 |
|
|
|||||
Did the New York Times deceive readers into needlessly despairing over the welfare of Gazas children? Or did the Paper of Record fail readers by sowing doubt into its own reporting on those children, with a needless update to an important article? For many, the answer seems contingent on which social media site they preferX or Bluesky. The precise, bizarro-world opposition of the two reactions reveals a lot about how a public narrative takes hold in 2025s wildly fractured info environment. Just over a decade ago, BuzzFeed ignited a raging debate online with a post about The Dress. Some observers were sure that the garment in question was white and gold; others swore it was actually blue and black. Both sides argued endlessly. It was the ideal introduction to an era in which everyone could look at the exact same image and see something completely different. Now, Americans are so ideologically polarized, our competing realities each have their own bespoke microblogging platforms. Both reacted strongly to an update issued by the Times on July 29. The update was to a July 25 article with the headline: Gazans Are Dying of Starvation. In its delicate approach to perhaps the worlds most divisive issue, the article soberly described the claims and counter-claims around the dearth of food and medical aid in Gaza, but it left no ambiguity around severe malnourishment in the devastated regionespecially among children. The article arrived at a critical moment, when even some of Israels fiercest advocates, including journalist Bari Weiss and President Donald Trump, have expressed concern over the starvation crisis. Then came the editors note. A controversial update The articles conclusion now carries a post-script about one of the many children depicted in it: an 18-month-old boy whose spinal column is horrifyingly visible through his back. This article has been updated to include information about Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, a child in Gaza suffering from severe malnutrition, the announcement begins. After publication of the article, The Times learned from his doctor that Mohammed also had pre-existing health problems. Those health issues are never precisely named, though the text of the article now mentions that the problems affect[ed] his brain and his muscle development. The updated version still clearly states, though, that the toddlers health deteriorated rapidly in recent months as it became increasingly difficult to find food and medical care, and that the medical clinic that treated him said he suffers from severe malnutrition. In other words, nothing about the update contradicts the thrust of the article in any way. However, the update arrived following a PR pressure campaign about the article, culminating in a July 27 item in the New York Post with this headline: Viral images of starving Gaza boy dont tell the whole story because he suffers from genetic disorders, critics say. In response to the Post tweeting that item, popular X account StopAntisemitism, known for doxxing people who express pro-Palestinian views and agitating to get them fired, posted an image of a healthier-looking child standing near the malnourished toddler in question, and accusing NYT of cropping him out. The Times editors now found themselves in a defensive position. Issuing an editors note or an update is no light matter, as either runs the risk of being conflated with a correction. While the former typically involves added context or even a mere clarification on a story, the latter is an acknowledgment that something in the story was wrong and has been corrected. Even though the purpose of a correction is to be transparent with readers about factual errors, corrections are often seen by observers as an admission of wrongdoing on the part of news organizations Whatever internal deliberations at the Times ultimately led to the update, its effects were quickly seen in two very different responses. A tale of two Twitters Although the New York Times PR account on Bluesky never posted about the update, the one on X did, and screenshots of the tweet quickly migrated to the other site, where thousands of accounts began circulating and condemning it. Mileage may vary depending on who one follows on Bluesky, but posts about the NYT update were practically inescapable among the sites politics and media contingent. False alarm, everybody! Turns out the kids theyre starving to death werent perfectly healthy to begin with so no biggie— Kevin M. Kruse (@kevinmkruse.bsky.social) 2025-07-30T12:06:21.258Z Some called out the cruelty of treating a childs pre-existing condition as some kind of gotchaas though children with health issues are more easily malnourished or that including them to indicate devastation is journalistic malpractice. They pointed out how, on the other hand, that nutrition is even more important for such children. Others drew attention to how the update’s wording mirrored those who had dismissed the severity of Covid on the basis that many who died from it had pre-existing conditions. Meanwhile, the reaction on X was a photo negative of the one on Bluesky. Although plenty of X users shared the same concerns as those on the other site, an abundance of Xs more visible