I continue to ask the queston - why can't I, a regular everyday person, ask the NYT editorial staff why they do this and get a real answer? Is the paper itself the answer? That what they present as more and less important is what the staff truly believe are the order in which they should be considered? So the years of incessantly going after Clinton was because as a staff, they were convinced that Clinton was as bad as her detractors said and needed to convince the world this was true?
This is my greatest frustration. That there are people in positions of power who wall themselves off from us lesser people and don't even bother allowing any of us close enough to ask a question let alone to receive an answer.
The Times used to have a Public Editor that you could email. The PE would write columns about the complaints and also add his or her own criticism of the reporting. The last PE was Liz Spayd whose position was eliminated after angering the self-righteous Dean Baquet:
“There was also little love lost between Spayd and Baquet, who slammed one of her efforts—a complaint the Times hesitated too long to publish a blockbuster report on Trump’s connection with Russia as “a bad column” that was“fairly ridiculous.” “
The excuse given by the Times was that online readers can now criticize them in their online comments as if that carries the same weight as a fellow journalist holding their feet to the fire. The Times has hypocritically allowed comments on much fewer articles in recent years showing just how much they welcome that feedback.
It is a bad situation We can no longer count on checks and balances, the courts, majority rule, and simple decency from the Republican party. Just about all we have to protect us is the free press. Eric's work on press behavior is so important because the press does not seem to appreciate its crucial role. The NYT for example, is turning into a rag. I am a pretty stoic guy, but I'll tell you, I am afraid.
The scary thing that is becoming more and more obvious is that we are in the midst of a coup, a right wing coup hell bent on destroying democracy. Trump is nothing more than a pawn, not the pawn that the Republican Party intended but one that ultimately is serving their purpose. Look, Trump could not possibly be doing all of this blatant disregard for the rule of law by himself. He's getting help throughout this racist party. Trump's the fool, a clown that grabs all the attention. And while this circus unfolds on the TV, Mitch McConnel works behind the scene to insure that money and power go to the top one percent. Republican voters, so frightened of a future where more and more people are treated equal and where Americans no longer look so similar to themselves look the other way. Sadly the polling in swing states looks to be within the margin of error, close enough for the dirty tricks to play out that we found out about this week in Barton Gellman's article in The Atlantic. The press and TV media care more about ratings and sales than signaling the alarm that we are about to become the next Turkey and Hungary. The only thing that can stop this is not a tsunami of Democrats voting but a tsunami of Democrats voting in swings states and and now it seems plausible that those votes could be disregarded. Those that support Trump and the so called Republican Party better worry about their health insurance through the ACA and shortly after that, medicare and social security, and for women, the right to control their own bodies. That this dire situation is still being covered by the press as politics as usual is perhaps the biggest sin of all.
Trump downplayed the pandemic because he “didn’t want to start a panic.” I wonder if the Very Serious People at the N.Y. Times and elsewhere are downplaying the Trump threat because they don’t want to panic themselves?
Nice gig they have for themselves; be a shame if anything happened to it. Better play it safe - how bad is it really?
If only Biden had emailed Hillary Clinton about this, The Times might have given it the attention it deserves. Today, I noticed, they were trying to recover with two front-page stories--the surest sign they know they bollixed it up.
The part of "Dr. Strangelove" that has stuck with me was the convergence of individual interests without overarching circumspection. I find that no less true today.
Please. He's one guy with literally no support. This is not news because if he doesn't leave voluntarily, he will be removed involuntarily. He knows it, you know it, and I know it.
The Times has repeatedly reported right wing smears as truth. The editors allowed Jeff Gerth to repeatedly report on right wing lies when Clinton was in office — Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Chinagate/ Wen Ho Lee were all fake. After Ken Starr was finally forced to admit there was no reality to any of those accusations I naively believed that the Times would learn from that humiliation. Instead they gleefully repeated Karl Rove’s false accusations about Gore being a liar. Then the Times allowed Judith Miller to be the scribe for Cheney allies Ahmed Chalabi’s and Scooter Libby’s WMD propaganda. Next the Times hyped the email pseudo-scandal. Clearly the Times was not the only media outlet to play along with right wing smears but it is the most influential. If the Times says something is true most of the mainstream media follows their lead, creating an echo chamber of right wing lies.
My faint hope now is that the consequences of the Times and the rest of the mainstream media helping elect Trump has frightened them so much they won’t allow themselves to be used by right wing propagandists again. I am not going to bet money on it.
Sorry about double post. NYT supports Fascist and racist agenda. To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from Casablanca, "The devil has the media by the throat".
