Is the New York Times Pro-Trump?

Politics & Elections
161

This thread isn’t about what any of us think, though. It’s about whether the NYT is showing pro-Trump or anti-Biden bias. In order to determine this, you must set aside your own beliefs on what Biden should do.

It seems to me that the only people arguing against a bias on the NYT’s part are those of you who agree with their position. Factually, it seems a lock. There are way more pieces about how Biden is too old or should step down. We can debate over whether this is anti-Biden or pro-Trump, but the bias is there.

And it shouldn’t be. This isn’t what op eds are for. They aren’t for pushing an agenda. At least, not how the NYT has historically used them. They are supposed to be sharing various opinions, including ones you may not have heard. That’s why they let, say, Republicans who go against everything the editors believe make op eds.

So showing that there is a significant bias on a particular position—especially one that is very debatable—is a problem.

Especially when, as I 've said before, there is a huge difference between us here discussing things in relative obscurity, and a big newspaper pushing something as part of their own political agenda. When you actually try to affect policy, your considerations change.

The NYT has to consider reality–what is actually most likely to happen. All signs suggest that Biden is not in fact going to step down. And, unlike normal criticism, there isn’t some half-way measure they could be trying to push him towards.

If Biden doesn’t step down, then pushing him to do so only harms things. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyone who is in the political sphere has to be careful of that.

Politics is primarily about framing. It matters how you say things. It matters what you focus on. Simply telling the truth is not enough to win. You always have to be concerned about how you come off.

If the NYT can’t handle that, then they shouldn’t step in. And if they do accept it, then they are actively helping Trump win.

And this is true even if Biden stepping down would actually help.

162

Not unless they actually have a replacement in mind who they can show can win.

Right now, there are two people in this race. This third person to replace Biden doesn’t exist. So, right now, Biden stepping down helps Trump.

Yes, if they are somehow able to find a candidate—despite a very contentious convention which usually spells failure—that candidate might be able to overcome this. But the NYT has no argument for that candidate. They aren’t pushing their guy. They’re being anti-Biden.

Right now, in a two-person election, pushing anti-Biden arguments is Pro-Trump. Especially since it seems profoundly unlikely that Biden will step down.

He understands that having to have a contentious convention where they scramble to replace him with the best they can find on short notice while giving up any advantages that he had is not a recipe for success.

It might be different if there were an heir apparent, but there is not. It is a two person race.

163

Then it’s no worse than if Biden had stayed in and lost. It’s like the election is a single roll of a die. Trump is rolling a d10, Biden is rolling a d4. Biden could technically roll higher than Trump but it’s unlikely. Bring in Harris or Newsom and they will be rolling a d20, (which could still lose).

164

All due credit to the Times today for running a piece (by columnist Charles Blow) on why Biden should not be forced out of the race:

“The Strongest Case for Biden Is His Resilience in the Face of the Onslaught”

165

Along with:

  • Biden Digs In as Democratic Fears Deepen
  • The challenge for President Biden is that every appearance until November will be scrutinized for evidence of infirmity.
  • Should President Biden step aside or stay in? Here’s what some prominent Democrats have said.
  • President Biden’s stumbles have collided with a right-wing conspiracy theory about the election.
  • These Maps Show Biden’s Rapidly Shrinking Path to Re-election
  • Age Aside, This Is the Real Striking Blow to Biden’s Campaign

All higher up on the web page than that Charles Blow piece.

166

Is it like that? Why? Do you make all your decisions by making up numbers?

167

Not the New York Times, but seriously what the fuck?

168

I swear, if we still had signatures under our posts, I’d add this link to it:

169

The actual numbers are obviously vague, and I wasn’t saying that they fit the probabilities exactly. I was just replying to Sylvanz’s query about “What if you replace a poor candidate with a better one and s/he still loses?”

170

FYI, Biden just regained a slight lead in the 538 forecast for the first time since the debate.

171

I, for one, am shocked, shocked that voters memories are short. I wonder how he would be doing if the paper of record wasn’t pounding this subject every day.

172

Excuse me? Don’t put words in my mouth. I did not say, “What if you replace a poor candidate with a better one, and s/he still loses?” Please do not put quotes around your interpretation of my comment.

173

If I was quoting you exactly I would have used the quote function.

174

You put quotation marks around something, I.Did Not. Say. I do not in anyway subscribe to what you implied I said. Unacceptable.

175

One of the comments on one of the articles said that Biden’s press conference performance was really good, other than that initial gaffe. All I know from the Times is that he said Vice President Trump instead of Harris. Was the rest of the hour-long conference any good?

176

I disagree. I said it was about that. I didn’t state you said it exactly, the quotes clearly indicate the beginning and end of a paraphase.

This board has a quote feature to use to duplicate people’s words exactly.

There is a difference between

Sylvanz’s query about “What if you replace a poor candidate with a better one and s/he still loses?"

and

Sylvanz’s query where s/he said “What if you replace a poor candidate with a better one and s/he still loses?"

In the first one “about” clearly indicates that what is coming is a paraphrase

177

But @Sylvanz did not say Biden was a poor candidate and did not say his replacement would be a better candidate.

178

“Some mystery dem” would have to be better than Biden at this point, (couldn’t be much worse!). Again, the about indicates it was a paraphrase of what s/he said.

179

That’s what you believe, but I don’t think that’s what @Sylvanz believes.

180

The NYT this morning has an editorial board piece entitled "Donald Trump is Unfit to Lead". So equal opportunity character assassination, I guess.