Packer's piece is outstanding, and a reminder that if people who believe "government is the problem" get to run the government, their belief is self-fulfilled. And for God knows what reason, the NY Times is deeply invested in normalizing the aberrant behavior of the most corrupt, obnoxious, and incompetent president in history. Expect "analysis" of Biden, and stenography for Trump.
It's always been that way. Remember how they fawned over Reagan as a silver tongued orator who crushed his opponents with his "there you go again". Blah! Bush W was the guy you wanted to have a beer with. Not me! When Sam Donaldson told me that Reagan out debated Jimmy Carter I know that something was going on, and it's never stopped since then. I can only assume it is powerful corporations directing the narrative to their advantage no matter what. Even if we run the table in November they will still be there!
It's not that the political reporters get directives from on high saying "make sure the Republicans win in November". We would find out about stuff like that. It's insular groupthink among "political elites". They went ga-ga over Reagan because he was an actor with a carefully-cultivated "folksy demeanor" who told people things they wanted to hear. He was like an ol' cowpoke! Carter was like their dad telling them they had to turn down the heat to save money. Similarly, GWB was the friendly guy down at the bar while Gore was the competent-but-boring professor scolding people for not doing the assigned reading. Analyzing policies is boring "wonk stuff" that they don't care to do much of. And remember that reporters usually are, well, journalists by trade. They generally don't understand more about policies than the people they're talking to, so they'll go with whatever people tell them that sounds good to them, regardless of whether it has any basis in fact. Going further back with the proverbial shoe on the other foot, the press loved JFK because he was practically a movie star! And his family! Nixon (he ran against JFK in '60, remember) was bland and had no fancy social background. Eisenhower was a dang war hero who beat Hitler! Stevenson was an "ivory tower intellectual". (Who'd want a president who's highly-educated? He needs to look good for the cameras!)
The media's aim in pushing "Dems in Disarray" when all the evidence points opposite is to create conflict. Lack of conflict is boring. Conflict sells. Truth, if it doesn't fit the narrative, be damned.
The Times has far too much influence given how biased and misleading so much of their political coverage is. For years I have been trying to understand why the “newspaper of record” is so willing to play foolish games with our politics. It can’t just be that they are intimidated by the right or that they are afraid to anger the rich and powerful. Often it seems to me that these journalists are acting like a bunch of teens at Beltway High who have to show disdain for the serious students because they want to be part of the Kool Kids club. Sadly the Times seems to drive a lot of media coverage.
The NYT has sucked up to power, particularly Republican power, for decades. Read Hunter Thompson's Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail from 1972. He described it in withering terms.
No, you're basically correct. The "big names" on the politics desk are well-connected "cocktail party" social elites who treat politics as a kind of professional sport. They're not hired based on merit, at least in the sense of "merit" as "most skilled at informing the public about what's important".
Armando this AM called people like them on Twitter “professional whiners “ which I find to be a very apt description. Though with the NYTs, I believe there are definitely underlying motives.
Obviously. No one is going to read the story "Polls continue to show nothing much happening in Presidential race"? They're a business. They're selling a product. Does Tylenol run ads saying "As mandated by the FDA, our products are identical to all other over-the-counter acetaminophen products, except more expensive"?
Packer's piece is outstanding, and a reminder that if people who believe "government is the problem" get to run the government, their belief is self-fulfilled. And for God knows what reason, the NY Times is deeply invested in normalizing the aberrant behavior of the most corrupt, obnoxious, and incompetent president in history. Expect "analysis" of Biden, and stenography for Trump.
the NYT normalizing of Trump was clearly an institutional decision that was made on Day 1.
