A New York Times reporter was asked why they consistently frame things as bad for Biden but never bad for Trump.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev to 
old.reddit.com
"I think what you're reacting to is that, at the moment, Biden is an unpopular president seeking a second term while Trump is a popular figure inside his party who is winning primary races. I wouldn't necessarily compare the two."
Credit to @JoshuaHolland
The old "let me disprove your point by proving your point" technique.
Yeah.
I mean, the one point towards fairness: It's clear that that's actually how he sees it. If he were trying to engineer some boost for Trump by cleverly slanting his coverage, then he would have obfuscated it with how he answered this question. His answer shows that he clearly just believes that's how the world is: Trump is popular, Biden is unpopular, and they need to accurately reflect that in their political coverage and there are no other relevant objective facts that should impact that decision.
Which is not like I'm trying to insult him personally for that being how he sees it, but it does mean he has no business being a journalist. If you tend to freeze up under stress, then no shame about it, but it means you can't fly an airplane for a living.
I think you’re misunderstanding his point. Biden is facing the difficult task of governing a divided country. Trump is looking to consolidate power within his own party. One of these tasks is a historic, perhaps insurmountable challenge, and the other is routine. Even from a completely neutral perspective, this means you will report on more failures by Biden and more successes for Trump.
I personally don’t find this “the media is so mean to Biden!” narrative any more compelling than when Trump was claiming the same thing as president. The media has always been critical of those in power and this is a healthy part of our democratic system.
I mean, if they were reporting on Biden's progress in governing through that lens, and Trump's progress in the election, then I could see validity to what you're saying as the reason why. But that's not the case -- they're reporting the election in those unequal terms.
One great example is the little nugget contained in his answer, where Trump is "winning primary races" and that's a notable point about his popularity. Biden's won 86% of the primary popular vote. Trump's won 72% of the primary popular vote. Every single person who follows political news knows that there's a little revolt of uncommitted voters because of Biden's support for Israel. How many people know about 30+% of voters in Republican primaries saying that they won't necessarily support the eventual nominee in November? That's very unusual, and clearly a bigger story on exactly the same subject, and it'd be worth diving into the reasons behind it because they would uncover some objective things underlying their decisions that would be great to report on. Yet somehow it gets less press than the uncommitted voters making problems for Biden (which, obviously, are also an important story to report on.)
I mean, every president in modern history has whined about how the press is being mean to them (usually with some validity). It's part of the job. But it doesn't mean that careful analysis of "is the press coverage actually slanted" suddenly turns into an automatically wrong thing.
A lot of media coverage, especially in elections has to do with expectations. Biden is an incumbent facing no real opposition in the primary. Trump had real opposition, and there was a chance he would lose. You could argue he’s a semi-incumbent but I don’t think the media views him that way. Reporting on his overcoming this obstacle is naturally going to look a little more positive. In contrast, Biden has little to no chance of losing but has somehow managed to create major opposition to his candidacy anyway. This is noteworthy.
The non-committed vote is an unusual event and it ties into an important issue: the US government’s ongoing material support for ethnic cleansing in Gaza. I think it would be quite bizarre if this did not get coverage.
I am not saying that arguments of bias are automatically wrong, but as you say they have been (falsely, I think) repeated by every president. It’s going to take some compelling evidence and argumentation to overcome my natural skepticism of this idea. So far, I haven’t seen any real case be made. Not to mention that I think there is generally a greater danger in coverage of the powerful that is too positive as compared to too negative. See right-wing media’s fawning Trump coverage for an example.
It's equally routine for Biden to be campaigning as an incumbent and due to his competition is age is also routine at this point. While Trump is actively currying favor with fascists (Orban, Putin) and trying to overthrow democracy. Which is objectively a massive new development in the history of America. The fact they aren't covering it like this shows inherent bias.
Being the oldest president in history is by definition not routine. I know people like to point out that Trump is almost as old, but 4 years is significant at these ages.
I think there has been coverage of Trump’s autocratic tendencies so I’m not sure what you mean by that part.
Except Trump isnt overwhelmingly popular within his own party. Yes it's a strong majority within the GOP but its not a stranglehold. Nicki Haley was getting a consistent 40-45% of the GOP voters.
That’s not in line with the polling I’ve seen. Where did you get that number?
GOP Primaries.
Only two states where she won over 40% so far, Vermont and Utah. Those two are definitely not representative of the Republican electorate as a whole. In national poll averages she has never broken 20%. That is a significant faction but her defeat was never in doubt to careful observers.