Sadly that doesn’t surprise me given all the journalistic malpractice the Times has been guilty of over the years like the examples I listed above. What really boggles my mind is that because the Times has been given a pass over and over they are still so influential and trusted by millions of people, especially Democrats. Time and again I have watched people I know turn against Democratic candidates who are head and shoulders above their opponents because the Times peddled right wing smears about them. What the did to Ms. Winston-Walcott is despicable but what they did to Gore, Kerry and Clinton severely weakened their candidacies. The result has literally been deadly (Iraq, Covid) and has brought our democracy to the point of breaking.
I am not putting all the blame on the Times but most of the mainstream “liberal” media usually followed the Times’s lead and the effect has been disastrous. I strongly believe that had the media reported fairly instead of playing their destructive games neither Bush nor Trump would have won.
I think that is too simplistic an explanation. A lot of what drives our top political pundits and journalists is the same thing that drives the Cool Kids Clique in high school. If the Cool Kids deem you unacceptable they will have no qualms about viciously trashing you anyway they can.
When the Clintons first arrived in DC they offended the Queen of the DC Cool Kids Club, Sally Quinn, wife of Ben Bradlee. Queen Sally ruled over the group, hosting soirées that. The DC players were desperate to be included. David Ignatius wrote about how excited he and his wife were to get their first invite, describing Quinn and Bradlee as DC’s “Bogie and Bacall”. Sally’s club included lCarl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, Tim Russert, Tom Brokaw, Andrea Mitchell, Maureen Dowd, Martha Raddatz, David Ignatius, David Broder, Chris Matthews, etc. along with powerful politicians and players like Ken Starr. Mika Brzezinski is a close friend.
When Clinton’s dalliance with Monica became public the Club, led by Queen Sally, was absolutely appalled which was deeply hypocritical given that Bradlee had been one of JFK’s closest friends who covered up his numerous adulteries. Many of these people worshipped the ground the much more promiscuous JFK walked on and still do. But the ultimate hypocrisy was Queen Quinn whose husband’s recently published memoir described how she, as a twenty-something cub reporter, had set out to seduce her married boss by sending him anonymous flirty memos. The two began an affair. Bradlee eventually divorced his wife and married Quinn. Basically she was a successful Monica but she publicly excoriated Clinton for his trashy behavior as did the rest of her club who also knew about the Bradlee’s history. And now we know that several of those men were at least as guilty as Clinton.
Sally Quinn wrote an infamous column describing how her club felt about the Clinton’s. The highly respected David Broder, the “Dean of Washington Journalists”, complained that the Clintons had come into DC and trashed it, complaining it wasnt’ “their town” as if they, not the American people, are the ones supposed to be in charge.
The same kind of behavior drove a lot of the coverage of the Bush-Gore campaign. The mainstream media clearly preferred Bush because he was “more fun to have a beer with”. David Broder actually complained that Gore spoke so much about what he wanted to do if elected that Broder was so bored he almost fell asleep!
The NY Times’s Frank Bruni was a huge fan when he covered Bush’s campaign, impressed that Bush gave reporters (stupid, demeaning) nicknames. Bruni’s was the cutesy “Panchito” clearly showing how much respect Bush had for him and other journalists (Bush hated the media). At one point Bruni even told Bush he loved him — just what a professional journalist covering a candidate does, right? In contrast Bruni criticized Gore for being so focused on big issues that he didn’t take time to attend to the little niceties. The fact that Bruni later turned on Bush and became one of his harshest critics is strong evidence that corporate influence wasn’t the reason for his fawning coverage of Bush. If that were the case he never would have become a harsh critic.
Another factor that Eric points to is how intimidated the mainstream media is by the bullying from the right. I was struck recently when I heard Andrew Weissmann say that fear of right wing media attacks played a part in the timidity of the Mueller investigation as well as their willingness to be tough in their final report. If a man like Mueller can be intimidated by right wing bullying you can bet that most journalists and pundits are and that makes them tone down their criticism Republicans.
Sorry that this post is so long but I strongly believe if we don’t understand the factors behind the mainstream media’s willingness to downplay Republican’s outrages we won’t stand a chance of changing it or at least of making people aware of the bias and be less easily manipulated.
Chris Hayes has been a harsh critic as has Nicole Wallace. In fact on Friday she even called McMaster “mealy-mouthed” for pulling his punches when criticizing Trump which most in the media would never dare to do. I bet her boss Chuck Todd choked on that but since her ratings are better than his........
Ivana Trump once said that Donald kept a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed. I guess it is possible that was the only book he ever read. I do not mention this to encourage Trump/Hitler fears. But I do think that he is much more than a spoiled little rich boy. Still, I wish had more of Mark's confidence in Trump's impotence.
I continue to ask the queston - why can't I, a regular everyday person, ask the NYT editorial staff why they do this and get a real answer? Is the paper itself the answer? That what they present as more and less important is what the staff truly believe are the order in which they should be considered? So the years of incessantly going after Clinton was because as a staff, they were convinced that Clinton was as bad as her detractors said and needed to convince the world this was true?
