Some good thoughts, most of which I applaud. I do disagree with this part, though:
>>> For one thing, as Stokols writes, the Times’ Washington staff makes a valid point when they argue that, “writing about Trump with the stronger language Biden aides seem to want would likely do more to affect the newspaper’s brand, and the public’s trust in it, than Trump’s.”
I believe that many of us who are upset at the WaPo (and NYT) are not looking for "stronger language," necessarily. Or at least that's not our primary concern. What we want is some kind of balance; e.g., NOT two weeks of wall-to-wall coverage over Robert Hur's hatchet job; NOT making every tiny Biden stutter front page news, while relegating coverage of Trump's obviously fascist speeches to page A16. Also, more coverage of Trump's increasing mental decline. Also, more prominent coverage of Biden Administration accomplishments, while resisting the never-ending temptation to write yet another one of those "here's why the good news is actually bad news for Biden." And so on.
Finally, it is seriously hard to imagine how making coverage of Trump more prominent and in-depth is going to hurt the WaPo. The people who don't trust the WaPo have long since made up their minds about that. Maybe there are a few low-info/swing voters who'd be put off, but I have to think that for every one of those, there's going to be another who says, "Wow. I didn't realize things were this bad with Trump. Good thing the WaPo reported it."
I think this is completely consistent with the NYT's ethos over decades, maybe all the way back to the mid-1970s. More than anything else, the NYT publishers and editors want to be close to power. They want to be trusted by the political elite and to provide advice to the wealthy (about investments, about where to live, about the high culture worth consuming). This produces shifts that aren't quite about following partisan ideological lines but are about trying to demonstrate that they can be trusted to provide sage advice to the people in charge. Not quite "on the team"--that's too much like propaganda--but sort of the "we can be a useful advisor to the king, whomever the king might be".
So Keller shifted over hard to supporting the Iraq War, for example, and more or less told his staff that they wouldn't be reporting anything hostile to the war (until later, when it became a more fashionable position among the political class). A.M. Rosenthal was determined to show the Reagan Administration that the NYT were reliable anti-Communists and shut down Ray Bonner's reporting from El Salvador to demonstrate that point.
They tried really hard to show Trump that they could be trusted in the same way--that they'd criticize him, sure, but if he gave them access, they'd stay inside the same space of respectful-courtier. He mostly refused except for talking to Maggie Haberman, because he can't resist personal coverage, no matter how it makes him look. You can feel how painful the top editors and publisher found their exclusion from power, and I think that's why they're hassling Biden--they assumed he'd let them back in and he mostly hasn't. But they're also trying to show distance from Biden as a way of accommodating Trump and Trumpism in case it wins out in November--they're once again offering to be courtiers, to be "inside the room".
The NYT has no especially principled interest in democracy as such, and has never been particularly friendly to the ideal of a wide-open democratic public sphere--it cultivates a view of itself as the pinnacle of American journalism, as an elite without peers, as the "paper of record", which is part of why NYT reporters are often such assholes on social media whenever they're criticized--they really think of themselves as above it all, and most criticism as a version of tugging on Superman's cape. The affirmation of their top-dog status is that the people in power can't do without them, and they work very hard to try and make sure that's so. If they're spurned, they do their best to mete out punishment for it.
“At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it’s not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second.”
None of the issues listed after democracy matter if there’s no democracy. Immigration is a top priority for MAGAS not everyone. I canceled my NYT subscription a few months ago. I got tired of paying for bs horse race polls and the never ending coverage of Biden’s age.
Immigration is a top priority among the general public. Defining everyone listing it as a MAGA is No True Scotsmanning yourself into conceding majoritarian legitimacy to Trump.
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat, fwiw), I can say with confidence that it’s a massive issue here. Our mayor has been carrying on about it, and he’s right to be: we don’t have the money in our city coffers to cover the costs of the massive influx we’ve had from the Greg Abbott stunt—hell, we barely have enough to cover the normal stuff, never mind the 175,000-odd new arrivals we’ve had. This isn’t just some “issue”; it’s real-life stuff. The island across the river from where I live has a gigantic tent thing on it that’s housing a whole bunch of them, and it’s become commonplace to see police lights over there at night, when previously nobody would be there at nighttime at all.