residentsthe algorithm-boosted premium subscriberswere just as outraged as their counterparts, only for inverse reasons. Way too late. This correction will get 1/1000th the reachThe story was a blood libel against Jews everywhereYou should have a long hard look in the mirror and reassess whats going on at your paper— Shaun Maguire (@shaunmmaguire) July 29, 2025 The general tone among many responding to the update was fury that the Times had apparently manufactured sympathy by withholding information. Here, the editors note primarily seemed to be received as a correctionand a nefarious one at that. It was as though the omission of one childs questionably relevant medical condition had invalidated the articles description of Hollow-eyed, skeletal children languish[ing] on hospital beds or [being] cared for by parents, who gaze helplessly at protruding ribs and shoulder blades, and emaciated limbs resembling brittle sticks. Several X users demanded a retraction or firings, and parroted StopAntisemitisms claims that the Times had strategically cropped out a healthier child from the offending photo. It was a dark mirroring of the reaction on the other platform, reflecting the fullness of our co-existing realities. But which one would be absorbed into the broader narrative? The loudest voice wins The NYT article arrived at a tipping point in U.S. attitudes about the Israel-Hamas war. As of July 29, according to Gallup, only 32% of Americans support Israels military action in Gazaa new low since the company started polling the issue in November 2023. The more the focus remains on famine and starving children, the more pressure on the U.S. government to address in a meaningful way a humanitarian crisis it has helped perpetuate. By issuing an update to what may be the most significant article on the malnutrition epidemic, the Times has now given that 32% a cudgel against rising sympathy toward Gazans: the whiff of a media hoax. Because X has magnitudes more users than its competitor, its still considered closer to the mainstream, with Bluesky cast as the scrappy woke fringeMSNBC to Xs Fox News. And since the loudest voice tends to win these days, the actual Fox News is already echoing the X position that NYT deceived the world about what is happening in Gaza. Just look at this chyron— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona.bsky.social) 2025-07-30T14:54:06.367Z Its a cynical way to treat a literal matter of life and death for so manyand unlike an article in the Paper of Record, there can be no mitigating update for dying from starvation.
Category:
E-Commerce
Stocks edged higher in afternoon trading on Wall Street Thursday and are hovering around record highs amid rallies for big technology stocks. The S&P 500 rose 0.2% and is just below the record high it set on Monday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 96 points, or 0.2%, as of 1:38 p.m. Eastern. The technology-heavy Nasdaq jumped 0.5% and is on track for a record. The technology sector did the heavy lifting for the broader market following results from big companies showcasing advancements in artificial intelligence. Roughly 70% of stocks in the S&P 500 were losing ground, but big technology stocks with hefty values helped offset losses elsewhere. Facebook and Instagram’s parent company Meta Platforms surged 11.9% after it crushed Wall Street’s sales and profit targets even as the company continues to pour billions into artificial intelligence. Microsoft jumped 4.1% after also posting better results than analysts expected. Microsoft also gave investors an encouraging update on its Azure cloud computing platform, which is a centerpiece of the company’s artificial intelligence efforts. Fellow technology giants Apple and Amazon will report their results after the closing bell. Big Tech companies have regularly been the driving force behind much of the market’s gains over enthusiasm for the future of artificial intelligence. Earnings remained a key focus outside of the technology sector in what has been a heavy week so far for corporate financial results. CVS Health rose 1.4% after it topped Wall Street expectations for the second quarter and raised its full-year forecast again. Wall Street is also monitoring the latest economic data, which included an update on inflation. The Commerce Department said prices rose 2.6% in June compared with a year ago, as measured by the personal consumption expenditures index. That’s the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure for inflation. The latest reading was slightly higher than economists expected and also marks an increase from an annual pace of 2.4% in May. Results from another measure of inflation earlier this month, the consumer price index, also showed inflation rising in June. Also on Thursday, a report showed that the number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits inched up last week. The latest updates on inflation and the jobs market are landing amid lingering concerns about the impact of tariffs. Inflation’s temperature is being closely monitored by businesses and the Fed to better gauge the impact of President Donald Trumps on-again-off-again approach to import taxes. Companies including Ford and Hersheys have more recently warned that