Re last post, I should not have used the phrase “some posters” and wish to withdraw that statement.
We quit yesterday, although we signed up for a NYT Cooking subscription. They have a good app. All I was reading anymore was the synopsis of the late night comedians…
What I want is coverage that treats Trump like what he is - a compulsive liar, serial adulterer, con artist, rapist, and traitor who is unfit to hold any office under the United States, much less president, and who deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison for his many crimes against this nation and its people.
What the Times is offering is “Oh, that Trump! What a CARD!”, followed by “Here’s 27 reasons Harris’ policies are bad and how dare she not give us special access to every minute of her campaign”.
NYT: Biden stutters sometimes which means he’s in cognitive decline! LOOK HOW OLD HE IS! OLD OLD OLD!
Also the NYT:
That Times article is highly negative, with all three quoted independent experts making snarky anti-Trump comments:
That’s nice. The majority of people who see the headline won’t be subscribers and won’t be able to read the article, and won’t come away with that interpretation.
They know what they’re doing with these headlines.
When Trump came out with his ‘you won’t have to vote again’ idiocy, I actually wrote a letter to the NYT asking why they didn’t have that as a huge headline, and why they were so soft on Trump overall. The response I got was a lot of blather about articles that did indeed say probing, negative things about him, that they were looking at the broad view, blah, blah, blah.
And yes, the articles the responder mentioned were in fact pretty tart, but the headlines that went with them were so bland as to be taken as praise, or even just an offhand observation. Certainly nothing like the focus on Biden’s age and “frailty”. The articles were also all small pieces well down in the paper, not the giant headlines that they should have been if Trump were getting the same scrutiny as Biden.
I’ve canceled my subscription. I’ll still read what I can, but I’m not paying for the bilge they’re dishing out.
We cancelled 2 days ago.
Here is the sort of thing that shows the bias:
(sorry, they are large images that would take a long time to type out for those who don’t have Twitter. Maybe someone else has the time.)
They went out of their way to take what he said and make sense of it. They don’t report what he said. They report a cleaned up version that makes it seem coherent.
They may say they don’t support Trump, but they go out of their way to clean him up and make him more presentable.
Now let’s see if they report on the fact that so many of the right wing online commentators were found by the DOJ to be paid by Russia. Or how Trump admitted he lost the election.
Even AP news cleaned it up and “translated it”. I’m so disgusted by most of the media right now.
Where did Trump say he was going to fund childcare with tariffs? He was asked a question about childcare and rambled on about tariffs, but I never heard him say the government was going to pay for childcare.
Even this criticism of the Times gives Trump more credit than he deserves.
Sane people have parsed trumps insane garbled utterances and turned them into something that is understandable. I dont think trump really meant that.
Well, Trump does state unambiguously that the government will reap so much money from his tariffs that the cost of childcare would be tiny by comparison. The Trump whisperers in the media have turned that into Trump saying that he’ll fund childcare with tariffs, which wouldn’t be an unreasonable inference if a normal politician made such a statement in a response to a question about childcare. Of course, with Trump you can be confident that he has no interest in pushing for legislation that would help regular people out, and that the implication that he might is just there because he senses that people might want to hear that in his answer.
So, the NYT cleanup cuts slack to Trump in multiple ways - it parses his answer as if it were coherent, rather than a rambling stream of whatever popped into Trump’s head that he felt was what people might like to hear, and then it takes that parsing as a sincere statement of policy, rather than the completely insincere on-the-spot fabrication that it actually was.
“…rambling stream of whatever popped into Trump’s head…” is right on the money.
“…completely insincere on-the-spot fabrication…” actually gives him too much credit here, IMHO. A liar has to have the presence of mind to tell a convincing lie. This wasn’t that—it was almost entirely gibberish and word-salad.
Pretty sure there’s a number of folks at NYT right now that are just cannibalizing the fuck out of their souls.
Gift link to Alexandra Petri at WaPo: The Trump Headline Machine! . Funny and accurate as usual!
(Sigh)
“WHY I STILL THINK TRUMP WILL WIN”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/06/opinion/trump-victory.html
Right. trump never said he would fund childcare with tariffs. When the NYT says that, they are flat out lying.
They sold those years ago.
Apology to mod(s) - in the future I’ll do better in refraining from using profanities in non-pit threads.