NO.
The aspects of a day are assigned to the quarters of the day in the same way as the seasons of the year are broken up between the solstices and the equinoxes.
Ergo, as it is for a year:
- winter: winter solstice to spring equinox
- spring: spring equinox to summer solstice
- summer: summer solstice to fall equinox
- fall: fall equinox to winter solstice
So is it for a day:
- night: midnight to 6am
- morning: 6am to noon
- afternoon: noon to 6pm
- evening: 6pm to midnight
That’s a pretty controversial take. I don’t think anyone would call 5am “night” if they woke up at that time, but just really early morning. Same with 11pm being evening is more to do if weather you’re still awake or not. These are fuzzy definitions that are more about vibes than precisely what the clock says.
Same with the seasons really. There’s the definition you’ve given, and then there’s the one that’s more about the seasonal differences in the region. Winter where I live for example starts in November (probably around Remembrance day if I were to pin it down). It’s silly too wait until the solstice to consider it winter when there’s been over a month of snow on the ground and freezing temps.
The dictionary is…literally (hello self-evidence) full of words for which there has long existed an ‘Objective Definition’ but which usage has brought a consensus based ‘Subjective Definition’. Etymology is the study of a shifting process, and both you and them are correct:
Them in the expected usage a publication should use to apply it to a discreet entity, and you in the fact that the subjective shift in meaning gives us words that map anecdotally to our lives.
Truly…language is awe-some.
No one says 10 pm or midnight is the evening.
See this is interesting because I use the words “evening” and “night” interchangeably. I’m from (broadly) northern Ohio.
If I’m greeting someone, “good morning” is from the time I wake up until noon, “good afternoon” from noon until the sun goes down or it’s 7pm or so, and “good evening” at any other time. It could be 3am, and if I’m meeting someone, I’d say “good evening.”
“Good night” is when you’re leaving. “Have a good night.” But night time is when it’s dark and evening is generally the same time.
Where I live, in December, it’s already night by 4pm, whereas in July, 4pm isn’t even the peak of heat yet. But if someone said “good evening” to me at 4pm in either of them, I’d prob accept it either way, and I’m a meteorologist
Also: In the UK and the US, the typical meteorological standard is just to split seasons by month (DJF MAM JJA SON) for easy stats reasons, but other countries have entirely different standards based on climate. Different people have different definitions and it’s completely fine
This is the only correct take with the etymology partitioning of the words.
There’s merit to change afternoon to mid day, midnight to its opposite, then using morning and evening for their opposites.
More correct words would be
Night = 6p-6a Day = 6a - 6p
Night= 9pm - 3am Morning = 3am - 9am Day= 9am - 3pm Evening = 3pm - 9pm
Instead day also has connotations of the entirety of the day. So in reality we just need a new word for the sunny part of the day… Sunday and Moonday! Wait… Lightday and Darkday! Wait…
Midnight… Midmorn… Midday… Mideve… Wait…
AfterNoon. AfterEve. AfterNight. AfterMorn. Wait…
You know what. Fuck midnight. I’m now calling midnight Onno. now. Since it sounds like emo, oh no, and is the opposite of noon.
I’ll continue the lingual tradition of purposely mispronouncing Onno as AhNo instead of OhNo though because you can’t have English being phonetic now…
Lying fake news media doesn’t want Americans to know about our big beautiful VP candidate!! The failing New York Times once again showing it’s tremendously unfair bias! Sad!
Remember that time the NYT published Judith Miller’s stenography for the Bush Administration’s lies leading up to the war in Iraq? I’m sure they learned their lesson from that debacle, though.
I wonder what Media Bias Fact Check has to say about them?
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Newspaper
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
What a goddamned joke.
The NYT was shitty long before that. They famously did not cover the Holocaust. Not the run up, and not even during the war.
When the camps were liberated, Americans at home had no idea who was in the camps.
The owner of the NYT was later asked about their failures in covering the Holocaust and the buildup, and said with a shrug “the NYT didn’t really cover the Holocaust”.
As a note the owner of the NYT was Jewish. But didn’t want to be associated with poor Jews.
I really wish Rooki would listen to the community about this silly bot. But they won’t, and their staunch defense in the face of criticism suggests an ulterior motive.
Tinfoil hat time: I think they got a Ground News sponsor for Lemmy (GN started an ad campaign just as this started) and are trying to look unbiased by having both GN and MBFC… in every single news post.