This is my greatest frustration. That there are people in positions of power who wall themselves off from us lesser people and don't even bother allowing any of us close enough to ask a question let alone to receive an answer.
indeed. plus NYT basically refuses to engage w/ liberal critics, but bends over backwards for unserious, right-wing attacks
The Times used to have a Public Editor that you could email. The PE would write columns about the complaints and also add his or her own criticism of the reporting. The last PE was Liz Spayd whose position was eliminated after angering the self-righteous Dean Baquet:
“There was also little love lost between Spayd and Baquet, who slammed one of her efforts—a complaint the Times hesitated too long to publish a blockbuster report on Trump’s connection with Russia as “a bad column” that was“fairly ridiculous.” “
The excuse given by the Times was that online readers can now criticize them in their online comments as if that carries the same weight as a fellow journalist holding their feet to the fire. The Times has hypocritically allowed comments on much fewer articles in recent years showing just how much they welcome that feedback.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-the-new-york-times-fired-its-public-editor-in-favor-of-a-reader-center
It is a bad situation We can no longer count on checks and balances, the courts, majority rule, and simple decency from the Republican party. Just about all we have to protect us is the free press. Eric's work on press behavior is so important because the press does not seem to appreciate its crucial role. The NYT for example, is turning into a rag. I am a pretty stoic guy, but I'll tell you, I am afraid.
Our institutions have failed as at a stunning rate
The scary thing that is becoming more and more obvious is that we are in the midst of a coup, a right wing coup hell bent on destroying democracy. Trump is nothing more than a pawn, not the pawn that the Republican Party intended but one that ultimately is serving their purpose. Look, Trump could not possibly be doing all of this blatant disregard for the rule of law by himself. He's getting help throughout this racist party. Trump's the fool, a clown that grabs all the attention. And while this circus unfolds on the TV, Mitch McConnel works behind the scene to insure that money and power go to the top one percent. Republican voters, so frightened of a future where more and more people are treated equal and where Americans no longer look so similar to themselves look the other way. Sadly the polling in swing states looks to be within the margin of error, close enough for the dirty tricks to play out that we found out about this week in Barton Gellman's article in The Atlantic. The press and TV media care more about ratings and sales than signaling the alarm that we are about to become the next Turkey and Hungary. The only thing that can stop this is not a tsunami of Democrats voting but a tsunami of Democrats voting in swings states and and now it seems plausible that those votes could be disregarded. Those that support Trump and the so called Republican Party better worry about their health insurance through the ACA and shortly after that, medicare and social security, and for women, the right to control their own bodies. That this dire situation is still being covered by the press as politics as usual is perhaps the biggest sin of all.
reminder: authoritarians can only flourish via a pliant press
Trump downplayed the pandemic because he “didn’t want to start a panic.” I wonder if the Very Serious People at the N.Y. Times and elsewhere are downplaying the Trump threat because they don’t want to panic themselves?
Nice gig they have for themselves; be a shame if anything happened to it. Better play it safe - how bad is it really?
good pt abt the ridiculous “panic” storyline
If only Biden had emailed Hillary Clinton about this, The Times might have given it the attention it deserves. Today, I noticed, they were trying to recover with two front-page stories--the surest sign they know they bollixed it up.
The part of "Dr. Strangelove" that has stuck with me was the convergence of individual interests without overarching circumspection. I find that no less true today.
Please. He's one guy with literally no support. This is not news because if he doesn't leave voluntarily, he will be removed involuntarily. He knows it, you know it, and I know it.
The Times has repeatedly reported right wing smears as truth. The editors allowed Jeff Gerth to repeatedly report on right wing lies when Clinton was in office — Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Chinagate/ Wen Ho Lee were all fake. After Ken Starr was finally forced to admit there was no reality to any of those accusations I naively believed that the Times would learn from that humiliation. Instead they gleefully repeated Karl Rove’s false accusations about Gore being a liar. Then the Times allowed Judith Miller to be the scribe for Cheney allies Ahmed Chalabi’s and Scooter Libby’s WMD propaganda. Next the Times hyped the email pseudo-scandal. Clearly the Times was not the only media outlet to play along with right wing smears but it is the most influential. If the Times says something is true most of the mainstream media follows their lead, creating an echo chamber of right wing lies.
My faint hope now is that the consequences of the Times and the rest of the mainstream media helping elect Trump has frightened them so much they won’t allow themselves to be used by right wing propagandists again. I am not going to bet money on it.
Sorry about double post. NYT supports Fascist and racist agenda. To paraphrase one of my favorite lines from Casablanca, "The devil has the media by the throat".
