Is the New York Times Pro-Trump?

Reporting the truth on Biden’s cognitive ability and appearance is not pro-Trump. It’s the truth. You think it’s helpful, in the long term, for supposedly objective or fact-finding institutions to be nothing more than partisan lackeys?

I’ll say it again so they can hear it in the back. The President’s health, debate performance, and age-related issues are all newsworthy and the NYT 100% should be reporting on those. What they are doing that is pro-Trump is not reporting similar things when Trump does it and generally giving Trump a pass on everything.

Yesterday Trump called fictional Hannibal Lecter a ‘lovely man’, couldn’t pronounce the word ‘feared’ and landed on ‘field’ after a couple of tries, forgot that Don Jr. is not married and said he had a lovely wife, froze for ten seconds, forgot how to say the word economy, and that’s not all. Today’s NYT had eight pieces mentioned on the front page that were different versions of Biden is old.

It is also worth mentioning that Trump committed a fuck ton of crimes and raped a woman.

I am fine with the NYT reporting the truth about Biden. It is bullshit that they refuse to report the truth about Trump.

This is the weakest anti-Trump move in their arsenal since it doesn’t really influence any votes.

Because it is not the truth.

Right.

Chris Hayes made much the same point on his show tonight on MSNBC.

Perhaps what’s happening is over correction to the problem of 2016. At that time, the media (in hindsight) was accused of breathlessly reporting every idiotic thing Trump said and covering his rallies extensively as if they were news. This had the effect of helping him spread his lies.

So in response the media now is barely covering him at all.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Today on Brian Kilmeade’s radio show he asked Trump a yes-or-no question about whether he wants the US out of NATO.

Trump’s response was, and I quote;

“I just want them to pay their bills, we’re protecting Europe, they take advantage very badly. Not so much worse, I tell you what, very badly, you look at China, you know China is terrible, but I straightened them out and then we had COVID and I had to focus on other things and we did an incredible job, we got it back. We saved the country, this country would have gotten into a massive depression if I weren’t president and I gave him a stock market that was higher than pre-COVID when COVID first came in. And what he’s done to the economy is horrible because of inflation. The costs have gone up at a level — I think it’s close to 50 percent, not 20 percent or 25 percent - I think it cost us - You know they don’t include the real costs, okay? When something really goes haywire like interest rates, they don’t include that in their cost of inflation. But what they’ve done with inflation and what they’ve done to this country by allowing millions of people, I think 20 million people will be the number by the time this guy gets out hopefully Nov. 5 is gonna be the biggest day, most important day in the history of our country. But you’re talking about 20 million people, many coming from institutions, mental institutions and insane asylums, coming from jails and prisons all over the world. Do you know that other countries have the best crime numbers they’ve ever had, because they’re sending all their criminal into the United States. Not just South America, they’re sending all of their criminals, Brian, into the United States. We’re going to have a problem and we’re gonna get’m out. But this is what they’re doing. They’re under attack. With me there was no attack, everybody felt comfortable. And I took in billions and billions, hundreds of billions of dollars. [Jens] Stoltenberg, the secretary general [of NATO], said ‘Trump did something I didn’t think was possible.’ I took in the money he’s spending right now. If I didn’t even take it in they wouldn’t even have a NATO to fight Russia. It was me that took in all the money. But they felt comfortable because frankly, uh, they weren’t going to be attacked. They knew Russia would never attack as long as I was president. When he became president, of course they’re paying right now, they’re under attack. If they didn’t pay right now, the United States, if they were smart, would say, 'Well, I’m sorry, we can’t protect you.” 'Cause they have the money to pay. But he makes a big deal out of it. Think about it, they’re under attack. He is such a dumb president it’s not even believable. Of course they’re paying they don’t want to be attacked, they don’t want, they want to make sure Russia, the United States, stays right behind them, Russia doesn’t attack them. But it’s real easy to get money when you’re at war with Russia."

Imagine the way the NYT would be covering it if Biden responded to a yes-or-no question with a 506-word rant that didn’t contain a yes or no.

It is half the truth, at best.

In 2016 they way over-reported on anything to do with Clinton and emails in an attempt to appear balanced.

Thom Hartmann, this past Monday July 8th (his emphases):

… we’re watching a repeat of the way our national news media helped Trump into the White House in 2016.