Yeah I had a similar feeling about ground news. I had assumed the bot was at least created by someone who works there, using whatever algorithm that site uses to rate sources. The fact that’s it’s mentioned in every post really rubs me the wrong way, on top of how shitty the bot is at doing what it’s supposed to. And yet, it’s still around. What do we have to do to finally get rid of it?
Am I late or oblivious? Is grte the bot? I couldn’t tell from the post history. Or is this way, way over my old-aged head?
Paywall free: https://archive.ph/I2G3o
The “great” part about how absolute shit NYT is, is how after the “great media consolidation” ~15 years ago when most of the major outlets were bought by billionaires the first thing they did was cut their investigation and research departments in favor of “copying” the NYT stories…
They don’t care about quality, or content, they’re the typical business school jackass type that thinks “ThE BrAnD mEAnS eVeRyThInG!” As in: you’ll eat whatever I serve and you’ll keep doing it because of the name I bought.
Same shit is happening with so called “AAA” game developers (Bethesda… Among others) except this isn’t fucking clothing. Gucci sells because people want the name. The Washington Post can go fuck themselves, no one but Bezos cares about the name.
NYT will go further and count it as 2 separate lies and clearly demonstrate how both sides are basically the same
FUCK NYT
I don’t get it, is the joke that NYT is secretly pro trump or something?
I read through a few of her articles just now. I’m not detecting any pro-Trump bias: she seems very skeptical of the Trump/Gabbard/RFK alliance and has been in the news for talking about how “shaken” Trump was after the DNC. Also, even if she was a secret conservative that is not indicative of NYT as a whole.
It’s that they’re fact checking trivialities. You have one fact check where Trump says “The stock market was up 10,000% during my Presidency”. Then there’s another fact check where Kamala says “I remember seeing the sunset in Pittsburgh that day” when she was already gone by mid afternoon. These are rated as equal lies in the tally.
It’s not so much that they are deliberately pro Trump. It’s that their need for false “balance” and “objectivity” stops them from calling out any one side when the lies are so much more egregious.
There’s a recent Behind the Bastards podcast that covers how the liberal media handled the rise of Adolf Hitler, including the New York Times. The reasons for their behavior haven’t changed, they never did any post-war introspection on what went wrong, and they’re making exactly the same mistakes with Trump. The only media that can look back on that time and be proud of how they reported it were explicitly communist newspapers that never tried to hide their bias.
Trump can complain about the “liberal media” as much as he wants. He needs them to behave in exactly the way they do or he wouldn’t get anywhere.
Where do you see they fact checked Kamala harris about a sunset in Pittsburgh? I searched and couldn’t find it.
Also, it’s not like any fact checkers are obligated to report 1 lie for harris for each lie for Trump. They focus more on Trump because trump tells more lies. I couldn’t find this data for NYT, but the Washington Post logged 511 misleading claims for Trump in the first 100 days of his presidency and 78 for Biden over the same time period.
Those numbers seem fair to me. You suggest that liberal news outlets are more likely to call out Democrats than Republicans for equally small falsehoods, but the numbers don’t seem to back that up and it doesn’t make any sense to me. Unless you can provide any evidence I don’t believe it.
The job of independent media is to be honest and truthful. It is not to do whatever is necessary to prevent a given candidate from being elected, with the ends justifying the means.
Where do you see they fact checked Kamala harris about a sunset in Pittsburgh? I searched and couldn’t find it.
It was a hypothetical. To my knowledge, Trump didn’t claim a 10,000% rise in the stock market, either.
I couldn’t find this data for NYT, but the Washington Post logged 511 misleading claims for Trump in the first 100 days of his presidency and 78 for Biden over the same time period.
Tallies like this are exactly the problem. What was the substance of those lies?
The job of independent media is to be honest and truthful.
Hunter S Thompson disagrees with you. From his obituary on Nixon, titled “He was a crook”:
“Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism – which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.”
Listening to that Behind the Bastards episode right now: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0Xt4xGrdzNvjIZe75bRdkq?si=72c4d10962674f57
By this point it’s well established fact that the Times is far more likely to attack Democrats over relatively trivial points when it ought to be attacking Republicans over important points. There’s various speculation as to why. Ownership of the newspaper is a factor. Trying to appear centrist is definitely a second factor.
And that newspaper does a very bad job of it. But I sympathize with any paper who tries to be centrist because at some point you either align your reporting with reality or you lose credibility. And many of us realize years ago that the Times just doesn’t have much credibility to spare.