1. Has the NYT ever released how much business they did with the Trump Organization BEFORE 2016? Because I personally thought that was why they didn't cover stories like Trump's involvement with organized crime in NYC and Atlantic City.
2. Has the NYT explained why they sat on the stories about Santos before the 2022 election? Newsday had them. The Times was too busy looking for a red wave.
3. Here's a thought. Outside of making NYT reporters feel important, what actually is the benefit of an interview with the president? Did Sulzberger's interview with Trump change a damn thing? Or did they just fellate each other?
4. How many years has the Times sat on stories about corruption in the Supreme Court? For fear of upsetting their "access"?
What good is access to dinner parties when you don't assign reporters to get the receipts?
"it strives for the appearance of impartial neutrality" A news source shouldn't have to "strive", or try hard, or attempt, neutrality. You just do it. And "appearance" is just another word for disguise, i.e. deception.
Your comment is a common position of the Left: Neutrality is impossible. Really? My plumber and accountant can prevent their private views from interfering with their work, but not my reporter? Really?
And the cigarette analogy is haywire. No one believes cigarettes are healthy for them. Yet half the country believes Trump is healthy for them. You just want your facts to be their facts.
And finally good reporting doesn't "normalize" anything. It's good reporting, and I don't want some 25 year-old nitwit with a press ID telling me what "normal" is. Do you?
I've stared at this and can make neither heads nor tails of what you're saying, other than it is racist and sexist. I will not engage with people who traffic in prejudice.
She's saying that even in the places where you think someone's personal views won't affect their work (your examples of plumbing and accounting), you will find that yes, it actually can – and often the first and most obvious ways that happens is through racist or sexist behavior from someone you've hired to do a job.
To her other points: Mechanics are notoriously sexist with women who bring their cars in on their own, and there is a fear of being upcharged for unnecessary services, or just being talked down to.
There is documented evidence that doctors scale women's pain at a lower threshold, often leading to under-diagnosis of conditions like PCOS, endomytreosis, ovarian cancer, etc.
Anyway, Link said it best above "2. Your plumber and accountant analogies are misguided. Plumbing and accounting are far less tied to people's biases than reporting, and they have objective tests for whether they were done correctly. The pipes leak, or they don't. The books balance, or they don't. Not so for reporting." As an editor, there is the story, and there is the framing of the story. You can't take your biases out of the framing. That's ok, you just have to be open about the fact that they are there when asked.
You're parsing this to death. A quibble does not invalidate a point. "impartial coverage will heavily favor that conclusion" You mean your conclusion, one not shared by 50% of the electorate. That's real impartial. I think we're done
I think the White House and the Times need to gather around the Festivus Pole for an airing of grievences followed by Biden wrestling Sulzberger in Feats of Strength.
I think it's hilarious that Sulzberger believes the ultimate test for Presidential grit, fortitude, and competence is surviving the furnace of a NYT interview.
Sure, the economy and immigration are top of readers' minds. But how about covering those issues with a sense of balance? And by that I mean, write about, e.g., the positive legislative initiatives and outcomes achieved under Biden and how Republican senators and Representatives tout such achievements (e.g. on infrastructure) in their own constituencies, even though they voted against them? Write on what impact would Republican policies have on those issues, instead of taking the "and here's why this is bad news for Joe Biden" approach?
So some idiot at the NYT thinks there's a good chance tfg will the PV? They are even more irrelevant than I thought, and Biden and his team are right to give them the cold shoulder. Biden is ahead in national polling, and was always going to win the PV. He is at risk in the EC.The country hates trump. Focus groups consistently show that people do not hate Biden; they just think he is too old to run again ( and the VP might have to step if or when Biden has an elder crisis, like a broken hip ). And that would. mean, horrors, a Black female would be president. Man, people just over analyze this stuff when it's really pretty simple.
