Indigenous People's Day

[pdub]

Go to the NYTimes and scroll down just a tiny bit and you'll find a column about how Harris's interview on Fox was more of debate, another about what the Supreme Court did to pregnant women in America and an opinion article about how terrible Republicans in Bucks County PA are.

Come on now.
If that's not left leaning ( and that's every day for them ) then what is it?

The NYT has consistently and programmatically avoided using headlines that tell the truth about Trump and MAGA.

Some examples from https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/donald-trump:

"Trump Faces Tough Questions From Hispanic Voters, but Largely Defends or Dodges" - 'lies' would be more accurate than 'defends'

"Trump Escalates Threats to Political Opponents He Deems the 'Enemy'" - obscures that those threats include siccing the US military on domestic political opponents

"Man is Arrested on Weapons Charges Heading to Trump Rally in Coachella, Officials Say" - given the context, pretty glaring to leave out that the suspect was a public Trump supporter

"Trump Raises Eyebrows by Proclaiming Himself the 'Father of IVF'" - downplays the cray

"How Media Outlets on the Left and Right Covered Trump's Musical Town Hall" - GROSSLY downplays the cray

"At Town Hall on Women's Issues, Trump Renews 'Enemy Within' Talk" - 'talk' GROSSLY downplays the fascism

"Trump Signals Skepticism of Google Breakup, Citing Competition With China" - obscures that, when asked, he first rambled off into the abyss about how the DoJ should serve him

"Trump Says It Would Be a 'Smart Thing' if He Had Talked to Putin" - probably relevant to note that this it would be a very serious federal crime for him to do so, particularly in the context of the documents case

and, I'm going to stop at:

"Trump Plays Music After Medical Emergencies Derail Town Hall" - come the FUCK on here, guys.

OK, so you yourself are in a left leaning bubble and it's hard to know where you are these days.
I get it.

Left lean does not mean fall over and roll down the lefts hill into Leftsville.

[jfish26]

Go to the NYTimes and scroll down just a tiny bit and you'll find a column about how Harris's interview on Fox was more of debate, another about what the Supreme Court did to pregnant women in America and an opinion article about how terrible Republicans in Bucks County PA are.

Come on now.
If that's not left leaning ( and that's every day for them ) then what is it?

The NYT has consistently and programmatically avoided using headlines that tell the truth about Trump and MAGA.

Some examples from https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/donald-trump:

"Trump Faces Tough Questions From Hispanic Voters, but Largely Defends or Dodges" - 'lies' would be more accurate than 'defends'

"Trump Escalates Threats to Political Opponents He Deems the 'Enemy'" - obscures that those threats include siccing the US military on domestic political opponents

"Man is Arrested on Weapons Charges Heading to Trump Rally in Coachella, Officials Say" - given the context, pretty glaring to leave out that the suspect was a public Trump supporter

"Trump Raises Eyebrows by Proclaiming Himself the 'Father of IVF'" - downplays the cray

"How Media Outlets on the Left and Right Covered Trump's Musical Town Hall" - GROSSLY downplays the cray

"At Town Hall on Women's Issues, Trump Renews 'Enemy Within' Talk" - 'talk' GROSSLY downplays the fascism

"Trump Signals Skepticism of Google Breakup, Citing Competition With China" - obscures that, when asked, he first rambled off into the abyss about how the DoJ should serve him

"Trump Says It Would Be a 'Smart Thing' if He Had Talked to Putin" - probably relevant to note that this it would be a very serious federal crime for him to do so, particularly in the context of the documents case

and, I'm going to stop at:

"Trump Plays Music After Medical Emergencies Derail Town Hall" - come the FUCK on here, guys.

OK, so you yourself are in a left leaning bubble and it's hard to know where you are these days.
I get it.

Call it what you want, and I’m not expecting either of us to convince the other. I respect your opinion, even if I disagree with it.

My opinion is that journalists should not strive to find some magical equilibrium between the sides.

There is clear fact evidence supporting the conclusion that Trump is comprised in his morals, ethics and character. That he is compromised in his physical, mental and emotional capacities. And that he is compromised in his allegiance to the United States and our Constitution.

Minimizing the starkness of that fact evidence - calling whatever cognitive breakdown that occurred the other night a dance party or musical interlude, for example - is thumbing the scale. Especially when you consider what you KNOW the NYT would have done with Biden engaging in anything like that behavior.

The NYT is thumbing the scale in a way that is, for the sake of finding an equilibrium between the sides, contributing to us being thisclose to descending into authoritarianism.

And on that basis, I don’t think it’s accurate to call the NYT left-leaning.

