Fox and Friends

[Overlander]

Trump can’t even get through one speech without saying something that any rational person would consider to be troubling.

Defending airports during the Revolutionary War immediately comes to mind.

[Shirley]

...

I (personally) don't think much of the concern is due to "bad faith". He is quite clearly slipping. I am not sure how many more examples he can give us. He proves it nearly every time he speaks publicly. I think the concern about his age is legit and warranted.

I sure wish the Dems had the guts to run someone other than Biden against Trump. Running Biden is the best chance to end up with 4 more years of Trump. I don't think Trump can beat many of the dems best choices, but i think he will have a chance to beat Biden.

Which democrat do you think would have had a better chance to beat Trump in '24, than Biden?

[DeletedUser]

...

I (personally) don't think much of the concern is due to "bad faith". He is quite clearly slipping. I am not sure how many more examples he can give us. He proves it nearly every time he speaks publicly. I think the concern about his age is legit and warranted.

I sure wish the Dems had the guts to run someone other than Biden against Trump. Running Biden is the best chance to end up with 4 more years of Trump. I don't think Trump can beat many of the dems best choices, but i think he will have a chance to beat Biden.

Which democrat do you think would have had a better chance to beat Trump in '24, than Biden?

In 20 or 24?

I voted for Biden in 2020. I think he was the best choice by the time I placed that vote. I think he was probably the best option to take on Trump in 2020.

In 2024 I don't.

[Shirley]

Which democrat do you think would have had a better chance to beat Trump in '24, than Biden?

[DeletedUser]

Which democrat do you think would have had a better chance to beat Trump in '24, than Biden?

Sorry, the "have had" confused me.

[jfish26]

If “age” and “crazy” aren’t essentially the same concern (cognition and judgment), then what is the difference?

Physical fitness? Expected longevity?

Because I, personally, think calling those things a wash would be charitable to Trump.

I don’t love that the two choices are what they are. But I’m just having an awfully difficult time sorting out how, as between the two choices we have at the moment, there is a meaningful difference (in Trump’s favor even!) between these two in this category.

[DeletedUser]

Crazy is more concerning than old age.

And I don't really think Trump's crazy is age induced. I think Trump was crazy long before he was old.

But Trump being crazy doesn't change the fact that Biden is old. Do you not think Biden seems and acts more fragile and old than Trump? I do.

But I'd still take 112 year old Biden over 45 year old Trump. That part isn't tough to sort out.

[jfish26]

Warped Front Pages

Researchers examine the self-serving fiction of ‘objective’ political news

https://www.cjr.org/analysis/election-p ... -pages.php

Seven years ago, in the wake of the 2016 presidential election, media analysts rushed to explain Donald Trump’s victory. Misinformation was to blame, the theory went, fueled by Russian agents and carried on social networks. But as researchers, we wondered if fascination and fear over “fake news” had led people to underestimate the influence of traditional journalism outlets. After all, mainstream news organizations remain an important part of the media ecosystem—they’re widely read and watched; they help set the agenda, including on social networks. We decided to look at what had been featured on the printed front page of the New York Times in the three months leading up to Election Day. Of a hundred and fifty articles that discussed the campaign, only a handful mentioned policy; the vast majority covered horse race politics or personal scandals. Most strikingly, the Times ran ten front-page stories about Hillary Clinton’s email server. “If voters had wanted to educate themselves on issues,” we concluded, “they would not have learned much from reading the Times.”

We didn’t suggest that the election coverage in the Times was any worse than what appeared in other major outlets, “so much as it was typical of a broader failure of mainstream journalism.” But we did expect, or at least hope, that in the years that followed, the Times would conduct a critical review of its editorial policies. Was an overwhelming focus on the election as a sporting contest the best way to serve readers? Was obsessive attention to Clinton’s email server really justified in light of the innumerable personal, ethical, and ultimately criminal failings of Trump? It seemed that editors had a responsibility to rethink both the volume of attention paid to certain subjects as well as their framing.

After the 2022 midterms, we checked back in, this time examining the printed front page of the Times and the Washington Post from September 1, 2022, through Election Day that November. As before, we figured the front page mattered disproportionately, in part because articles placed there represent selections that publishers believe are most important to readers—and also because, according to Nielsen data we analyzed, 32 percent of Web-browsing sessions around that period starting at the Times homepage did not lead to other sections or articles; people often stick to what they’re shown first. We added the Post this time around for comparison, to get a sense of whether the Times really was anomalous.

It wasn’t. We found that the Times and the Post shared significant overlap in their domestic politics coverage, offering little insight into policy. Both emphasized the horse race and campaign palace intrigue, stories that functioned more to entertain readers than to educate them on essential differences between political parties. The main point of contrast we found between the two papers was that, while the Post delved more into topics Democrats generally want to discuss—affirmative action, police reform, LGBTQ rights—the Times tended to focus on subjects important to Republicans—China, immigration, and crime.