The irrefutable example comes from an in-depth analysis of 2016 done by Media Matters comparing Hillary Clinton’s private comment about Trump’s followers being “a basket of deplorables” and Trump’s very public 2016 proclamation, literally echoing Hitler, that some of us are “vermin” who he intended to “root out” and eliminate from American society.

… The reporters at Media Matters (after exploring television coverage - b) then turned their attention to the nation’s five largest newspapers by circulation: “the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post — in the first week following each remark.”

Here, they found the pattern repeated.

… The New York Times had seven articles about Clinton’s comment, four on the front page; like the LA Times, there wasn’t a single news story mention of Trump’s ‘vermin’ comment during that time period.

And now they are repeating that pattern virtually step-by-profitable-step.

Other half — today from the Editorial Board:

Donald Trump is Unfit to Lead

Very good. Now let’s hold them to doing the same on the front page.

That is not the other half. That is just throwing a bone.

Is there some big current story about Trump that warrants the front page?

Look fair and balanced is Fox News slogan, it is not what news organizations should work towards. They should beholden the truth no matter how balanced it is. And they screwed up repeatedly 8 years in the name of balance. That doesn’t mean they should make the same mistakes now to be balanced the other way.

Biden’s cognitive issues is a big story. His debate performance is a big story. Democrats pushing him to drop out is a big story. This is also a living story where new information (polls, comments from leading democrats, stories of working with Biden, Biden’s own actions) are constantly updating the situation. This should absolutely be the type of storyline that should headline a major newspaper daily. This is also a story that NY Times readers have a ton of interest in (straight Dope isn’t NYT but if you compare the comments on Biden threads in the last few weeks vs Trump I imagine it wouldn’t be close). Trump says crazy things is not new, unexpected, changing the opinion of anyone in his party leadership, or something that many people are going to have interest reading about.

“People having interest” shouldn’t be the entire point of their news coverage – especially when such “interest” is cultivated in-house.

Hartmann again, reposting a small part I posted above to lend context:

… we’re watching a repeat of the way our national news media helped Trump into the White House in 2016.

The irrefutable example comes from an in-depth analysis of 2016 done by Media Matters comparing Hillary Clinton’s private comment about Trump’s followers being “a basket of deplorables” and Trump’s very public 2016 proclamation, literally echoing Hitler, that some of us are “vermin” who he intended to “root out” and eliminate from American society.

Clinton is a reasonable and thoughtful politician and former diplomat, so her “deplorables” comment was seen by our yellow press as “man bites dog.” It was unexpected. (my emphasis - b)

Trump, on the other hand, is a sadistic fascist whose call for the extermination of his political opponents could reasonably be expected: “dog bites man.”

“Saying crazy things” shouldn’t be normalized with a shrug. And IMHO, it’s not too late to turn back the clock and hold Trump accountable for at least the very worst of what comes out of his mouth. Forget about “changing the opinion of his party’s leadership” – how about simply informing the public, even if it is old hat?

No doubt, it’s a big story. But how big? Two weeks of non-stop headlines big?

The last bit of “news” I saw on the NYT front page was that George Clooney urged Biden to drop out. What next, an op-ed from Matt Damon?

As I see it, good-faith coverage would also require considering the downsides to a potential Biden dropout, particularly the loss of his campaign war chest. How many NYT op-ed pieces addressed that?

[standing ovation]

MULTIPLE FELON SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

MULTIPLE RAPIST SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

SERIAL LIAR SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

FASCIST SHOULD NOT BE PRESIDENT

(my emphasis)

Thinking on this some: A media source – or really, any human entity – cannot merely “recognize reality”. When a human being is involved there’s always an interpretation of what is experienced, both on (a) intake of information about reality and then again upon (b) communication of that information to another party.

What you’re talking about is a view upon the prism of reality, but is not in itself objective reality.

I think that big. A lot of it that is a story where there new information each day which is going to keep it in the headlines. Pelosi comments are a big story and yes Clooney is too. With Clooney the reporting included new information suggestion that the debate was not a one off event and that senior Democrats including Obama did not object to him speaking. That seems pretty important to me.

Is that a story? You just want the NYTimes just to say that over and over on the front page every day?