Dear NYT et al: NOW do you see why your coverage of cheato's BS is wrong?

[senseandsensibility]

I assume the answer is no, just to get that out of the way. As brilliantly set out by Rachel last night, every mainstream newspaper reported the freak's big announcement on abortion credulously yesterday. They presented it as a moderate, reasonable position.

They did NOT highlight that he has flipped his position at least 13 times so you can't trust anything he says. They did NOT highlight that he lied that Democrats execute babies after birth, a Nazi trope.

And they ESPECIALLY did not highlight that even this new position means that he supports total abortion bans in any state that deems it so.

So now that AZ has completely banned abortion, do you get it? I'll spell it out since I know they don't: cheato supports total abortion bans and the rightwing judges he appoints will help him achieve it.

I know that takes a little more journalistic effort than transcribing only what his campaign wants you to highlight, but it's your job.

[leftieNanner]

1. Well said!

I don't think he supports a total abortion ban. I don't think he cares one way or another - as long as he can use it as a way to get back into the Oval Office.

[ShazzieB]

24. I agree.

He really doesn't care. He's like, "Just tell me what I need to say to get votes, and I'll say that." The lying hypocrite.

[pandr32]

60. 100%

He needs to fool enough women to give him a better chance in November, and he's desperate enough to lie to them about such an important issue. He doesn't really give a shit what happens to them at all--only that he saves his own ass.

[Cha]

2. I hate the Fucking US TV Fucking media******..... have for 22 years when

I Cancelled them

[Think. Again.]

4. I cancelled them too...

...about twenty years ago.

I haven't had cable or any subscription to a for-profit media company since that time and I haven't missed a thing.

[Cha]

8. In fact I think We've Gained..

I remember the exact time.. the day after Midterms 2002.

Thank Goodness for DU.. that's why I got a computer back in day.

[Think. Again.]

3. But from their point of view...

...which is to maximize viewership, it isn't wrong because it maximized viewership.

Expecting the for-profit media to do anything other than create profit is useless.

To change the content that the media presents to it's advertising audience, that audience must stop watching the content they no longer want to see presented.

[senseandsensibility]

5. But does normalizing and downplaying truly extreme statements

really increase readership? I wouldn't think so. If anything, sensationalism is what sells. And I say readership because in the OP I only mentioned newspapers. I expect nothing from cable news.

[Think. Again.]

9. Apparently it does...

...even we certainly do talk about it (and link to it) a lot.

[Silent Type]

6. Apparently, these -- and other -- NYT articles were missed.

"After months of mixed signals, Donald Trump said that whatever states decide “must be the law of the land,”"

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/us/politics/trump-abortion-states.html



Anti-Abortion Group Says It Is 'Deeply Disappointed' in ...
24 hours ago — The president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said she was “deeply disappointed” in Donald J. Trump's position that states should . . . . .

https://www.google.com/search?q=nyt+trump+abortion+announcement&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS916US916&oq=nyt+trump+abortion+announcement&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDgxMzBqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1



The New York Times
6 hours ago — The Biden campaign has argued that former President Donald J. Trump, whose Supreme Court appointees helped overturn Roe v. Wade, is responsible ...

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/08/us/trump-abortion-election-biden

[Cha]

28. TY Well that's Good to know.. somebody's awake!

Link to tweet

[reACTIONary]

45. Thanks... I was in the process of putting together such a list....

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/us/politics/trump-abortion-states.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.jE0.YJPp.Kn7tXunIFcA2&smid=url-shar

Late into adulthood, Mr. Trump described himself as “very pro-choice” before announcing that he was “pro-life” as he considered running for the Republican nomination in 2011.

Mr. Trump, ... has approached abortion transactionally — and has spoken about it clumsily — since beginning his political career...

[NewHendoLib]

7. the media is simply not particularly into US. They are very much into themselves - profits.

[Think. Again.]

10. Exactly.

[senseandsensibility]

13. I'm sure that's true, but I just don't think this kind of reporting increases

readership. I think they've sacrificed that goal to ease cheato into the WH again because their owners want tax cuts. I really think it's that simple.

[Larissa]

34. You nailed it.

[reACTIONary]

46. This kind of reporting????

The NYT reporting is being misrepresented.

[Dave Bowman]

36. Damn greedy bunch. They would do anything

for high ratings and screw the consequences.

[Beartracks]

53. Hey, NewHendoLib, you're at 59,999 posts!

[NNadir]

11. I don't expect either honesty or decency from the media.

I kick my self for not seeing it long ago, back in the days of "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction," or even after "but her emails," but I am very pleased to have canceled my subscription to the Times, which whatever it might have been in the 20th century is now essentially Fox News in print.

