Along with the Times and their obsession with the Trump voters has been CNNs bent on the undecided voters they interviewed after the first debate. Undecided? How can anyone at this point be undecided? This isn't Regan vs. Carter, or Bill Clinton vs. Bush 41' where one could argue a reasonable conservative vs. liberal point of view. These undecided folks fall into a couple of categories. They are either extremely ignorant as to what has gone on the last four years or they just want to vote for Trump and don't want to say so. I'm sure there are voters who are embarrassed to admit they are voting for Trump and won't say so publicly but if the early voting is any indication of where this election is going, Trump is in big trouble. However the real story is after the election and how the Republicans will attempt to steel it by means this nation has never seen before. That's what The NY Times and CNN should be investigating. Buckle up folks. It's going to be a very bumpy ride.
Can they just change their headlines to be more accurate? "Meet another ignorant Trump voter who can't read but somehow allowed us to interview them even though we're the enemy"--yeah, I know, it's kinda long. Short version: "Some Trumpsters still talk to us, so we'll let them babble."
After decades of reading, and towards the end subscribing, I put the NYT down and moved on to less bothsiderism sources. Ironically the NYT is such a high profile and financially successful source that I don't need to pay to read it--just wait for coverage of the NYT stories.
And there is no question that the reach and resources provide titanic shifts every so often. In the rush to war we had the assist with the lie of WMD. More recently in September and October 2016, Michael Schmidt delivered a steady stream of "But her emails," which I argue, mattered in November. But we also have the NYT to thank for the $750 in taxes soundbite, and many, many other investigative pieces that moved the country towards facts and away from clickbait nonsense.
The Times ought to check in with Rich Thau, from Engages Polling.What he is finding out about the supposedly “swing voters”, the white voters from Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio who might have voted for Obama once, is that they aren’t swing voters at all. They are the moronic conspiracy loving QAnon followers who talk about the Hollywood Pedophiles, Clinton e-mails and all the other garbage promoted by Facebook.
They completely ignored the HRC voters after the election. I don't recall reading a single article in the NYT (before I ditched my sub) about how her voters are faring during the Trump administration, especially voters of color and women. On top of that, the NYT also treats Trump voters like they're gorillas in the wild and the reporters are a bunch of Jane Goodalls.
I fail to see the downside of showing Trump voters to be racist, uninformed, or simply demented. If those stories can be packaged to diffuse the "LIBERAL MEDIA" meme; so much the better. Thinking people will get the message.
Personally, I'm interested in why someone can still be a Trump supporter. 215,000 dead, promoting RW Armed Militias, refusing to acknowledge the possibility of defeat, why? How? Can anyone really want this? So yes, I read the Times' Trump voters story. Perhaps they will help me understand a situation that defies my ability to understand.
I concede that I might just be dumb or so cynical that I wake up in the morning and consider everything bullshit. When I read columns like that by Stephens (who I simply don't like) or anyone else, the first thought after finishing it is that they were on deadline and needed a wordcount. So they went to the easy topic that not only fills column inches but generates enough talk to make it seem like the prose matters. Clicks are generated, algorithms tabulate what that means in dollars to the paper, and everyone at the NYT is happy. It's the equivalent of yet one more clickbait list on the Internet - "Top 10 Reasons That Marvel Movies Are Terrible."
I live in Belgium and last night on our news (VTM-Flanders) they interviewed union workers whose plant closed and they now vote for Trump. So the disease that affects the US media is spreading abroad. What I'm seeing is that our journalists are taking news from the US at face value, rather than actually investigating whether it's true or not. It's incredibly lazy, and disappointing.
Along with the Times and their obsession with the Trump voters has been CNNs bent on the undecided voters they interviewed after the first debate. Undecided? How can anyone at this point be undecided? This isn't Regan vs. Carter, or Bill Clinton vs. Bush 41' where one could argue a reasonable conservative vs. liberal point of view. These undecided folks fall into a couple of categories. They are either extremely ignorant as to what has gone on the last four years or they just want to vote for Trump and don't want to say so. I'm sure there are voters who are embarrassed to admit they are voting for Trump and won't say so publicly but if the early voting is any indication of where this election is going, Trump is in big trouble. However the real story is after the election and how the Republicans will attempt to steel it by means this nation has never seen before. That's what The NY Times and CNN should be investigating. Buckle up folks. It's going to be a very bumpy ride.
Can they just change their headlines to be more accurate? "Meet another ignorant Trump voter who can't read but somehow allowed us to interview them even though we're the enemy"--yeah, I know, it's kinda long. Short version: "Some Trumpsters still talk to us, so we'll let them babble."
Thanks Eric. Keep shining the light.
After decades of reading, and towards the end subscribing, I put the NYT down and moved on to less bothsiderism sources. Ironically the NYT is such a high profile and financially successful source that I don't need to pay to read it--just wait for coverage of the NYT stories.
And there is no question that the reach and resources provide titanic shifts every so often. In the rush to war we had the assist with the lie of WMD. More recently in September and October 2016, Michael Schmidt delivered a steady stream of "But her emails," which I argue, mattered in November. But we also have the NYT to thank for the $750 in taxes soundbite, and many, many other investigative pieces that moved the country towards facts and away from clickbait nonsense.
The Times ought to check in with Rich Thau, from Engages Polling.What he is finding out about the supposedly “swing voters”, the white voters from Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio who might have voted for Obama once, is that they aren’t swing voters at all. They are the moronic conspiracy loving QAnon followers who talk about the Hollywood Pedophiles, Clinton e-mails and all the other garbage promoted by Facebook.
They completely ignored the HRC voters after the election. I don't recall reading a single article in the NYT (before I ditched my sub) about how her voters are faring during the Trump administration, especially voters of color and women. On top of that, the NYT also treats Trump voters like they're gorillas in the wild and the reporters are a bunch of Jane Goodalls.
Mr. Boehlert, I'll join Jan's comment.
I fail to see the downside of showing Trump voters to be racist, uninformed, or simply demented. If those stories can be packaged to diffuse the "LIBERAL MEDIA" meme; so much the better. Thinking people will get the message.
Personally, I'm interested in why someone can still be a Trump supporter. 215,000 dead, promoting RW Armed Militias, refusing to acknowledge the possibility of defeat, why? How? Can anyone really want this? So yes, I read the Times' Trump voters story. Perhaps they will help me understand a situation that defies my ability to understand.
I concede that I might just be dumb or so cynical that I wake up in the morning and consider everything bullshit. When I read columns like that by Stephens (who I simply don't like) or anyone else, the first thought after finishing it is that they were on deadline and needed a wordcount. So they went to the easy topic that not only fills column inches but generates enough talk to make it seem like the prose matters. Clicks are generated, algorithms tabulate what that means in dollars to the paper, and everyone at the NYT is happy. It's the equivalent of yet one more clickbait list on the Internet - "Top 10 Reasons That Marvel Movies Are Terrible."
I live in Belgium and last night on our news (VTM-Flanders) they interviewed union workers whose plant closed and they now vote for Trump. So the disease that affects the US media is spreading abroad. What I'm seeing is that our journalists are taking news from the US at face value, rather than actually investigating whether it's true or not. It's incredibly lazy, and disappointing.
Meanwhile the New York Post falls for Rudy's forged Russian documents today...
That Sinatra clip is so great. What an artist.
NPR has been doing the same thing.
Thanks, Eric. The link for "The Obama-Trump Voters Are Real. Here’s What They Think" does not include the URL. Here it is: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html
The Greg Olear piece was great, but not recent. It was dated 2018.
Loved the Sinatra song and reference.