The New York Times’ headline this week is: “Is America’s World Changing?”
But the piece itself doesn’t actually answer that question, since the headline is so obtuse that you have to wonder why it even exists.
The piece’s authors—one of whom is a longtime Times reporter, another a former Times journalist—have no real answer, which makes it a perfect example of how journalists are being asked to write stories without an answer.
It’s also a perfect illustration of how the media’s own editorial agenda—one in which they are more concerned with the “objective truth” than the facts—is leading to the kinds of stories that get reported in the New York times and other major publications.
In other words, the Times and other media outlets are trying to find a story that will get people talking about the problems of the world, but without a meaningful answer.
The story in question was a story about how people who were dying in the developing world are being killed for their crops and for their jobs.
“We have to get to the bottom of it,” one of the authors, Robert R. Ritchie, told the Times, which published the article.
The Times’s story doesn’t provide an answer to the question.
The problem is that the NYT doesn’t want to be in the business of telling people what to think.
As the paper’s former editor-in-chief, Mark Leibovich, once said, “The best way to run a newspaper is to have people tell you what to believe.”
That is, the NYT wants readers to think that the paper is doing the right thing in the world.
It also doesn’t care if you don’t think that.
So it presents the story as an answer, without providing any facts, and without even mentioning any of the people who have been killed for being killed.
As one Times journalist put it, the piece “doesn’t really make a case for its own position.”
What it does is give you a sense of how you might be reading it, and gives you a feeling of how it would be telling you a story if you were reading it for the first time.
That, and its obtuseness makes it easy for readers to conclude that you already know what to expect.
If you have read the Times over the past few years, you know that the Times has been trying to figure out how to be less newsworthy.
It has tried to make itself more interesting by giving people more stories to read.
It tried to take risks and make bold statements.
The latest example of that was a major story about climate change in June.
The NYT was forced to pull a major piece about climate science after it was found that it was riddled with factual errors and misrepresentations.
But the Times didn’t care, because it was still selling its news through a sort of echo chamber, which is a way of saying that the news is not actually the news.
The paper’s reporters are just interested in getting a story out.
As Leibowitz said, the only way to get that story out is to get the story right.
But that’s not the way the Times is doing it.
Instead, the paper spends more time worrying about the wrong things than the right things.
The New Yorker has a similar problem.
Its story about the election is an obvious example.
It begins with a report about an anonymous letter, from a man who was concerned about what it might mean for his future.
It concludes with a description of the letter, which does nothing to answer the questions.
It merely offers a list of possible responses that the man could give, and it offers up the “what if?” option.
The article ends with the word “maybe,” which doesn’t seem to offer any hope to the man’s worries.
So what happens?
The Times has created a kind of echo-chamber.
That’s why it has such difficulty in telling readers how the story is really going.
If it’s trying to tell you a meaningful story, it’s probably not going to be able to.
And that’s the point of the New Yorker.
That way, it gives people a feeling that they already know about what the Times does, but not enough to be sure that they have an understanding of what the story actually is.
In contrast, the New Yorkers piece on the Trump transition has a simple but strong premise: that Trump is doing a good job in getting things done.
It starts with a story from a former reporter who said that Trump was not trying to “get things done,” and ends with a statement from a person who said, in other words: “The President is doing great.”
The story is presented as a straightforward fact that has no obvious explanation.
But when the Times first published the piece, many of its readers were puzzled.
Why was this a good story?
Was the piece meant to convince people that Trump had a good track record as president?
The answer is that this