The point is that hand wringing about “why didn’t they include the Hitler-esque quote” is pretty stupid when he said that a year ago and they reported so at the time. Should every article about Trump mention that quote, just in case you forgot?
If it is relevant, then yes. Otherwise, no.
Seems relevant here from the cheap seats.
So many things wrong in this post.
One. Their editorial policy is clearly against Trump. What you are complaining about is on the news side.
Mostly I personally see a wide variety on their news side but let’s accept your take that the articles and especially the headlines are infuriating to most who hate Trump.
Yeah if so that would be their point.
Two. The NYT is not influencing any undecided or informing any unengaged voters. The readership is heavily Blue but more so heavily informed and engaged. The power you imagine an even massively Trump biased news article has to impact how ANYONE will vote is … not very realistic.
Yes.
His poisoned blood comment didn’t go away a year ago, it didn’t vanish into the ether, it’s as relevant now as it was then, because he still believes it.
I think the crux is here. The big comparison is versus how they treated Biden. For Biden in July, the NYT was (arguably) directly speaking to actual decisionmakers (top Dem pols, Biden inner circle) possibly influencing them at a time where a change could still be made. That’s very different then direct appeals to voters (with limited impact by now and best done on the op-ed page).
Maybe what we’re really lamenting is that the D’s can be shamed into good choices on occasion, by bad mainstream press, but the R’s can’t/won’t be shamed by anything really.
Just to look at the bigger picture for a minute, I think there is widespread agreement in this thread that the Times’s coverage of Trump has been problematic.
The Substack by veteran reporter James Fallows provides ongoing analysis of the Times’s election coverage. He says that since shedding its ombudsman seven years ago, the paper has become “neither transparent nor accountable” in its editing decisions.
Fallows does not conclude that the Times is deliberately pro-Trump. He concludes that “the emphasis on politics-as-spectacle runs through virtually everything the paper presents about US public life.”
(About half of his post here should be un-paywalled:)
The inverted pyramid is a metaphor used by journalists and other writers to illustrate how information should be prioritised and structured in prose. It is a common method for writing news stories and has wide adaptability to other kinds of texts, such as blogs, editorial columns and marketing factsheets. Wikipedia
Sure, but the comment about immigrants committing crime because they have bad genes was current, and was framed as a ‘fascination with genetics’ rather than framed as ‘espousing discredited racist eugenics’. The AP article used the ‘poisoning the blood’ quote as a way of associating the current quote with racist eugenics. The NYT didn’t mention eugenics until well over halfway through its article.
I repeat again. The NYT avoids objective descriptions of Trump’s behaviour where objective descriptions might be seen as critical of Trump, preferring instead to frame such behaviour in language that puts a favourable spin on it so that it appears on the surface to be neutral.
No matter how many times you repeat that, it doesn’t make it true.
Whether or not the AP article is correct about drawing the connection there, it’s hardly an objective description that’s being ignored. It’s an inference that’s being (correctly or incorrectly) drawn; not drawing that inference is not at all equivalent to putting a positive spin on Trump’s actions.
Oh, so it DID mention the thing you wanted it to mention, just not as early as you’d like.
No sir, not a purity test at all.
The inverted pyramid is a metaphor used by journalists and other writers to illustrate how information should be prioritised and structured in prose. It is a common method for writing news stories and has wide adaptability to other kinds of texts, such as blogs, editorial columns and marketing factsheets. Wikipedia
The inverted or upside-down pyramid can be thought of as a triangle pointing down. The widest part at the top represents the most substantial, interesting, and important information that the writer means to convey, illustrating that this kind of material should head the article, while the tapering lower portion illustrates that other material should follow in order of diminishing importance.
It is sometimes called a summary news lead style,[2] or bottom line up front (BLUF).[3] The opposite, the failure to mention the most important, interesting or attention-grabbing elements of a story in the opening paragraphs, is called burying the lede.
Very few readers read all of every, or even most, articles. Many do little more than read the headline and skim the first paragraph or two. If something doesn’t appear near the top of an article, it is pretty much not there. That’s why there’s been so much focus on headlines in this thread. The tone of the headline matters immensely more than what’s discussed in the 12th paragraph of an article.
And for fuck’s sake, calling Trump’s statements about immigrants committing crimes because they have bad genes ‘racist eugenics’ is not an inference! It’s an objective description of the view - a view that hasn’t been an accepted scientific view since the British were transporting convicts to Australia. I don’t give a flying fuck if the statements are compared specifically to Nazis or not. But labelling them as a ‘fascination with genetics’ rather than as ‘debunked racist eugenetics’ is exactly equivalent to putting a positive spin on them. And if it were a single instance, it wouldn’t be particularly noteworthy, but it’s time after time after time. Trump corrodes public discord with racist, fascist, misogynistic, authoritarian bullshit, and the NYT slaps a veneer of respectability over it in their headline. Every time, to the point were @NYTPitchbot complains on a regular basis that he can’t compete.
That is, of course, a parody. 
Great cite , thanks!
Yet it’s basically indistinguishable from many of the claims made in this thread.
Exactly so. And the challenge of the headline is get your specific audience to click to at least see the first paragraph.
I am actually quite confident that they know which sorts of headlines get the most clicks to see more from their readership. And it probably isn’t one that promises the same exact take they had just seen on their MSN or CNN or AppleNews feeds.
Trump: Insane ramble about how a dead golfer had a huge dick and was the handsomest man ever
NYT:
Even worse… the Arnold-size stuff wasn’t even mentioned in the NYT Live Blog of the speech:
Huh. Here’s the body of the article I see on line (not going to use up a gift link this time):
Nice to see they changed tack when they realized the rest of the media wasn’t going to sanewash this one.