[pdub]

I agree that what Trump has done and is doing is egregiously undemocratic and borderline tyrannical but I also think, with the populace being as split as they are, it is all the more important to a. get your facts and sources correct and b. report with a clear, clean and even cold neutrality.

Those headlines there I think are attempting that -- so those specific examples actually do show that the NYT is trying to keep neutrality in place even in a situation where a large part of the population is adamant that they shouldn't.

But the general overall scope of what NYT covers and supports is left leaning to be sure.

https://adfontesmedia.com/new-york-time ... liability/

[KUTradition]

some would call it “sane-washing”

[jfish26]

I agree that what Trump has done and is doing is egregiously undemocratic and borderline tyrannical but I also think, with the populace being as split as they are, it is all the more important to a. get your facts and sources correct and b. report with a clear, clean and even cold neutrality.

Those headlines there I think are attempting that -- so those specific examples actually do show that the NYT is trying to keep neutrality in place even in a situation where a large part of the population is adamant that they shouldn't.

But the general overall scope of what NYT covers and supports is left leaning to be sure.

https://adfontesmedia.com/new-york-time ... liability/

I haven’t looked at the link, but I’d agree with the sentence before it.

[zsn]

I agree that what Trump has done and is doing is egregiously undemocratic and borderline tyrannical but I also think, with the populace being as split as they are, it is all the more important to a. get your facts and sources correct and b. report with a clear, clean and even cold neutrality.

Those headlines there I think are attempting that -- so those specific examples actually do show that the NYT is trying to keep neutrality in place even in a situation where a large part of the population is adamant that they shouldn't.

But the general overall scope of what NYT covers and supports is left leaning to be sure.

https://adfontesmedia.com/new-york-time ... liability/

When someone says that the earth is flat I think that The NY Times byline would be “so-and-so is questioning the dogma of a round earth” under the guise of neutrality. The article might begin “while many people don’t share Mr so-and-so’s view, there is a sizable number of people who question the long held view that the world is in fact round”.

A real news organization would title the article “so-and-so, recognized moron, questions shape of earth”. The first sentence of the article should be “Mr Bunny, when approached for a comment on Mr so-and-so’s statement about shape of the earth said ‘what a maroon’.”

Every day that The NY Times does not have the phrase “Donald Trump, Proven Liar, said/did etc.” is a day that it proves that it is not a credible news source. Liberal or otherwise.

[pdub]

A real news organization would title the article “so-and-so, recognized moron, questions shape of earth”. The first sentence of the article should be “Mr Bunny, when approached for a comment on Mr so-and-so’s statement about shape of the earth said ‘what a maroon’.”

Vehemently, with emphasis on vehemently, agree to disagree.

[jfish26]

A real news organization would title the article “so-and-so, recognized moron, questions shape of earth”. The first sentence of the article should be “Mr Bunny, when approached for a comment on Mr so-and-so’s statement about shape of the earth said ‘what a maroon’.”

Vehemently, with emphasis on vehemently, agree to disagree.

I mean, taken literally, sure. That's not what the NYT should say.

But why should the NYT be in the business of affirmatively making a candidate for the highest elected office in the world seem ANY more or less __________ than he is?

I think, if you read a NYT headline that said, "Fan Interest In College Basketball Declines as Iconic Coaches Retire," you'd - justifiably! - say THEY'RE LEAVING SOME PRETTY IMPORTANT THINGS OUT HERE.

[pdub]

I think if you go back and look at those headlines you ( jfish ) listed as examples they still seem slightly negative.
The average Republican is going to look at those and think they are being too harsh.
A number of you, despite not admitting it, live on the outskirts of Leftsville ( some live right smack dab in the middle of it ), and think those headlines aren't enough.

You should take a look objectively and say, well, yea, maybe I actually do, now, skew left, and possibly my opinion on whether those headlines are hard hitting enough could be slanted.

That's my two cents.

[Sparko]

PDub is right in a world where stupid Stalin is not running hot to destroy the free press. And maybe we will be back there under Harris. But the Times has helped put us in this crisis. High temperatures and extinction expected to benefit McCain.

[jfish26]

I think if you go back and look at those headlines you ( jfish ) listed as examples they still seem slightly negative.
The average Republican is going to look at those and think they are being too harsh.
A number of you, despite not admitting it, live on the outskirts of Leftsville ( some live right smack dab in the middle of it ), and think those headlines aren't enough.

You should take a look objectively and say, well, yea, maybe I actually do, now, skew left, and possibly my opinion on whether those headlines are hard hitting enough could be slanted.

That's my two cents.