By the numbers, of four hundred and eight articles on the front page of the Times during the period we analyzed, about half—two hundred nineteen—were about domestic politics. A generous interpretation found that just ten of those stories explained domestic public policy in any detail; only one front-page article in the lead-up to the midterms really leaned into discussion about a policy matter in Congress: Republican efforts to shrink Social Security. Of three hundred and ninety-three front-page articles in the Post, two hundred fifteen were about domestic politics; our research found only four stories that discussed any form of policy. The Post had no front-page stories in the months ahead of the midterms on policies that candidates aimed to bring to the fore or legislation they intended to pursue. Instead, articles speculated about candidates and discussed where voter bases were leaning. (All of the data and analysis supporting this piece can be found here.)

Exit polls indicated that Democrats cared most about abortion and gun policy; crime, inflation, and immigration were top of mind for Republicans. In the Times, Republican-favored topics accounted for thirty-seven articles, while Democratic topics accounted for just seven. In the Post, Republican topics were the focus of twenty articles and Democratic topics accounted for fifteen—a much more balanced showing. In the final days before the election, we noticed that the Times, in particular, hit a drumbeat of fear about the economy—the worries of voters, exploitation by companies, and anxieties related to the Federal Reserve—as well as crime. Data buried within articles occasionally refuted the fear-based premise of a piece. Still, by discussing how much people were concerned about inflation and crime—and reporting in those stories that Republicans benefited from a sense of alarm—the Times suggested that inflation and crime were historically bad (they were not) and that Republicans had solutions to offer (they did not).

Stepping back, if the Times and other major news outlets went through any critical self-reflection after the 2016 election, it doesn’t seem to have affected their coverage. Nor did the leadership of the Times publicly acknowledge any failings. Quite to the contrary, in early 2022, Dean Baquet, the outgoing editor at the time, said in an interview that he didn’t have regrets about the paper’s Clinton-email stories. In the same interview, Baquet acknowledged critiques of his paper’s political coverage but pushed back on them aggressively: “My job is to try to convince my newsroom that they should not be overly influenced by criticism from Twitter,” he said. “If Twitter doesn’t like it, Twitter can jump in the lake.” Baquet—and his successors, and peers at other major outlets—seem to view themselves as exhibiting objective (or pure, independent) judgment. Indeed, A.G. Sulzberger, the chairman of the New York Times Company and publisher of the Times, made exactly that argument in a piece for CJR this spring: “I continue to believe that objectivity—or if the word is simply too much of a distraction, open-minded inquiry—remains a value worth striving for,” he wrote, adding that “independence, the word we use inside the Times, better captures the full breadth of this journalistic approach and its promise to the public at large.”

Regardless of what journalists and owners of major papers proclaim, however, news judgments are inherently subjective. Any claims to objectivity are a convenient fiction. On any given day there are many accurate and arguably newsworthy stories that could appear on a front page. (In our study period, the overlap in front-page-story selection at the Times and the Post was only about a third.) Which topics editors choose to emphasize is neither accurate nor inaccurate; they simply reflect subjective opinions. Likewise, the way an article is written also involves a series of choices—which facts are highlighted, whose voices are included, which perspectives are given weight. Words such as “objectivity” and “independence”—even “truth”—make for nice rhetoric but are so easily twisted to suit one’s agenda as to be meaningless. After all, Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson—who, unlike the Times and the Post, don’t operate within the realm of reality—also stake claims to veracity and independence.

What appears in a newspaper is less a reflection of what is happening in the world than what a news organization chooses to tell about what is happening—an indicator of values. Last year, for instance, the Times decided to heavily cover the Russian invasion of Ukraine—understandable, to be sure—but also largely ignored policy implications of the midterm election on the war, as Republicans were threatening to block military aid. Abortion rights were clearly critical to the midterms (with potential impact on laws and judges), whereas crime rates were essentially irrelevant (with no discernible policy hanging in the balance), yet the Times chose to publish twice as many articles on crime (a topic generally favored by Republicans) as on abortion (a topic key to Democrats). The paper also opted to emphasize inflation, rather than job or wage growth, in economic coverage—another choice that catered to Republicans. The Times provided admirably extensive coverage of potential threats to democracy, but in general, midterms coverage didn’t engage much with the dangers posed to the integrity of the election.

The choices made by major publishers are not wrong, per se, for the same reason that one newsroom cannot objectively know how to cover an issue, or how much to cover it: no one can. Still, editorial choices are undeniably choices—and they will weigh heavily on the upcoming presidential race. Outlets can and should maintain a commitment to truth and accuracy. But absent an earnest and transparent assessment of what they choose to emphasize—and what they choose to ignore—their readers will be left misinformed.

[Shirley]

Interesting.

Puts my undeniably increasing consideration of letting my subscription to the Times expire, into perspective.

