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.
Thanks for pointing that out. I have never felt more invisible and the biased media coverage of her was insulting to all of her many supporters, especially women young and old white, black, brown. The double standard and sexism still infuriates us.
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.
Common courtesy would prevent calling an interviewee demented in the article about him.
Frankly, this is the same disagreement we have with Trump. You would ignore them and thus silence them. I contend that thinking people will see the crazy without having to spell it out.
I likewise cannot account for any sentient nonbraindead US voter supporting Trump after 4 years of relentless incompetence, impulsive reckless behavior and the showing of profound/abject stupidity. The "usual suspects" are by now cliche's - mostly stereotypes. An in-depth analysis of the 60 million people who will vote for this fraud is needed to fully explain this unexpected American failure in governance. I take the point that the NYTimes "doth protesteth too much" - who defined early the culprit who has become the Trump voter every liberal loves to hate. That is forgivable if such understanding leads to satisfactory effective corrective. Hopefully we and the NY TImes are NOT thrashing about in darkness. I still believe the definitive account will be a multi disciplinary effort - ie political science, sociology, anthropology, economics, history , even neurophysiology. In that spirit I am hopeful that "communication experts, journalism, cultural critics will join this crusade for truth with an openness and eagerness that will aid the push towards a final l account (metaphorically located at the pinnacle of this steep mountain - that is the Trump Phenomonon
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.
Yes they are. And see how stooges like Maggie Haberman are falling for it...and backstopping...how that Pressitute still has a job at the Times...oh, silly me, I forgot it's that critical cog in the 24/7 Republican BS machine The Screw York Times!
The Washington Post has improved a lot since 2016. I recently saw a graph showing influence of different media outlets on the information received by the public. The data showed the WaPo as having more influence than the NY Times.
I would love to see the Times knocked off their perch as the supposed newspaper of record. That reputation has allowed them to get away with spreading disinformation as well as burying important stories for decades. The only time they really paid a price was with Judith Miller being Cheney’s mouthpiece for his WMD claims but the Times never really learned a lesson from that.
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."
I like both headlines.!
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.
And James Comey put the final nail in her coffin.
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.
Very good point....they actually ignored HRC voters *during* the election
Thanks for pointing that out. I have never felt more invisible and the biased media coverage of her was insulting to all of her many supporters, especially women young and old white, black, brown. The double standard and sexism still infuriates us.
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.
the problem is the Times coverage rarely portrays Trump voters as racist, demented etc. it portrays them has hard-working forgotten voices
Common courtesy would prevent calling an interviewee demented in the article about him.
Frankly, this is the same disagreement we have with Trump. You would ignore them and thus silence them. I contend that thinking people will see the crazy without having to spell it out.
The Times is obsessed with finding "real Americans" who always turn out to be hard core Republicans...
And white.
I likewise cannot account for any sentient nonbraindead US voter supporting Trump after 4 years of relentless incompetence, impulsive reckless behavior and the showing of profound/abject stupidity. The "usual suspects" are by now cliche's - mostly stereotypes. An in-depth analysis of the 60 million people who will vote for this fraud is needed to fully explain this unexpected American failure in governance. I take the point that the NYTimes "doth protesteth too much" - who defined early the culprit who has become the Trump voter every liberal loves to hate. That is forgivable if such understanding leads to satisfactory effective corrective. Hopefully we and the NY TImes are NOT thrashing about in darkness. I still believe the definitive account will be a multi disciplinary effort - ie political science, sociology, anthropology, economics, history , even neurophysiology. In that spirit I am hopeful that "communication experts, journalism, cultural critics will join this crusade for truth with an openness and eagerness that will aid the push towards a final l account (metaphorically located at the pinnacle of this steep mountain - that is the Trump Phenomonon
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."
and that would be the kind interpretation !
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...
They aren't "falling for it." They are actively involved in the dissemination of known propaganda.
Yes they are. And see how stooges like Maggie Haberman are falling for it...and backstopping...how that Pressitute still has a job at the Times...oh, silly me, I forgot it's that critical cog in the 24/7 Republican BS machine The Screw York Times!
My understanding is that the Post got the story from Bannon. The Magsketeer had to put the NYT Imprimatur on the story STAT.
Murdoch owns the NY Post. They are knowingly aiding and abetting Trump.
That Sinatra clip is so great. What an artist.
right? He’s such a wonderful talent
NPR has been doing the same thing.
yep so many have. but Obama Voters 2009–2016? none of them cared
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.
The Washington Post has improved a lot since 2016. I recently saw a graph showing influence of different media outlets on the information received by the public. The data showed the WaPo as having more influence than the NY Times.
I would love to see the Times knocked off their perch as the supposed newspaper of record. That reputation has allowed them to get away with spreading disinformation as well as burying important stories for decades. The only time they really paid a price was with Judith Miller being Cheney’s mouthpiece for his WMD claims but the Times never really learned a lesson from that.