Newspapers (media in general) can either "call 'em like they see 'em" or be shills for one side or the other. Maybe we read two different version of the NYTs but what is more likely we each bring our personal biases to what we read. From the right it does not seem that the NYTs provides sympathetic coverage to DJT nor overly critical coverage of President Biden. DJT's trials receive unflattering daily coverage, the coverage of the war in Gaza is notably sympathetic to the Gazans. Just because there are some people who believe that DJT presents an unprecedented threat to democracy, there are similar numbers on the other side of the aisle who believe there are democrats who present equally, if not more dangerous, albeit different threats from the left. If the NYTs were to shill for President Biden more than they already do, they would run the risk of falling into the same trap that has befallen NPR. The Times should be publishing more Opeds like the one from Tom Cotton that cost editor James Bennet his job rather than fewer. President Biden *is* old, he does appear infirm. Inflation was *not* just transitory. Unregulated illegal immigration *does* frighten people. Many of our cities *do* appear to have large areas that are borderline lawless. Ignoring the president's role in failing to confront those issues does 'democracy' no great service.
Biden attempted the biggest and most important immigration reform since 1986. The Rs squashed it because a fascist facing trial told them to. The NYT has not shilled for any Dem that I can recall in decades. Emailz. Tom Cotton is a phony elitist who flirts with fascism. It was embarrassing that the NYT would print anything by him, and many people were correctly outraged. NPR stands for Nice Polite Republicans; but her emailzz! Inflation has been largely canceled out by wage increases in the strongest job market since 1960 ; there is a plethora of data, easily found, which shows just how badly republicans have sucked on the economy going back decades. NYC is one of the safest cities in the USA. You are much more likely to be shot in a state with lax gun laws. Ask the families in Uvalde what constitutes lawlessness; having a maniac who easily purchased an assault weapon slaughter their children while heavily armed cops were too scared to confront him? Sounds lawless to me.....there is no such thing as "unregulated immigration" we have lots of laws on the books, and if your neighbors would stop hiring all the undocumented people to cut their lawns and clean their toilets, pick their strawberries and tomatoes, and work for low wages in processing plants so you could have cheap chicken wings, by golly they'd stop coming. But go ahead, try to argue that we were better off under the bleach injecting idiot who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans ( way more than are attacked by immigrants, who have the lowest rates of crime in the country ) and tanked the economy because of his mismanagement, and that voters will be stupid enough to return him to the WH from his jail cell, where he will pardon a bunch of jackbooted thugs who thought it was ok to storm the capital and take a crap on the premises, AFTER they had assaulted and killed police officers. I probably left a few things out. Oh, and trump's own former VP. among a deluge of former cabinet members, won't even vote for him. Here's what the NYT should report if they were objective: Biden has been a good president, the country is better off, the Democratic party is strong and winning elections handily across the country ( thanks to reactionary SCOTUS judges appointed by trump who want women to be chattel ) and trump is the ugliest thing ever produced in American politics, hands down. That would not be bias, that would all be fact. In fact, you can find many publications that have reported just that. But the NYT can't seem to....
The point remains the “they killed cops” is one of the biggest fabrications about what happened your hyperbole notwithstanding. The best part is the concern usually comes from ACAB lunatics who love the idea of dead police.
Your comment is just one bit of rightwing propaganda after another. Before you get wound up about any issue, I think you should ask yourself: 1) Is this something I should be concerned about? 2) What is the level of concern I should have about this vs. other issues? 3) Am I responding to emotional appeals to be upset about this? 4) Are there any facts which disprove what I am being told about this?
Just to take one item, crime is generally falling and has been falling for many years. There is some pretty good evidence that the reason for the decline is due to the latent effect of banning leaded gasoline (you can google it).
I would also add that I generally try to avoid emotional appeals, whether from the right or from the left. When we get too emotional, we don't think creatively or keep our perspective.
"the coverage of the war in Gaza is notably sympathetic to the Gazans" Whaat? The Israelis are getting all the love, and from both Fox and CNN! Scary. Otherwise an excellent take on the media.