tariffs are weighing on their latest and projected financial results. Trump has said he will levy tariffs against goods from dozens of countries if they dont reach agreements with the U.S. by Friday. The latest developments in the seemingly unpredictable tariff landscape include a potential pause in tariff escalations with China and a deal with South Korea. The reasons behind trade policy decisions remain unpredictable. Trump, on Wednesday, signed an executive order to impose his threatened 50% tariffs on Brazil. He has directly linked the import tax to the trial of his ally, the countrys former president Jair Bolsonaro. He has also said that trade negotiations with Canada would be more difficult in the wake of that nation’s economically unrelated decision to recognize a Palestinian state. Uncertainty over tariffs and inflation have prompted the Fed to leave its benchmark interest rate alone through the central bank’s past five meetings, including the one that ended Wednesday. The Fed has been trying to cool the rate of inflation back to its target of 2%. It has come close, but inflation remains stubbornly stuck just above that target. A cut in rates would give the job market and overall economy a boost, but it could also risk fueling inflation. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has been pressured by Trump to cut the benchmark rate, though that decision isn’t his to make alone, but belongs to the 12 members of the Federal Open Market Committee. Inflation is only a bit above the Feds target, but looks likely to rise in the second half of the year due to tariffs,” said by Bill Adams, chief economist for Comerica Bank. With the job market in pretty good shape, they see room to hold interest rates steady and lean against inflations increase near-term. Wall Street has been tempering their expectations for rate cuts at the Fed’s next meeting in September. Traders now see a 39% chance of a rate cut, according to data from CME Group. That’s down from 58.4% a week ago and a 75.4% chance a month ago. Treasury yields held steady in the bond market. The yield on the 10-year Treasury slipped to 4.34% from 4.37% late Wednesday. The yield on the two-year Treasury remained at 3.94% from late Wednesday. Markets were mostly mixed in Asia and Europe. Damian J. Troise, Teresa Cerojano, and Matt Ott, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Figma Inc.’s IPO is one of the most talked-about public offerings in tech this year, and its happening today. A few people stand to make a lot of moneyincluding cofounder and CEO Dylan Field, as well as a number of big venture capital investors. Figma, a collaborative design software platform, provides a suite of online design tools for designers to craft user interfaces (UIs) for websites and apps, which are popular with Fortune 500 companies. The tools are used by a host of businesses, from Microsoft to Zoom. Heres a look at how much some of the principal players could take home as the company IPOs. First, how is the Figma IPO going? On Wednesday, Figma Inc. priced the IPO at $33 a share. On Thursday, shares opened at almost triple their initial public offering price on Thursday, at $85 on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE:FIG), which valued the company at about $50 billion. That valuation greatly exceeds a previous $20 billion buyout attempt from Adobe that fell apart in 2023. Trading was halted after shares quickly rose above $112. Figma IPO payout: Field, Wallace biggest winners One of the biggest winners of this listing is Figma’s cofounder, 33-year-old Dylan Field, who is now worth an estimated $1.8 billion, but as Forbes noted, this could be just the beginning of his payout; he could get another $1.3 billion in stock if the stock hits $130 per share. Based on the IPO price, Field’s cofounder Evan Wallace would be worth an estimated $1.3 billion, but he donated a third of his shares to the anti-homeless nonprofit Marin Community Foundation, per Axios. (Wallace left the company in 2021.) Index Ventures, Greylock Partners, Kleiner Perkins sell shares The IPO enables existing shareholders to sell more shares than expected at a higher ratio; and Figmas biggest venture investors are cashing in. Bloomberg reported the company sold 12.47 million shares in the IPO while investors including Index Ventures, Greylock Partners, and Kleiner Perkins sold 24.46 million shares at a market value of $16.1 billion, based on the outstanding shares listed in its filings. With employee stock options and restricted stock units, the company has a fully diluted value of about $18.5 billion. According to Venture Capital Journal, the biggest winner here would be Index Ventures, which holds 62.57 million shares, which at the opening price of $85, are worth $5.3 billion. The Journal reported that in all, the VCs stand to make more than $6 billion even at conservative estimates. Figma by the numbers As Fast Company previously reported, Figma reported $228.2 million in revenue for the first three months of 2025, according to its SEC filings. The company reported $749 million in revenue in 2024, an increase of 48% year-over-year. The design software maker has 13 million monthly active users.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||