[Shirley]

No wonder the sheep buy this $#!+

After Donald Trump's recent gaffe confusing Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley, Fox News, Newsmax, and MAGA Republicans bend over backwards to spin it.

[twocoach]

Crazy is more concerning than old age.

And I don't really think Trump's crazy is age induced. I think Trump was crazy long before he was old.

But Trump being crazy doesn't change the fact that Biden is old. Do you not think Biden seems and acts more fragile and old than Trump? I do.

But I'd still take 112 year old Biden over 45 year old Trump. That part isn't tough to sort out.

I don't need Biden to go win a basketball game. I need him to hire competent people and to sit and talk to Congress members from both parties to try to find some common ground on important issues. He has proven to be good at both of those things so far. Trump has proven to be terrible at both things so far.

[KUTradition]

Crazy is more concerning than old age.

And I don't really think Trump's crazy is age induced. I think Trump was crazy long before he was old.

But Trump being crazy doesn't change the fact that Biden is old. Do you not think Biden seems and acts more fragile and old than Trump? I do.

But I'd still take 112 year old Biden over 45 year old Trump. That part isn't tough to sort out.

I don't need Biden to go win a basketball game. I need him to hire competent people and to sit and talk to Congress members from both parties to try to find some common ground on important issues. He has proven to be good at both of those things so far. Trump has proven to be terrible at both things so far.

bolded x1,000,000,000,000

[DeletedUser]

Crazy is more concerning than old age.

And I don't really think Trump's crazy is age induced. I think Trump was crazy long before he was old.

But Trump being crazy doesn't change the fact that Biden is old. Do you not think Biden seems and acts more fragile and old than Trump? I do.

But I'd still take 112 year old Biden over 45 year old Trump. That part isn't tough to sort out.

I don't need Biden to go win a basketball game. I need him to hire competent people and to sit and talk to Congress members from both parties to try to find some common ground on important issues. He has proven to be good at both of those things so far. Trump has proven to be terrible at both things so far.

bolded x1,000,000,000,000

I agree.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I don't need Biden to go win a basketball game. I need him to hire competent people and to sit and talk to Congress members from both parties to try to find some common ground on important issues. He has proven to be good at both of those things so far. Trump has proven to be terrible at both things so far.

bolded x1,000,000,000,000

I agree.

No disrespect but I can't help but wonder if any of the 3 of you know ALL the people Trump "nominated" to his first cabinet - and at the time why did you feel they were any less competent people for their positions (ok - yes, I know, the Brain Surgeon was nominated to be Secretary of HUD) than Biden's choices for his initial cabinet positions?
Then I am going to ask, I assume you realize the Senate votes on the nominations. Correct? Sooooo do you place any blame on or give any credit to the Senate for those who were selected?

[MICHHAWK]

unqualified dip$#!t$. comma'la and mayor pete say hi. karen jean pierre says hi twice.

[DeletedUser]

bolded x1,000,000,000,000

I agree.

No disrespect but I can't help but wonder if any of the 3 of you know ALL the people Trump "nominated" to his first cabinet -

I don't.

[KUTradition]

i know that it was a veritable rotating cast of characters, a non-insignificant number of which are criminals at worst and of questionable character and integrity at best

the one area that i didn’t take much issue with (outside of sessions/barr and flynn) was intelligence/law enforcement and military…Mattis and Milley in particular

edit: if you want me to pick apart the actual list, i’m more than happy to… https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ation.html

i posted plenty on pruitt, devos and perry in the past, as to why they were (and remain) wholly unqualified for their roles

and yes, congress votes to approve appointees, but are you insinuating that a majority vote of an unquestionably partisan congress = wholly qualified?

[jfish26]

unqualified dip$#!t$. comma'la and mayor pete say hi. karen jean pierre says hi twice.

I'm having trouble identifying a common thread here...care to explain?

[jfish26]

i know that it was a veritable rotating cast of characters, a non-insignificant number of which are criminals at worst and of questionable character and integrity at best

the one area that i didn’t take much issue with (outside of sessions/barr and flynn) was intelligence/law enforcement and military…Mattis and Milley in particular

edit: if you want me to pick apart the actual list, i’m more than happy to… https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... ation.html

i posted plenty on pruitt, devos and perry in the past, as to why they were (and remain) wholly unqualified for their roles

and yes, congress votes to approve appointees, but are you insinuating that a majority vote of an unquestionably partisan congress = wholly qualified?

And of course this gets at one of the truly insidious differences between 2016 and 2024. Trump would NOT seek Congressional approval of anyone next time around. And that is because his cabinet would be stuffed with antidemocratic (small d) ghouls.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I agree.

No disrespect but I can't help but wonder if any of the 3 of you know ALL the people Trump "nominated" to his first cabinet -

I don't.

Nor did I - meaning I didn't recall many if not most of them before looking them up this morning.