You gotta be kidding. It was as stupid a take I've seen on the media as you can get. Tell me where the NYT shills for Biden. I'd like to share that with the millions of pissed off people who are angry at their passive headlines normalizing a fascist sociopath. As for what the right wingers believe about Democrats being a threat of some sort to the country, well, some people believe in a flat earth. They can't be taken seriously, other than as a bunch of dangerous knuckleheads.
“Biden has given barely more than a third as many interviews in his first term as Trump did during his first term. If the point of Biden’s presidency is to return American politics back to pre-Trump norms, the current White House is failing badly in this area.”
Then why the comparison the Trump’s first term and not actual pre-Trump? Makes no sense.
I see them as acting in a way very consistent with democracy. They’re focused on issues that are of interest with general voting public. It isn’t their job to lead their readership - but it is the job of those running for power to reflect the will of the people. So if Joe Biden et al really cared about democracy, they’d shift their policies to match that of the voters. And his age is a very significant issue especially given how unpopular his VP is. But somehow the incentive system isn’t aligned to fix any of this. Rinse, repeat, if Biden loses it is NOT the NYTs fault. They’ll have lost a very winnable race.
Some good thoughts, most of which I applaud. I do disagree with this part, though:
>>> For one thing, as Stokols writes, the Times’ Washington staff makes a valid point when they argue that, “writing about Trump with the stronger language Biden aides seem to want would likely do more to affect the newspaper’s brand, and the public’s trust in it, than Trump’s.”
I believe that many of us who are upset at the WaPo (and NYT) are not looking for "stronger language," necessarily. Or at least that's not our primary concern. What we want is some kind of balance; e.g., NOT two weeks of wall-to-wall coverage over Robert Hur's hatchet job; NOT making every tiny Biden stutter front page news, while relegating coverage of Trump's obviously fascist speeches to page A16. Also, more coverage of Trump's increasing mental decline. Also, more prominent coverage of Biden Administration accomplishments, while resisting the never-ending temptation to write yet another one of those "here's why the good news is actually bad news for Biden." And so on.
Finally, it is seriously hard to imagine how making coverage of Trump more prominent and in-depth is going to hurt the WaPo. The people who don't trust the WaPo have long since made up their minds about that. Maybe there are a few low-info/swing voters who'd be put off, but I have to think that for every one of those, there's going to be another who says, "Wow. I didn't realize things were this bad with Trump. Good thing the WaPo reported it."
I think this is completely consistent with the NYT's ethos over decades, maybe all the way back to the mid-1970s. More than anything else, the NYT publishers and editors want to be close to power. They want to be trusted by the political elite and to provide advice to the wealthy (about investments, about where to live, about the high culture worth consuming). This produces shifts that aren't quite about following partisan ideological lines but are about trying to demonstrate that they can be trusted to provide sage advice to the people in charge. Not quite "on the team"--that's too much like propaganda--but sort of the "we can be a useful advisor to the king, whomever the king might be".
So Keller shifted over hard to supporting the Iraq War, for example, and more or less told his staff that they wouldn't be reporting anything hostile to the war (until later, when it became a more fashionable position among the political class). A.M. Rosenthal was determined to show the Reagan Administration that the NYT were reliable anti-Communists and shut down Ray Bonner's reporting from El Salvador to demonstrate that point.
They tried really hard to show Trump that they could be trusted in the same way--that they'd criticize him, sure, but if he gave them access, they'd stay inside the same space of respectful-courtier. He mostly refused except for talking to Maggie Haberman, because he can't resist personal coverage, no matter how it makes him look. You can feel how painful the top editors and publisher found their exclusion from power, and I think that's why they're hassling Biden--they assumed he'd let them back in and he mostly hasn't. But they're also trying to show distance from Biden as a way of accommodating Trump and Trumpism in case it wins out in November--they're once again offering to be courtiers, to be "inside the room".
The NYT has no especially principled interest in democracy as such, and has never been particularly friendly to the ideal of a wide-open democratic public sphere--it cultivates a view of itself as the pinnacle of American journalism, as an elite without peers, as the "paper of record", which is part of why NYT reporters are often such assholes on social media whenever they're criticized--they really think of themselves as above it all, and most criticism as a version of tugging on Superman's cape. The affirmation of their top-dog status is that the people in power can't do without them, and they work very hard to try and make sure that's so. If they're spurned, they do their best to mete out punishment for it.