How it will affect the general election is a more interesting question.
And DC.
And Iowa
And South Carolina.
And New Hampshire.
All places where Trump had less than 60% of the GOP vote
I was answering where they got the numbers, thank you for confirming which states.
Your own wording softens the blow too much, imho. How is it "fairness" to point out that he may or may not have been lying (you seem to think not but... how can you tell, really? after all: his answers were prepared in advance, thus the fact that they were not inconsistent is not a surprise?)
Also, even if like you say he is massive unintelligent, he still collects a paycheck to do the job - how then is he not a liar, either way? When people get into a plane, it is with the expectation that the "pilot" knows how to fly the plane. Then, if someone passes themselves off as one, how is that not a lie?
There are so many more ways than one to be incorrect. For example, just b/c they don't slant the coverage as much overtly towards Trump does not mean that it is unbiased for it to have been slanted away from Biden.
The job of a newspaper is to tell the unvarnished Truth. Whether it fails to do so for reasons of profit, or b/c of Russian interference, or they are merely unintelligent, or whatever - does it matter? Whether it is a "lie" (and that fact demonstrable in a court of law) or not, it is not the Truth, and thus fails the criteria of being "news", and remains mere opinion instead.
Yeah, I mostly agree. I wasn't trying to give the guy a free pass -- just saying that really the fault lies with whoever gave him the job in the first place or told him that's an ok way for a journalist to behave.
But yes, the way he describes looking at political coverage is gross journalistic malpractice and people should be telling him that (or giving him a different role in society if he really insists that how he's doing it is the way.)
The problem here is with his editor. They shouldn’t let that kind of latent bias slip through.
The editorial job has likely shifted, as so many other things, from being the best and holding up a moral code intrinsic to the position, to making money for the shareholders.
The Jack Welch style of enshitification is getting stronger everyday.
I mean, we do hold leadership to a different, higher standard, that much is true. But is this man not the foremost world-class expert authority aka leader of his own life at least? And if not him, irt to that super narrow niche, then who else would be considered the leader of his own life?
Imagine if you will a scenario of a Doctor on television, let us call him Oz, who gives patently false advice that literally gets people actually killed. It is not okay for the TV station to air whatever film was handed to them, but how does that absolve the responsibility of this Doctor Oz from his own measure of responsibility, one may even say culpability (or perhaps criminal liability?) in this whole affair?
Again, there is more than one way to be incorrect, and by extension they both were partners in this crime against journalistic integrity.
Dude, the other day I was reading some rag because there was nothing else to do in the train... One article was just Trump's agenda without any commentary. How is that news if you don't put it in perspective and with the context that Trump barely reached any of his goals in the first term. Unbelievable.
There was someone here who posted an RNC press release, and was like, "it's news that they said that", and was all upset that we told them it was just propaganda, and that an article about it might be news if it contextualized and fact-checked it. A lot of people don't understand the difference between 'news' as a colloquialism meaning, "new information", and 'news' as journalistic reporting that has certain standards and requirements.
because the media wants republicans to win because they make more money with republicans in power.
The media should be laser focused on highlighting the complete corruption of The Supreme Court
Ginni Thomas is an insurrectionist
Her husband takes bribes
Amerikkka is screwed
Post Citizens United/Hilary democrats are just as bad in that rite.
The media sounds neutral on Trump because noone is surprised. The media is mostly silent on Biden because there is nothing to say other than 'experts say he is slightly better than Trump'.
to be fair you're talking to a hillary democrat and id vote for her again if i could. she would have been a great president.
Hilary was the one that got Trump elected in the primaries so she would have a better chance at winning. When Wikileaks leaked that, they bribed Ecaudor billions to get Assange in jail. Vote for Hilary is a vote for her tactics, getting worse Radical candidates and journalists reporting on it in jail.
While I think what she did was wrong, you can do the right thing and get the wrong outcome. You can also do the wrong thing and get a good outcome.
My point is we should judge all politicians on the totality of their actions. Hilary would have been a good president, if flawed, just like any other good president. Trump was and would be a terrible president. He brings shame to the role and minimises the plight of those that suffer with his childish and petty nature.
How can a politician that manipulates free elections and risking so much the lives of the many, for her own benefit, be a good president. She is obviously selfish and manipulative. She Got the worst possible candidate to be a Republican nominie just so she doesn't have to let someone else more popular in her party be candidate.
Agreed, Clinton was terrible. I knew a few people who came from Honduras during the years after she engineered the coup there if that gives you some idea what I think of her.
