Excellent article. I'm much more cynical about what motivates NYT script about Democrats (I won't dignify it by calling it "reporting"). I fear it's more than increased clicks and subscriptions.
Know what's sad re your article? Besides it being right on the mark.....the fact that I feel I get more accurate, informed news/reporting from The Guardian than any U.S. rag.
The biggies in the states truly lost their way when T卐ump made his grab for the presidency and they pushed him to the top...moved on him like a bitch...😉
Biden is NOT the "Democrat" nominee, he's the (presumptive) "Democratic" nominee. Using the Republican sneer at the D's is like fingers on a blackboard on your progressive platform
I'm wondering too about the Times, and am skeptical the resignation will mean real, deep change. the overriding problem, and the reason Bennet stepped in it, is the paper's leadership lives in fear of the GOP.
The media is not big on self-correcting even though they have done a lot of damage to our democracy. I am hoping that Trump is so terrible that this time they will back off their idiotic campaign coverage - or lack of coverage in the case of substantive issues.
In 2016 the press devoted next to no coverage of policy proposals, especially Clinton’s. They accused her of having nothing to offer working class people despite the fact that she had a lot of solid proposals to address their problems, including a $60 billion plan to revive coal communities. When she had a campaign event to discuss that plan the media focused only on her remark about coal jobs being taken away, not her proposals or her statement that we can’t leave behind the people in that industry that risked their lives to keep our lights on. Clearly her intention was to help those people but the media chose to report that she said she was going to take their jobs away.
As the Shorenstein Center’s analysis of the terrible press coverage of the 2016 election stated:
“The real bias of the press is not that it’s liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the negative.“
In 2016 the coverage of Hillary was actually more negative than the coverage of Trump if you include the coverage during the primaries. Trump was getting a lot of positive coverage of the horse race aspects - crowd size, excitement, etc. Even more bizarre when it came to coverage of “fitness for office”, both Trump and Hillary got the same percentage of negative coverage - 87%. In what sane world would that be the case given Trump’s long history of corrupt business practices, bankruptcies, racism, promiscuity, and just plain idiocy?
Ironic that the Times' narrative of Biden in his basement even needed explaining.
There is a pandemic. The man was following the advice of scientists. We now live in a time when this simple action brings speculation and ridicule.
Great article. 👍🏼
thank you....also, it wasn’t like Trump was out roaming the countryside during pandemic
Excellent article. I'm much more cynical about what motivates NYT script about Democrats (I won't dignify it by calling it "reporting"). I fear it's more than increased clicks and subscriptions.
sadly, i agree. NYT does seem to enjoy playing off liberal anxiety when it comes to Trump. another reason they love the Dems in Disarray narrative
Great video!
Know what's sad re your article? Besides it being right on the mark.....the fact that I feel I get more accurate, informed news/reporting from The Guardian than any U.S. rag.
The biggies in the states truly lost their way when T卐ump made his grab for the presidency and they pushed him to the top...moved on him like a bitch...😉
Biden is NOT the "Democrat" nominee, he's the (presumptive) "Democratic" nominee. Using the Republican sneer at the D's is like fingers on a blackboard on your progressive platform
ugh, “Democrat” was typo by me...fixed on the website. cheers
The Times has made it clear they want another Trump term because that's where the cash is for that essential cog in the 24/7 Republican BS Machine.
NYT has certainly seen surge in subscriptions thanks to Trump
Sulzberger just looks at the bottom line and as long as it grows in the short term he's satisfied.
I'm wondering too about the Times, and am skeptical the resignation will mean real, deep change. the overriding problem, and the reason Bennet stepped in it, is the paper's leadership lives in fear of the GOP.
I don't expect any change from the Times.
Just waiting for them to post a screed from Candace Owens applauding the death of George Floyd...
I don't expect any change from them either. The rot starts at the top.
It’s sad to watch NYT pick a campaign narrative and just hammer it over and over, regardless if it’s accurate
The media is not big on self-correcting even though they have done a lot of damage to our democracy. I am hoping that Trump is so terrible that this time they will back off their idiotic campaign coverage - or lack of coverage in the case of substantive issues.
In 2016 the press devoted next to no coverage of policy proposals, especially Clinton’s. They accused her of having nothing to offer working class people despite the fact that she had a lot of solid proposals to address their problems, including a $60 billion plan to revive coal communities. When she had a campaign event to discuss that plan the media focused only on her remark about coal jobs being taken away, not her proposals or her statement that we can’t leave behind the people in that industry that risked their lives to keep our lights on. Clearly her intention was to help those people but the media chose to report that she said she was going to take their jobs away.
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/
As the Shorenstein Center’s analysis of the terrible press coverage of the 2016 election stated:
“The real bias of the press is not that it’s liberal. Its bias is a decided preference for the negative.“
In 2016 the coverage of Hillary was actually more negative than the coverage of Trump if you include the coverage during the primaries. Trump was getting a lot of positive coverage of the horse race aspects - crowd size, excitement, etc. Even more bizarre when it came to coverage of “fitness for office”, both Trump and Hillary got the same percentage of negative coverage - 87%. In what sane world would that be the case given Trump’s long history of corrupt business practices, bankruptcies, racism, promiscuity, and just plain idiocy?
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/
Very well stated.