“At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it’s not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second.”
None of the issues listed after democracy matter if there’s no democracy. Immigration is a top priority for MAGAS not everyone. I canceled my NYT subscription a few months ago. I got tired of paying for bs horse race polls and the never ending coverage of Biden’s age.
Immigration is a top priority among the general public. Defining everyone listing it as a MAGA is No True Scotsmanning yourself into conceding majoritarian legitimacy to Trump.
Do you have a link to a credible source that indicates immigration is the top issue for the general public?
As a New Yorker (and a Democrat, fwiw), I can say with confidence that it’s a massive issue here. Our mayor has been carrying on about it, and he’s right to be: we don’t have the money in our city coffers to cover the costs of the massive influx we’ve had from the Greg Abbott stunt—hell, we barely have enough to cover the normal stuff, never mind the 175,000-odd new arrivals we’ve had. This isn’t just some “issue”; it’s real-life stuff. The island across the river from where I live has a gigantic tent thing on it that’s housing a whole bunch of them, and it’s become commonplace to see police lights over there at night, when previously nobody would be there at nighttime at all.
I said "a" rather than "the" top issue, I recall that together with inflation were the top two.
I am disgusted with the Times and cancelled my subscription as well for all the same reasons.
I did too.
1. Has the NYT ever released how much business they did with the Trump Organization BEFORE 2016? Because I personally thought that was why they didn't cover stories like Trump's involvement with organized crime in NYC and Atlantic City.
2. Has the NYT explained why they sat on the stories about Santos before the 2022 election? Newsday had them. The Times was too busy looking for a red wave.
3. Here's a thought. Outside of making NYT reporters feel important, what actually is the benefit of an interview with the president? Did Sulzberger's interview with Trump change a damn thing? Or did they just fellate each other?
4. How many years has the Times sat on stories about corruption in the Supreme Court? For fear of upsetting their "access"?
What good is access to dinner parties when you don't assign reporters to get the receipts?
BUT HER EMAILS!!!!!!!~
"it strives for the appearance of impartial neutrality" A news source shouldn't have to "strive", or try hard, or attempt, neutrality. You just do it. And "appearance" is just another word for disguise, i.e. deception.
As usual Daniel an excellent, biting examination.
by coincidence I address neutrality in this week's 'stack
https://richarddonnelly.substack.com/p/the-death-of-writing
Your comment is a common position of the Left: Neutrality is impossible. Really? My plumber and accountant can prevent their private views from interfering with their work, but not my reporter? Really?
And the cigarette analogy is haywire. No one believes cigarettes are healthy for them. Yet half the country believes Trump is healthy for them. You just want your facts to be their facts.
And finally good reporting doesn't "normalize" anything. It's good reporting, and I don't want some 25 year-old nitwit with a press ID telling me what "normal" is. Do you?
Are you a white, straight guy?
Because if you're a woman or black, you already know the private views of your plumber and your accountant matter.
Congratulations on never considering that you are protected from that.
And if you don't believe me, I ask the single women you know about car repairs.
By the way, if private views don't matter why are pharmacists and doctors allowed to give substandard care to women because of their private views?
I've stared at this and can make neither heads nor tails of what you're saying, other than it is racist and sexist. I will not engage with people who traffic in prejudice.
Her point is proven then, I guess.
She's saying that even in the places where you think someone's personal views won't affect their work (your examples of plumbing and accounting), you will find that yes, it actually can – and often the first and most obvious ways that happens is through racist or sexist behavior from someone you've hired to do a job.
To her other points: Mechanics are notoriously sexist with women who bring their cars in on their own, and there is a fear of being upcharged for unnecessary services, or just being talked down to.
There is documented evidence that doctors scale women's pain at a lower threshold, often leading to under-diagnosis of conditions like PCOS, endomytreosis, ovarian cancer, etc.
