争议事件

来源摘录

• Supreme Court Judge Charles Wood ruled that The Times violated Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe’s right to attorney-client privilege by publishing communications between O’Keefe and his lawyer, Benjamin Barr.

• The New York Times must immediately turn over confidential legal memos that it obtained and published in a story about the conservative sting-operation media organization Project Veritas, a Westchester Supreme Court judge ruled in an order made public Friday.

品牌回应

• 否认 — The New York Times

  The Times, meanwhile, denies the accusations.

• 否认 — The New York Times

  we plan to vigorously defend against it.

• 否认 — Time

  “It’s flattering that the New York Times is concerned with the success of TIME 100 Talks, but we find their complaint to be baseless and somewhat bewildering,” the magazine said in a statement.

• 否认 — The New York Times

  In a statement, a New York Times spokesperson said: “The Trump Campaign has turned to the courts to try to punish an opinion writer for having an opinion they find unacceptable. Fortunately, the law protects the right of Americans to express their judgments and conclusions, especially about events of public importance. We look forward to vindicating that right in this case.”

来源摘录

• The Times, meanwhile, denies the accusations.

• by Adi RobertsonJan 13, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

• He claims the headline misrepresents his interview, where he condemns the donation, but says that “if you’re going to take the money, you damn well better make it anonymous.”

来源摘录

• The introduction to the new podcast did not receive the warmest welcome on social media.

• "Nice White Parents," a limited series from the publication in partnership with Serial Productions, will focus on "the 60-year relationship between white parents and the public school down the block."

• "This is not only incredibly bigoted, it’s also so, SO ignorant.

品牌回应

• 澄清 — The New York Times

  During this podcast, which afforded a correction only to listeners of the “Caliphate” podcast feed, Baquet explained that the Times had failed to investigate, fact-check, and evaluate Chaudhry’s false testimony.

来源摘录

• During this podcast, which afforded a correction only to listeners of the “Caliphate” podcast feed, Baquet explained that the Times had failed to investigate, fact-check, and evaluate Chaudhry’s false testimony.

• While the New York Times acknowledged there were significant errors in its reporting of a fake Islamic terrorist, the publication has repeatedly side-stepped the opportunity to remain fully transparent and has not removed any of the episodes nor stories.

品牌回应

• 道歉 — 《纽约时报》

  《纽约时报》之后发文道歉称有关文章“没有达到我们的标准，不应该发表。”

来源摘录

• 《纽约时报》之后发文道歉称有关文章“没有达到我们的标准，不应该发表。”

• 本周，该报800多名员工签署公开信，抗议刊登阿肯色州共和党参议员汤姆•科顿一篇就有关抗议采取军事行动的评论文章。

品牌回应

• 澄清 — The New York Times

  The New York Times’ executive editor, Dean Baquet, defended the publication’s decision. “The president and some of his supporters have attacked the credibility of the whistle-blower, who has presented information that has touched off a landmark impeachment proceeding,” Baquet said in a statement. “We wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.”

来源摘录

• The New York Times’ executive editor, Dean Baquet, defended the publication’s decision. “The president and some of his supporters have attacked the credibility of the whistle-blower, who has presented information that has touched off a landmark impeachment proceeding,” Baquet said in a statement. “We wanted to provide information to readers that allows them to make their own judgments about whether or not he is credible.”

• The New York Times is facing criticism over its decision to publish revealing details about the whistleblower whose explosive complaint, which raised concerns about Donald Trump’s conversation with the Ukrainian president and the White House’s apparent attempts to cover it up, was made public on Thursday.

• Readers, including those who work with or within the intelligence community, national security experts and advocates for whistleblower protection, expressed concern that the decision compromised the individual’s safety.