[NewHendoLib]

12. Exactly - it is why we turned it all off, or cancelled it (print) well over a decade ago.

[Dave Bowman]

37. I've been relying on the Guardian and a few others

for news. I cancelled Wapo and NY Times a while back. Not worth reading, waste of time.

[calimary]

65. The Guardian does a good job.

[Bev54]

14. They never will, they are lazy in their reporting and are parrots, so are the editors.

NYtimes especially take their cues from Haberman, who will always put the best twist for Trump on any reporting.

[wolfie001]

15. Shucks, what about all the weirdo RW preachers that support him

That alone should be a sign that something real shitty is going on behind the scenes.

[JoseBalow]

16. drumpf has only EVER supported whatever he thinks benefits himself

With zero exceptions

[usonian]

17. "Waffling" used to be a liability in politics.

Now, they pour maple syrup and whipped cream on it.

Responsible journalism walked out the door and shut the lights long ago.

[senseandsensibility]

19. True, but only if you're a republican

I know they wouldn't pour maple syrup and whipped cream if Biden dared to waffle.

[world wide wally]

18. Trump doesn't support anything... He only calculates what will help him get more votes at the moment.

[malthaussen]

21. Mostly, I agree.

I do think, however, that if DJT is presented with any opportunity to sow chaos and cruelty, he'll take it up. I consider him more instinctual than calculating, although there are plenty of calculators behind him who try to steer his impulses.

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

20. I dunno, maybe you're being naive.

Personally, I assume the NYT knows exactly what they're doing, and are perfectly fine with it. I don't expect them to see the light anytime soon, it might cut into their profits.

-- Mal

[PatrickforB]

22. Indeed. My wife and I watched Rachel and her reporting was excellent as usual.

She said she doesn't really like to criticize reporting but felt she needed to in this case.

She is quite right. All those headlines she cited, not just the NYT's, were misleading.

[senseandsensibility]

25. Yes, the Washington Post and several other newspapers

were cited. They all seemed to buy into the "he's moderating his position" narrative. Like you said, I think it bothered her to have to criticize them. She even said that she couldn't do her show without their reporting.

[PatrickforB]

26. Well, you know I have often railed about shareholder primacy and how publicly traded news media

are more interested in generating shareholder profits than truth in news.

I did not know this but ABC is owned by Disney. Who knew?

And of course NBC by Comcast.

The NYT also trades on NYSE.

Profits and truth, truth and profits. They mix like oil and water.

[PortTack]

23. I don't watch and I don't subscribe....I only wish more would do the same!

[senseandsensibility]

27. Do you get your news online?

Do you pay for it? Just curious. I miss the days of subscribing to the local newspaper, which was actually in a large city and won many awards for journalistic excellence in the 70's and 80's. It became more rightwing during the bush administration and I cancelled my subscription. Now I read several sources online but I miss the days when I could trust and read my local paper.

[Walleye]

29. Why should anybody report what a rapist says about abortion laws? It should be in the lede of every story

[senseandsensibility]

35. Yup

Exactly. That's how far down the rabbit hole we are.

[malaise]

30. Nailed it

Rec

[ificandream]

31. The New York Times is not your enemy. Right-wing media is.

[Silent Type]

33. Hallelujah. Not only are they not our enemy, readers aren't as stupid

as some seem to think. Some readers might not support abortion or any other topic of choice, but their opposition —or support of someone like trump — darn sure isn’t due to reading NYT, WP, etc.

[NNadir]

38. The reporting in the New York Times IS a part of the...

...right wing media.

[CTyankee]

40. I've been reading the NYT daily for over 30 years and it has never struck me that way.

It has some right wing columnists but not RW nuts. Even the conservative columnists are only mildly so, to me. Are you thinking about the NY Daily News?

[NNadir]

42. I've been reading the New York Times longer than you

Close to sixty years actually.

The last straw was a description of how that senile indicted lying felon was tall and handsome, compared to old rickety Joe Biden. This was NOT an editorial. It was Foxy "news."

The age "issue" is just the latest invented news in that intellectual hellhole.

I should have left with "but her emails."

You now as a scientist I always found their articles on nuclear energy, for just one topic, silly, but the rest of their reporting as of late, if it can be called "reporting" has caught up with their energy reporting.

It's a rag.

[ificandream]

44. Good grief. No, it's not.

And I think you're mixing op-ed opinion with news. They are two different things. Also, journalism isn't cheerleading. That's what right-wing propaganda does.

[reACTIONary]

47. Thanks!

I don't think very many of these critics actually read the NYTs... at least that is what many of them state. Maybe not any real newspapers at all.