Anyway, Link said it best above "2. Your plumber and accountant analogies are misguided. Plumbing and accounting are far less tied to people's biases than reporting, and they have objective tests for whether they were done correctly. The pipes leak, or they don't. The books balance, or they don't. Not so for reporting." As an editor, there is the story, and there is the framing of the story. You can't take your biases out of the framing. That's ok, you just have to be open about the fact that they are there when asked.
You're making my point. Of course we don't tolerate sexism and bias from mechanics or doctors. But journalists get a pass? Sheesh
1. Everything takes work. What's your point?
2. Conceded. I should have said psychiatrists, teachers, etc
3. I don't recall that, and in any case we're talking about the here and now, and your analogy is wrong in just the way I said.
4. What I was saying, and you evidently missed, is these "facts" are not facts, but opinions.
5. I'm not following, and I stand by my criticism about reporters introducing their opinions.
You're parsing this to death. A quibble does not invalidate a point. "impartial coverage will heavily favor that conclusion" You mean your conclusion, one not shared by 50% of the electorate. That's real impartial. I think we're done
I think the White House and the Times need to gather around the Festivus Pole for an airing of grievences followed by Biden wrestling Sulzberger in Feats of Strength.
That's one theory.
Most of us just unsubscribed.
I think it's hilarious that Sulzberger believes the ultimate test for Presidential grit, fortitude, and competence is surviving the furnace of a NYT interview.
I cancelled the old grey bitch
And i dont regret it
Number of NYT subscribers, all formats: 11 million
Nuimber of voters in the 2020 POTUS election: 175 million
Sure, the economy and immigration are top of readers' minds. But how about covering those issues with a sense of balance? And by that I mean, write about, e.g., the positive legislative initiatives and outcomes achieved under Biden and how Republican senators and Representatives tout such achievements (e.g. on infrastructure) in their own constituencies, even though they voted against them? Write on what impact would Republican policies have on those issues, instead of taking the "and here's why this is bad news for Joe Biden" approach?
That's Matt Yglesias' view. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1787463368120430639
So some idiot at the NYT thinks there's a good chance tfg will the PV? They are even more irrelevant than I thought, and Biden and his team are right to give them the cold shoulder. Biden is ahead in national polling, and was always going to win the PV. He is at risk in the EC.The country hates trump. Focus groups consistently show that people do not hate Biden; they just think he is too old to run again ( and the VP might have to step if or when Biden has an elder crisis, like a broken hip ). And that would. mean, horrors, a Black female would be president. Man, people just over analyze this stuff when it's really pretty simple.
Newspapers (media in general) can either "call 'em like they see 'em" or be shills for one side or the other. Maybe we read two different version of the NYTs but what is more likely we each bring our personal biases to what we read. From the right it does not seem that the NYTs provides sympathetic coverage to DJT nor overly critical coverage of President Biden. DJT's trials receive unflattering daily coverage, the coverage of the war in Gaza is notably sympathetic to the Gazans. Just because there are some people who believe that DJT presents an unprecedented threat to democracy, there are similar numbers on the other side of the aisle who believe there are democrats who present equally, if not more dangerous, albeit different threats from the left. If the NYTs were to shill for President Biden more than they already do, they would run the risk of falling into the same trap that has befallen NPR. The Times should be publishing more Opeds like the one from Tom Cotton that cost editor James Bennet his job rather than fewer. President Biden *is* old, he does appear infirm. Inflation was *not* just transitory. Unregulated illegal immigration *does* frighten people. Many of our cities *do* appear to have large areas that are borderline lawless. Ignoring the president's role in failing to confront those issues does 'democracy' no great service.