It's always been that way. Remember how they fawned over Reagan as a silver tongued orator who crushed his opponents with his "there you go again". Blah! Bush W was the guy you wanted to have a beer with. Not me! When Sam Donaldson told me that Reagan out debated Jimmy Carter I know that something was going on, and it's never stopped since then. I can only assume it is powerful corporations directing the narrative to their advantage no matter what. Even if we run the table in November they will still be there!
all great historical points. btw everyone should read Mark Hertsgaard’s book on Reagan and the press, “On Bended Knee”
It's not that the political reporters get directives from on high saying "make sure the Republicans win in November". We would find out about stuff like that. It's insular groupthink among "political elites". They went ga-ga over Reagan because he was an actor with a carefully-cultivated "folksy demeanor" who told people things they wanted to hear. He was like an ol' cowpoke! Carter was like their dad telling them they had to turn down the heat to save money. Similarly, GWB was the friendly guy down at the bar while Gore was the competent-but-boring professor scolding people for not doing the assigned reading. Analyzing policies is boring "wonk stuff" that they don't care to do much of. And remember that reporters usually are, well, journalists by trade. They generally don't understand more about policies than the people they're talking to, so they'll go with whatever people tell them that sounds good to them, regardless of whether it has any basis in fact. Going further back with the proverbial shoe on the other foot, the press loved JFK because he was practically a movie star! And his family! Nixon (he ran against JFK in '60, remember) was bland and had no fancy social background. Eisenhower was a dang war hero who beat Hitler! Stevenson was an "ivory tower intellectual". (Who'd want a president who's highly-educated? He needs to look good for the cameras!)
Jimmy Carter - Boring, nerd, weak, Nightline's America Held Hostage Countdown
AL Gore - Boring, nerd, tree hugger
Howard Dean - Yelled wierdly
Michael Dukakis - Looked goofy in a Tank
John Kerry - A war hero Swift Boated as a traitor
Bill CLinton - 8 years of bogus investigations, ( Oh sorry he told 1 lie )
Hilary Clinton - Unlikable, can't be trusted
The list is endless........
Ronald Reagan - Folksy, Great Orator
George W Bush - A Guy to have a Beer With
Donald Trump - Business Savy, Will Shake Things Up
These are the portraits painted by the American News Media.
Backed up by Fox News Propaganda and an Army of Hate Radio Talkers.
Maybe the fault is the American People who as you say don't like
wonkey policy discussion being accommodated by media that only
cares about rating and profit. Maybe the American psychy is that
of a petulant teenager. (You can't tell me what to do) that
hates authority.
What ever the reasons, this is why this country has not achieved
one tenth of it's potential over the last 40 years and is declining
fast.
At least it has been documented in this post.
The media's aim in pushing "Dems in Disarray" when all the evidence points opposite is to create conflict. Lack of conflict is boring. Conflict sells. Truth, if it doesn't fit the narrative, be damned.
agreed. conflict sells...esp when its Dem conflict
The Times has far too much influence given how biased and misleading so much of their political coverage is. For years I have been trying to understand why the “newspaper of record” is so willing to play foolish games with our politics. It can’t just be that they are intimidated by the right or that they are afraid to anger the rich and powerful. Often it seems to me that these journalists are acting like a bunch of teens at Beltway High who have to show disdain for the serious students because they want to be part of the Kool Kids club. Sadly the Times seems to drive a lot of media coverage.
the NYT remains a mystery. they’re obviously capable of great things and sometimes they deliver. but the DC bureau remains total disappointment
The NYT has sucked up to power, particularly Republican power, for decades. Read Hunter Thompson's Fear And Loathing On The Campaign Trail from 1972. He described it in withering terms.
Thanks for the recommendation. I have been rereading Jack Germond’s “Fat Man Fed Up” and Eric’s “Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled over for Bush”.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2006/05/eric-boehlert-s-book-lapdogs-beats-the-press.html\
My problem is that even when we understand the problem I am not sure what average people can do about it other than not get bamboozled.
Forgot to say that that Slate article is the kind of defensive response the media always mounts when criticized.
No, you're basically correct. The "big names" on the politics desk are well-connected "cocktail party" social elites who treat politics as a kind of professional sport. They're not hired based on merit, at least in the sense of "merit" as "most skilled at informing the public about what's important".
Armando this AM called people like them on Twitter “professional whiners “ which I find to be a very apt description. Though with the NYTs, I believe there are definitely underlying motives.
yes, the NYT seems committed to keeping the race close
Obviously. No one is going to read the story "Polls continue to show nothing much happening in Presidential race"? They're a business. They're selling a product. Does Tylenol run ads saying "As mandated by the FDA, our products are identical to all other over-the-counter acetaminophen products, except more expensive"?