Like it or not, that’s what Old Media is like. Their gravitas and reputation stems from this perceived neutrality. You may say that this is a relict of a bygone time when we could presume that our elected officials were acting in good faith, and I’d agree. It’s why I don’t purely consume old media anymore. But you can’t expect a leopard to change its spots.
It’s literally not. It’s nothing of the sort.
Saying NYT cannot really oppose Trump because they support fracking or don’t support the Palestinians in Gaza enough, that’s a purity test. Saying that you can’t belong to our group unless you agree completely with us on a huge raft of issues
That’s not remotely the same as pointing out the obvious fact that publishing a bunch of blatantly pro Trump articles is not consistent with the NYT’s allegedly anti Trump position
The problem is that the NYT is not posting blatantly pro Trump articles, and the fact that you think they did because they didn’t use enough mean words about Trump in the article is precisely the purity testing we are talking about.
The problem is that the NYT is playing both sides of the street and trying to collect clicks from both sides. This means they officially endorse Harris while at the same time writing Trump puff pieces. It is just a money-making scam to please the stockholders.
Again this article (which is just one of many like this in the NYT) didn’t just “not use mean words” about Trump.
It is a completely distorted inaccurate description of what happened at that rally. If you just read this article and did not watch the video you would have an incorrect understanding of what happened at the rally, in way that benefits Trump massively.
Even the Fox News account pointed out that this was a deeply weird thing that happened, something NYT readers would be blissfully unaware of.
Pointing out that completely self evident fact is absolutely not a “purity test”
What are you talking about?
Are you under the impression that the events described in that article represent the actions of a same political actor?
Reading that Trump “decided that it would be more enjoyable to listen to music instead” at a rally makes him come across as fucking unhinged.
I’m sorry the New York Times authors aren’t using terms like “fucking unhinged”, but that is certainly not a positive spin.
How is it “sanewashing”?
What kind of “sane” person would “fire up his campaign playlist, standing on the stage for about half an hour and swaying to songs as his crowd diminished”?
No, because this wasn’t an unhinged act of a guy who is losing it, it’s a detour made by a political candidate known for improvisation.
By the way, here’s the headline to this “pro Trump article”:
Trump Bobs His Head to Music for 30 Minutes in Odd Town Hall Detour
(bold added)
The issue isn’t what the NYT says when it criticizes Trump. The issue is the NYT refuses to describe Trump’s behaviour in an objective fashion if an objective description of Trump’s behaviour might sound critical.
Trump expresses racist eugenic beliefs that underpinned Nazism? “Trump’s Remarks on Migrants Illustrate His Obsession With Genes”
Trump completely loses the plot at a town hall? “Odd Town Hall Detour”
There are scores of examples in this thread. Let me repeat. When an objective description of Trump’s behaviour might sound critical, the NYT does not provide an objective description, but rather puts a positively biased spin on things in the name of appearing neutral. Demanding that a newspaper describe things objectively, even if that might make those things sound bad, is not purity testing. It’s just asking that they report the news in an objective fashion.
Only if you’ve seen the video or heard other coverage (including goddamned FOX NEWS). Going just on that NYT piece you’d think he was being a happy go lucky man of the people, giving his supporters a bit of fun light relief and sticking it to the dour men in suits who want to ask boring interview questions.
Odd.
Presidential candidate stops his campaign town hall mid event to stand onstage for a half hour listening to music.
Odd is all you have to say about it?
Trump bobbing his head for 30 minutes is indeed an objective description. We can infer from that that he lost the plot, and indeed, I don’t think in any way that the NYT is implying that Trump was correct about people finding his “odd” move enjoyable. It seems like exactly the understated way I’d expect Old Media papers to call someone “unhinged”.
You may not like that understatement or feel that it is appropriate. Fine - you don’t like Old Media, then. There are literally dozens of alternative media channels that will happily tell you that Trump is an unhinged, deranged, senile lunatic.
The fact that this isn’t how the NYT operates doesn’t make them “Pro Trump”.
Sample size of one, but I read the excerpt to my wife (who hadn’t heard about this story yet) without any additional context, and she thought it made Trump sound unhinged. I then asked her if she thought the excerpt sounded pro Trump, and she said no; if anything, reporting “just the facts” makes the story more damning to Trump, in her eyes.
Only if you’ve never seen or heard a political rally before. No reasonable person would think it’s an appropriate thing to do at a Town Hall.
Hell, if I asked a 5th grader “How was class today?” and they told me “It was odd, the teacher put on a playlist and bobbed his head for 30 minutes” I’d be very concerned about that class.
Interesting that you focus on the second example and ignore the first. I’m much more concerned about refusing to call out Nazism. As a dirty foreigner, I don’t much give a fuck if Americans decide to elect a senile senior citizen. I do care if they decide to elect a white supremacist fascist authoritarian. Expecting the media to call out nazism is not purity testing.
No, I’d probably say that Trump is completely unhinged and clearly incapable of leadership. But I don’t write articles for Old Media, so I don’t have to abide by their standards.
“Odd” is about what I’d expect to see about it in the paper. “Lunacy” is what I’d expect a late night comedy show host to describe it as. I’d expect a funny skit about it on SNL. And I’d expect my favorite online political shows to call Trump “fucking insane”. What’s your point?
So here’s the text of the NYT article in question
Donald J. Trump was about 30 minutes into a town hall Monday night in suburban Philadelphia when a medical emergency in the crowd brought the questions and answers to a halt. Moments later, he tried to get back on track, when another medical incident seemed to derail things, this time for good.
And so Mr. Trump, a political candidate known for improvisational departures, made a detour. Rather than try to restart the political program, he seemed to decide in the moment that it would be more enjoyable for all concerned — and, it appeared, for himself — to just listen to music instead.
Mr. Trump had his staff fire up his campaign playlist, standing on the stage for about half an hour and swaying to songs as his crowd slowly dwindled.
He bobbed his head through the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.,” his usual closing song. He swayed soberly to Rufus Wainwright’s version of “Hallelujah,” watched a Sinead O’Connor video, rocked along to Elvis, watched the crowd during “Rich Men North of Richmond” and then, finally, left the stage to shake hands on his way out during one last song.
I am sorry that is a blatantly pro Trump description of the events at the rally. If that was your only source for the rally (which remember is from THE PAPER OF RECORD) you would absolutely not come away with the fair understanding of what clearly was an episode of cognitive decline from a presidential candidate. I mean they list the songs that were played but omit the fact the even Kristi Noem was visibly freaked out by his behavior and spoke to him like he was a child (or, more pertinently, a far gone nursing home patient).
Sorry, Trump expressed support for Nazism? When? What exactly did he say?
I have no idea how you read that article and come away with that opinion. I genuinely don’t.
The excerpt quoted in the tweet above was my wife’s only source for the rally, and she absolutely did come away with an understanding that when a guy stops a rally to away to music for 30 minutes, that’s absolutely a clear example of congnitive decline. Her exact response was, “and they say that Biden is senile?”.