I would just say this kind of thinking is EXACTLY the issue we're discussing here. In playing bookmaker (seeking the middle ground), I think outlets like the NYT are failing at the mission of objective journalism.

And that failure has rewarded the Rs - the more extreme of the two sides - for moving the Overton Window toward its side.

The networks and newspapers are businesses. They are acting in their business interests.

I do not have a problem with that.

I have a problem, though, with them pretending otherwise.

And describing the NYT as left-leaning, when the NYT is very obviously sane-washing Trump for its own business interests, is simply inaccurate and lets them off the hook for wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

[Sparko]

Cake and eat it too. Psych yelling at the democrats. Then happily continuing his life under them. Under Trump? Crises of the moment.

[pdub]

I would just say this kind of thinking is EXACTLY the issue we're discussing here. In playing bookmaker (seeking the middle ground), I think outlets like the NYT are failing at the mission of objective journalism.

And I think you're just failing, in this case, at being objective.
That of course is a subjective opinion.

[Sparko]

I would just say this kind of thinking is EXACTLY the issue we're discussing here. In playing bookmaker (seeking the middle ground), I think outlets like the NYT are failing at the mission of objective journalism.

And I think you're just failing, in this case, at being objective.
That of course is a subjective opinion.

Would it help if the Times reports that Trump says you are here illegally and a domestic enemy without context of say, truth?

[KUTradition]

to be fair, most all of corporate media is doing what the Times is re: sane-washing

[jfish26]

I would just say this kind of thinking is EXACTLY the issue we're discussing here. In playing bookmaker (seeking the middle ground), I think outlets like the NYT are failing at the mission of objective journalism.

And I think you're just failing, in this case, at being objective.
That of course is a subjective opinion.

The idea of "my truth" - the idea that every last thing is a matter of subjective opinion - is so corrosive. And that is by design, because if nothing simply is true, then nor can anything simply be false.

That's how we end up in this Earth One/Earth Two situation, where we are arguing over things like whether human-induced climate change is even real.

I don't think that it is a matter of opinion that one fails at objective journalism where one, in choosing how to present a story, prioritizes seeking a middle ground (because it's good for business) over telling the story accurately.

And that is precisely what is happening with the NYT. Which, again, is the NYT's prerogative. But I just won't call the NYT left-leaning where they are so very obviously thumbing the scale to seek a middle ground (because it's good for business) at the cost of accuracy.

[jfish26]

to be fair, most all of corporate media is doing what the Times is re: sane-washing

Absolutely.

[pdub]

I don't think that it is a matter of opinion that one fails at objective journalism where one, in choosing how to present a story, prioritizes seeking a middle ground (because it's good for business) over telling the story accurately.

The details of objectiveness come from where that middle ground is.
In this case, those headlines, to me, that you provided, do a good job finding that middle ground.
Then the next step would be to tell the story, after the headlines, accurately...so instead of out right saying ( since we are using Trump's lies as an example ) Trump Lies To America, you have your neutral headline, and then directly, coldly, clinically BUT firstly ( early in the story ) present what he has said vs what the facts show.

[twocoach]

I don't think that it is a matter of opinion that one fails at objective journalism where one, in choosing how to present a story, prioritizes seeking a middle ground (because it's good for business) over telling the story accurately.

The details of objectiveness come from where that middle ground is.
In this case, those headlines, to me, that you provided, do a good job finding that middle ground.
Then the next step would be to tell the story, after the headlines, accurately...so instead of out right saying ( since we are using Trump's lies as an example ) Trump Lies To America, you have your neutral headline, and then directly, coldly, clinically BUT firstly ( early in the story ) present what he has said vs what the facts show.

Not everything has a middle ground. There is not two sides to an "is the earth round or flat" discussion so it is insane and unforgiveable how the media continues to give utter nonsense equal weight against established fact.

[jfish26]

I don't think that it is a matter of opinion that one fails at objective journalism where one, in choosing how to present a story, prioritizes seeking a middle ground (because it's good for business) over telling the story accurately.

The details of objectiveness come from where that middle ground is.
In this case, those headlines, to me, that you provided, do a good job finding that middle ground.
Then the next step would be to tell the story, after the headlines, accurately...so instead of out right saying ( since we are using Trump's lies as an example ) Trump Lies To America, you have your neutral headline, and then directly, coldly, clinically BUT firstly ( early in the story ) present what he has said vs what the facts show.

I guess where this falls apart for me is that if, in writing a headline, you prioritize broad commercial appeal over accuracy, you already HAVE put business interests ahead of accuracy.

Regardless of how you tell the story in the body.