don't know whether it's an intentional angle or a bit of haphazard reporting. John Scalzo of the Video Game Librarian blog identified some of the issues. Scalzo identifies the paper's dependence o... lire la suite
Refuting perceived negative statements against your console of choice is usually a very petty, fanboy kind of thing to do, but the New York Times' recent coverage of the Wii's terrible attach rate deserves it. The article has some problems that make the Wii seem to be in a worse situation than it is, though we don't know whether it's an intentional angle or a bit of haphazard reporting. John Scalzo of the Video Game Librarian blog identified some of the issues. Scalzo identifies the paper's dependence on numbers from VGChartz (a "a team of analysts who study video-game sales"), their claim that Smash Bros. sales have tanked, and their spurious analysis of Guitar Hero III sales as noticeable problems with the coverage. The last is especially startling: the NYT claims that "Guitar Hero, for example, sold 2.2 million copies for the Wii, but 2.8 million copies for the Xbox 360 and almost 5 million for two versions of the PlayStation," bringing in the PS2 to make its point. "The only way the author could get the numbers he was looking for," Scalzo said, "was to combine the sales of Guitar Hero III on the PS2 and PS3 to push it past the Wii." Also flawed: the point that a few critically acclaimed titles failed to sell in large numbers. The NYT claims that this is evidence that the Wii audience doesn't want new games. But good games fail to sell all the time, on every console. It just means that most people's taste isn't as awesome and correct as ours.
Scott Galloway of Firebrand Partners scored a coup recently: The New York Times Co. agreed to nominate him and a fellow activist investor for a seat on its board. Did the Times do any due diligence on him? Galloway's chief accomplishment online is cofounding RedEnvelope, a San Francisco-based online retailer.
In a delicious irony, TNR runs a piece on that New York Times McCain story. The incomparable Allahpundit invites us to “savor the irony of TNR scolding another publication for not being diligent enough in its fact-checking.” Indeed. But the TNR piece is interesting. The key here is that McCain did not advocate for anybody. So, after considering the facts of the case at the center of this entire episode-facts that were reported eight years ago-the real question becomes: How is this a story worthy of front-page treatment in the New York Times, after you’ve put aside the salacious, anonymous and unproven allegations that led the story? P.S. Tom Maguire has a post that throws into comic relief Kevin Drum’s claim that waving off inconvenient old scandals as “old news” is a “a tactic that has almost a 100% success record with the mainstream media.” Turns out, a good portion of the New York Times’s McCain “scandal” had already been reported by the New York Times . . . in 2000.
The New York Times complained the other day: Strike three, New York Times editors. You’re out!
Patterico already posted on Ben Smith’s coverage of Steve Schmidt’s comments regarding the New York Times. I can’t match his humor so I’ll settle for a few extra thoughts. First, responding to Schmidt’s comments, Obama’s national press secretary Bill Burton labeled any claim that the New York Times is in the tank for Obama as “laughable.” Burton listed 42 “probing articles” published by the New York Times as evidence that the Times has not given Obama a pass. The titles of those 42 articles are at the link but they don’t strike me as hard-hitting unless “Charisma and a Search for Self In Obama’s Hawaii Childhood” [New York Times, 3/17/07] counts as hard-hitting. Second, the Politico’s Michael Calderone published editor Bill Keller’s response as well as Calderone’s take: That the enmity between the McCain campaign and the New York Times began with a story about McCain’s “alleged relationship” with a lobbyist — a clear reference to the Vicki Iseman story — suggesting the McCain campaign can’t take the heat of a political campaign. Naturally, Calderone neglects to mention that the New York Times’ own Public Editor believed the Times crossed the line with the Iseman article. Calderone was also confident enough in his narrative to state that Schmidt’s comments were a “a sure-fire way to drum up support among NYT-hating Republicans.” Third, also from the Calderone link, here’s Keller’s response on behalf of the New York Times: “The New York Times is committed to covering the candidates fully, fairly and aggressively. It’s our job to ask hard questions, fact-check their statements and their advertising, examine their programs, positions, biographies and advisors. Candidates and their campaign operatives are not always comfortable with that level of scrutiny, but it’s what our readers expect and deserve.” Finally, here’s my translation: The McCain campaign thinks the New York Times is in the tank for Obama, while the Obama campaign thinks anything short of adulation passes for hard-hitting journalism when it comes to Obama. Meanwhile, the New York Times believes it’s untouchable.
In an article dated December 26, 2007 (but available online at 3:00 PM EST Christmas Day), The New York Times reports “bleak” holiday sales based on disappointing MasterCard charges: An increase of 22% is definitely robust by anyone’s evaluation. I’m sure the New York Times would be glad to see its ad rates and stock price increase 22%.
The New York Times has done a story on the Impending Thermostat Outrage, here. It begins: Next year in California, state regulators are likely to have the emergency power to control individual thermostats, sending temperatures up or down through a radio-controlled device that will be required in new or substantially modified houses and buildings to manage electricity shortages. But that’s OK. Even if New York Times reporters can’t understand this, I think homeowners can. This article will help get the word out — and that’s a good thing.
Nice to see the New York Times writing about Markus Frind and his ugly Web site that’s making him $10 million a year! Of course, readers here knew about Markus way back in 2006. Nice to be ahead of the curve!
The former New York Times Building will get totally cute cafes and clothing stores--maybe even a big box retailer, like T.J. Maxx or Target! It'll also be the new headquarters for the investment...
Yep. The commercial arm of the free blogging platform Wordpress — my favorite blogging software and the content management system powering Lost Remote — just got a second round of funding that includes an investment from the New York Times Company.