Sadly that doesn’t surprise me given all the journalistic malpractice the Times has been guilty of over the years like the examples I listed above. What really boggles my mind is that because the Times has been given a pass over and over they are still so influential and trusted by millions of people, especially Democrats. Time and again I have watched people I know turn against Democratic candidates who are head and shoulders above their opponents because the Times peddled right wing smears about them. What the did to Ms. Winston-Walcott is despicable but what they did to Gore, Kerry and Clinton severely weakened their candidacies. The result has literally been deadly (Iraq, Covid) and has brought our democracy to the point of breaking.
I am not putting all the blame on the Times but most of the mainstream “liberal” media usually followed the Times’s lead and the effect has been disastrous. I strongly believe that had the media reported fairly instead of playing their destructive games neither Bush nor Trump would have won.
I think that is too simplistic an explanation. A lot of what drives our top political pundits and journalists is the same thing that drives the Cool Kids Clique in high school. If the Cool Kids deem you unacceptable they will have no qualms about viciously trashing you anyway they can.
When the Clintons first arrived in DC they offended the Queen of the DC Cool Kids Club, Sally Quinn, wife of Ben Bradlee. Queen Sally ruled over the group, hosting soirées that. The DC players were desperate to be included. David Ignatius wrote about how excited he and his wife were to get their first invite, describing Quinn and Bradlee as DC’s “Bogie and Bacall”. Sally’s club included lCarl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, Tim Russert, Tom Brokaw, Andrea Mitchell, Maureen Dowd, Martha Raddatz, David Ignatius, David Broder, Chris Matthews, etc. along with powerful politicians and players like Ken Starr. Mika Brzezinski is a close friend.
When Clinton’s dalliance with Monica became public the Club, led by Queen Sally, was absolutely appalled which was deeply hypocritical given that Bradlee had been one of JFK’s closest friends who covered up his numerous adulteries. Many of these people worshipped the ground the much more promiscuous JFK walked on and still do. But the ultimate hypocrisy was Queen Quinn whose husband’s recently published memoir described how she, as a twenty-something cub reporter, had set out to seduce her married boss by sending him anonymous flirty memos. The two began an affair. Bradlee eventually divorced his wife and married Quinn. Basically she was a successful Monica but she publicly excoriated Clinton for his trashy behavior as did the rest of her club who also knew about the Bradlee’s history. And now we know that several of those men were at least as guilty as Clinton.
Sally Quinn wrote an infamous column describing how her club felt about the Clinton’s. The highly respected David Broder, the “Dean of Washington Journalists”, complained that the Clintons had come into DC and trashed it, complaining it wasnt’ “their town” as if they, not the American people, are the ones supposed to be in charge.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/quinn110298.htm
The same kind of behavior drove a lot of the coverage of the Bush-Gore campaign. The mainstream media clearly preferred Bush because he was “more fun to have a beer with”. David Broder actually complained that Gore spoke so much about what he wanted to do if elected that Broder was so bored he almost fell asleep!
The NY Times’s Frank Bruni was a huge fan when he covered Bush’s campaign, impressed that Bush gave reporters (stupid, demeaning) nicknames. Bruni’s was the cutesy “Panchito” clearly showing how much respect Bush had for him and other journalists (Bush hated the media). At one point Bruni even told Bush he loved him — just what a professional journalist covering a candidate does, right? In contrast Bruni criticized Gore for being so focused on big issues that he didn’t take time to attend to the little niceties. The fact that Bruni later turned on Bush and became one of his harshest critics is strong evidence that corporate influence wasn’t the reason for his fawning coverage of Bush. If that were the case he never would have become a harsh critic.
Another factor that Eric points to is how intimidated the mainstream media is by the bullying from the right. I was struck recently when I heard Andrew Weissmann say that fear of right wing media attacks played a part in the timidity of the Mueller investigation as well as their willingness to be tough in their final report. If a man like Mueller can be intimidated by right wing bullying you can bet that most journalists and pundits are and that makes them tone down their criticism Republicans.
Sorry that this post is so long but I strongly believe if we don’t understand the factors behind the mainstream media’s willingness to downplay Republican’s outrages we won’t stand a chance of changing it or at least of making people aware of the bias and be less easily manipulated.
Chris Hayes has been a harsh critic as has Nicole Wallace. In fact on Friday she even called McMaster “mealy-mouthed” for pulling his punches when criticizing Trump which most in the media would never dare to do. I bet her boss Chuck Todd choked on that but since her ratings are better than his........
Ivana Trump once said that Donald kept a book of Hitler's speeches by his bed. I guess it is possible that was the only book he ever read. I do not mention this to encourage Trump/Hitler fears. But I do think that he is much more than a spoiled little rich boy. Still, I wish had more of Mark's confidence in Trump's impotence.