Cite? How about the dozens of front page articles about Biden being senile and must step down or resign?
It used to be.
This thread is discussing the bias in NYTimes coverage on the assumption that it’s caused by Biden (and now Harris) intentionally dissing the Times , refusing to sit with their reporters.
But I don’t understand why Biden and Harris refuse.to cooperate with the Times.
It seems like an own goal. (Especially now that Harris is starting a brand new campaign, with less baggage than Biden.)
What does she gain by treating the Times as an enemy?
What am I missing?
Well, you might get articles and questions like this.
Nothing like that at all. The Publisher thinks Biden and Harris should come in, kiss his rang, and give him the special exclusive interview the Great and Wonderful All Powerful New York Times is justly entitled to.
She is not. She is too busy to give a lot of interviews, and she’d rather do them on TV.
The Times is treating Biden and Harris as if they HAVE to give the NYT a special exclusive interview- because they are the Great and Wonderful All Powerful New York Times .
You have it exactly backward.
How is this headline, from noted idiot Bret Stephens:
A Vague, Vacuous TV Interview Didn’t Help Kamala Harris
Stephens, BTW, says he won’t vote for Harris, and she hasn’t earned his vote. He hates Trump, but apparently doesn’t understand how elections in the United States work.
Worth reading their review of her interview with CNN (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/29/us/politics/harris-walz-interview-cnn-takeaways.html). They were pretty tough in their assessment. I assume they will hold Trump to the same standards. Haha! I kid, of course.
Again, they are definitely not pro-Trump, though – not one of their regular opinion columnists would endorse him. They treat him with kid gloves, though. It’s ridiculous that they don’t hold both candidates to the same standards – this isn’t a game between my kid and his younger brother (ok, race, but give your brother a head start). Both candidates are vying for the same job. If one is an old, doddering, rambling lunatic, that point has to be made.
How many articles have come out about Trump’s age? They were non-stop about Biden, and he was just a few years older. If Harris’s interview was vague and vacuous, how would Mr. Stephens describe Trump’s unhinged rambling interviews?
The new York times News alert on my phone about the CNN interview was neutral. The alert just said:
7 Takeaways From Harris’s First Major Interview
And clicking on it, the summary at the top of the page reads:
Kamala Harris showed her tendency toward winding answers in the CNN interview, but said nothing likely to cause her serious political trouble.
I was curious, based on this thread, if they’d say something nasty, but i don’t think they did. (I didn’t read the article, i just looked at the headlines. As, i expect, many people do.)
That’s not my assumption.
Harris wasn’t dissing the Times. CNN gives more visibility. NY Times readers are fewer in numbers than TV watchers, and less likely to be swing voters.
Before Election Day, I expect Harris to sit for at least one national newspaper interview. Do I think that, if the paper turns out to be the Washington Post, daily Times hard news coverage will be affected? Of course not. If Maggie Haberman was told to change her coverage because of that, she would quit.
Based on this thread, I wonder if some posters want not just coverage that leans towards being more favorable to Harris, as is already the case, but actual one-sided coverage that no one except for a partisan Democrat would trust.
There is a reality here that some cannot accept when seen in the New York Times, but it is reality, and slips in a bit even in normally one-sidedly progressive media, as in this I found at The New Republic:
The NYT’s animus toward the Dem ticket is definitely being noticed by its mainly-liberal readership. For example, the CNN interview article, notable only for its obvious search for something, anything, negative to say about the event, had a lot of comments. The two ‘most liked’ with over 3000 likes apiece, were questioning the bias of the reporter, and wondering what the hell was wrong with the Times.
So were most of the others.
Here’s what is right with the coverage:
The coverage indicates that, by the preponderance of the evidence, Harris and Walz did well, but that there is more than one way to look at the evidence. This is the model for many of the Times hard news stories objected to (and, collectively, for columnist hiring decisions).
When I went to university in the 1970’s, if you didn’t acknowledge the part I italicized, your essay would get a B instead of an A. I’ve long wondered if grade inflation is a cause for progressives now considering purely one-sided thinking to be not just OK, but something that deserves the highest marks. In any event, I give New York Times coverage of Harris-Walz a well-deserved 1970’s A.
The NYTimes looked long and hard at the left-wing mouse at the cost of scrutinizing the right-wing elephant, then tried to use the excuse that they looked at both sides equally.
How do you grade their coverage of Trump, his speeches and interviews, etc.? They can be as hard on Harris and Walz as they want to be, but they constantly give Trump a pass for all the batshit stuff he says.
And have not run one single article expressing “concern” about Trump’s age and how that will hamper his ability to do the job if elected. And yet they at one point had as many as 8 articles about Biden’s age or infirmity run in ONE DAY.
The NYTimes coverage is a prime example of desperately ignoring the beam in its own eye while searching for a mote, any mote in any other eyes.
It was a bad interview as she didnt give it to the NYT- which the NYT has not yet figured out that dead tree newspapers are no longer important.
NYT has 296,330 print subscribers- SIX MILLION watched the CNN interview.
Yep, an order of magnitude more.
Cite examples of the bolded.
Based on this thread, people have shown you what is going on and they have shown you what they want, over and over again…and it ain’t that.
Daily Kos?
However, I do not read them often enough to be sure.
In the magazine world, I would contrast Harper’s one-sided progressive coverage with the Atlantic being more like the New York Times.
Plenty of examples from the actual NYT.
I meant posters in this thread.