[NNadir]

55. I think I clearly understand the difference between Op-Ed and the "News."

I would say that harping on the age of a vital and successful national executive with broad accomplishments while not paying a shred of attention to the fact that the indicted former President needs a golf cart to go five feet, can't compose a coherent sentence, misses up words, and when he does manage to get a thought out, it's generally hatred, and being nearly the same age, senile to boot, is definitely cheerleading, and not the kind of cheerleading that decent people do.

You know what that is, that "Biden's Old" "Reporting? It's propaganda.

Anyone here is of course, entitled to think I'm stupid, ill read, and misinformed, uneducated, naive, and unfair, but I'm pretty fucking sick of decades of whipped up reporting on "Saddam Hussein," "her emails..." blah...blah...blah...

Irrespective of opinions of that nature of my personality, I am quite satisfied with my sense of perception, and do not need to have the difference or lack of difference between the nominal OP eds properly labeled as such, and OP eds that are unlabeled and are described as "news" while being no such thing.

Have a nice day tomorrow.

[NanaCat]

61. Then you haven't been paying atttention

Who were the leading promoters of the Whitewater, Troopergate, Filegate and Travelgate stories...while ignoring the criminal thug robbing contractors and the taxpayers blind right under their noses?

Who gleefully went after Al Gore for 'inventing the internet' and FFS sighing?

Who were adamant about pushing Iraq having WMDs and were leading the charge in support of invading Iraq? Which paper kept promising that things would turn around there in 6 months, then a few more, then a few more, then...?

Who gave serious and the loudest coverage to the Swift Boat lies against Kerry?

Who were the leading promoters of the Benghazi, Hillary's emails and Clinton Cash 'scandals?'

Who jumped on the 'Biden's messing up Afghan with the withdrawal' with both feet, and excessive glee?

And now who's the guiltiest at gnawing that bone about Biden's age to smithereens?

All--ALL--were perpetrated most and most often by the NYT.

They are traitors and lapdogs to the oligarchy--always have been, no matter how much the gullible and naive try to pretend they are not.

[Sky Jewels]

49. They enabled Judith "Neocon Stenographer" Miller to push the bullshit Iraq War lies.

That is just one example among many of its malfeasance.

Sometimes the NYT is indeed the enemy.

[live love laugh]

51. One and the same.

[orleans]

32. NYT et. al: "no. what r u even talking about?" nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

39. The NYT gives stenographers a bad name. Nt

[senseandsensibility]

41. You got it

If they were real stenographers they would have incorporated more of his statements. The fact that they picked the most "normal" part to highlight proves it's not just a mistake.

[reACTIONary]

48. Just curious, did you read the report?

If not, here it is...

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/us/politics/trump-abortion-states.html?ugrp=u&unlocked_article_code=1.jE0.YJPp.Kn7tXunIFcA2&smid=url-share

[DavidDvorkin]

43. Is there a valid argument for saying that a law should be ignored if it was passed in the 19th century?

[live love laugh]

50. NYT: "No".

[RockRaven]

52. Of course not. Upton Sinclair explained why (I've used this quote a million times

and I'll use it a million more):

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

It is NOT actually their job to do that which they are failing to do (going beyond transcription, etc). They are doing exactly what their job is. And we all should see that and recognize that and act accordingly in regards to the NYT.

[BaronChocula]

54. This is just what occurred to me

as I listened to this report on NPR. It was being covered as if trermp was a well-meaning entity and not the incompetent lying fraud he is. There was absolutely no real world context in the reporting. I only turned on NPR because I couldn't get to sleep and wanted something to lull me back to snoozing. But that just pissed me off.

[rampartc]

56. in defense of the n y times

if they print the truth they will lose access to trump's latest tsunamt of bull shit.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

57. What I learned in Journalism 101 at Mizzou's J-School.

1. If they want you to print it, it's propaganda.

2. If they don't want you to print it, it's news.

Today's MSM falls in the first category.

[senseandsensibility]

59. Hey, that's a great line!

And so true. I was a journalism major too, and wrote for the college newspaper of one of the best journalism schools in the country. The attitude you describe is totally missing from most coverage today in favor of access.

[JudyM]

58. K&R

[Sky Jewels]

62. Being "wrong" is INTENTIONAL on their part.

The billionaire owners demand; they comply.

[senseandsensibility]

63. It really is that simple

I guess, but I refuse to just accept this as the new face of journalism. I'm at least going to call them out.

[Sky Jewels]

64. I get it.

I do think there still are many ethical, competent journalists in the MSM, but sadly they get hampered more and more by the oligarchy. CNN, which was moderate for a long time (not even “liberal”) going farther right is one recent example.