Biden attempted the biggest and most important immigration reform since 1986. The Rs squashed it because a fascist facing trial told them to. The NYT has not shilled for any Dem that I can recall in decades. Emailz. Tom Cotton is a phony elitist who flirts with fascism. It was embarrassing that the NYT would print anything by him, and many people were correctly outraged. NPR stands for Nice Polite Republicans; but her emailzz! Inflation has been largely canceled out by wage increases in the strongest job market since 1960 ; there is a plethora of data, easily found, which shows just how badly republicans have sucked on the economy going back decades. NYC is one of the safest cities in the USA. You are much more likely to be shot in a state with lax gun laws. Ask the families in Uvalde what constitutes lawlessness; having a maniac who easily purchased an assault weapon slaughter their children while heavily armed cops were too scared to confront him? Sounds lawless to me.....there is no such thing as "unregulated immigration" we have lots of laws on the books, and if your neighbors would stop hiring all the undocumented people to cut their lawns and clean their toilets, pick their strawberries and tomatoes, and work for low wages in processing plants so you could have cheap chicken wings, by golly they'd stop coming. But go ahead, try to argue that we were better off under the bleach injecting idiot who caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans ( way more than are attacked by immigrants, who have the lowest rates of crime in the country ) and tanked the economy because of his mismanagement, and that voters will be stupid enough to return him to the WH from his jail cell, where he will pardon a bunch of jackbooted thugs who thought it was ok to storm the capital and take a crap on the premises, AFTER they had assaulted and killed police officers. I probably left a few things out. Oh, and trump's own former VP. among a deluge of former cabinet members, won't even vote for him. Here's what the NYT should report if they were objective: Biden has been a good president, the country is better off, the Democratic party is strong and winning elections handily across the country ( thanks to reactionary SCOTUS judges appointed by trump who want women to be chattel ) and trump is the ugliest thing ever produced in American politics, hands down. That would not be bias, that would all be fact. In fact, you can find many publications that have reported just that. But the NYT can't seem to....
Stop lying, the only person killed on Jan 6 was a protestor.
Oh good, Sandra Garza will be so happy to know her partner's alive.
The point remains the “they killed cops” is one of the biggest fabrications about what happened your hyperbole notwithstanding. The best part is the concern usually comes from ACAB lunatics who love the idea of dead police.
Who was breaking into a building with violent intentions.
If she had tried breaking into my house, she'd probably be just as dead.
You of course only shoot black kids playing on your lawn.
Your comment is just one bit of rightwing propaganda after another. Before you get wound up about any issue, I think you should ask yourself: 1) Is this something I should be concerned about? 2) What is the level of concern I should have about this vs. other issues? 3) Am I responding to emotional appeals to be upset about this? 4) Are there any facts which disprove what I am being told about this?
Just to take one item, crime is generally falling and has been falling for many years. There is some pretty good evidence that the reason for the decline is due to the latent effect of banning leaded gasoline (you can google it).
I would also add that I generally try to avoid emotional appeals, whether from the right or from the left. When we get too emotional, we don't think creatively or keep our perspective.
"the coverage of the war in Gaza is notably sympathetic to the Gazans" Whaat? The Israelis are getting all the love, and from both Fox and CNN! Scary. Otherwise an excellent take on the media.
You gotta be kidding. It was as stupid a take I've seen on the media as you can get. Tell me where the NYT shills for Biden. I'd like to share that with the millions of pissed off people who are angry at their passive headlines normalizing a fascist sociopath. As for what the right wingers believe about Democrats being a threat of some sort to the country, well, some people believe in a flat earth. They can't be taken seriously, other than as a bunch of dangerous knuckleheads.
He's far more concise than your hysterical, scattershot, fallacy-ridden screed
“Biden has given barely more than a third as many interviews in his first term as Trump did during his first term. If the point of Biden’s presidency is to return American politics back to pre-Trump norms, the current White House is failing badly in this area.”
Then why the comparison the Trump’s first term and not actual pre-Trump? Makes no sense.
In the view of certain people on the left, here's the definition:
"Democracy: We always win."
Because more people survive.
Republicans - "if we kill off women, we'll win more elections."
I see them as acting in a way very consistent with democracy. They’re focused on issues that are of interest with general voting public. It isn’t their job to lead their readership - but it is the job of those running for power to reflect the will of the people. So if Joe Biden et al really cared about democracy, they’d shift their policies to match that of the voters. And his age is a very significant issue especially given how unpopular his VP is. But somehow the incentive system isn’t aligned to fix any of this. Rinse, repeat, if Biden loses it is NOT the NYTs fault. They’ll have lost a very winnable race.