I have low hopes in general for the Democrats; that's why it was so surprising when Biden actually turned out to be quite good.
If Hilary was president rather than Trump, millions of people would not have died of Covid. That's good in my book. She may not be a good person, but she would have been a good and effective president.
Manipulation implies what she did was nefarious. Like her opposition, that actively manipulated, conspired with the enemy, against the law, and then started a coup.
Hilary, just like Trump, is a rich person shill and would do anything to get corporations that are losing money from lockdown to get what they want. She is no better, she got Trump as a primary Republican candidate in her pied piper strategy just because she knew she would certainly lose if someone more reasonable would have been a Republican candidate.
Absolutely
Absolutely
Hundreds of thousands of people who died of Covid, who wouldn't have if Trump hadn't fucked up the response, would disagree
Dozens of dead CIA agents, God knows how many dead Kurds, would disagree
The capitol policemen who got beat and maimed and disabled for doing their jobs would disagree
Little Honduran kids who got separated from their parents at the border, or their families who still haven't gotten them back and may never see them again, would disagree
There is a yawning chasm between saying that Hillary is pretty crappy as candidates go, especially if you want real change in the US, and saying she's no better than Trump.
All of the things and much worse then that happens under both Democrats and Republicans and Hilary is no better. After all, if she knew Trump was that bad, why would she risk all of that and support him in her pied piper strategy if she actually cares about any of these people? The examples you listed are the smallest arguments you could make, since any of that is easily overshadowed by an actual genocide both sides fund. Since when should people have empathy towards CIA agents that coup governments, traffic drugs, kill people and destroy democracies for benefit of some oil companies. And since when should we have empathy for murder cops? And how would you be sure that less people would have died of Covid with Hilary, she has same interests as Trump did in that situation. And Democrats where happy with not letting separated kids be reunited, they just pretend like they always do.
And all of these are so small compared to most important issues like wealth inequilty, gencoide, housing crisis, etc. Where their rich people policies are almost identical. Don't be fooled by their propaganda.
Unsubscribe
you are so cool
If that's your bar for what qualifies as a 'good president', then your opinion is worthless
If when your only contribution to the discussion is insults, it's clear you cannot even express your opinion. That's such a shame, I'm sure it would be insightful.
Yup, great for lobbyists, wall street, and the military industrial complex.
Like Biden.
Progressives have killed the democrat party.
You are left-wing, correct? Good leftist who's just upset with Biden for not being left enough?
I ask because I have literally never heard a left wing person say "Democrat party".
Well, in the better times, Democrats called themselves liberals.
They stopped genocides, they didn't enable them.
Hilary refused to call herself a liberal (because she is a conservative) and lost to Obama bringing the word "Progressive" back to to the party and killing the term "Liberal".
I was a liberal democrat. Now I am a disenfranchised fuck you all, don't commit genocide, don't subsidize billionaires, shelter and feed the homeless, make housing affordable again guy.
Ah yes, all those OG Democrats with their humane and sensible Israel policy. As an old-school left wing person like you, I remember them well. Which ones were your favorites?
Y'all remember Kennedy and how he called for the end of the Vietnam War? Yeah, me neither.
Both parties have always had pretty shitty international policy, but at least one of those parties actually wants to govern and participate in democracy.
Yeeep
And one party has a leader who's now telling the Israelis to stop killing Palestinians and starting to talk about consequences for them if they don't. It's not much; it's very slight, it's nothing that anybody in Gaza is gonna say "oh thank God he was rude to Netanyahu, our problems are over." But it's not something that usually happens, from leaders of either party.
but when you look at actions in his control (outside of congress), biden has been one of the most progressive, pro union democrats in recent history
I'm trying not to bring it up because I don't want just a sprawling argument about everything, but after Biden "union busted" the rail workers, his labor department kept working the issue and got the workers their sick days anyway. Like a lot of the quippy little criticisms, "union busting" has a lot more to do with cherry-picking one event people are familiar with and trying to create a Biden-is-bad picture out of it, than it does with reality.
Or to put another way every year Biden's been in office, union membership has risen by a tiny amount, after having fallen by a tiny amount every single year that the last guy was in office. If he's trying to do union busting he's doing a pretty shitty job at it.
He codified, in law, that they couldnt strike, and then made private one time not codified deals with the owners after the fact.
It isnt cherry picking, it is observing the whole truth and not chomping at the bit to spout Democrat spin.
I remember in 2022 when Biden passed the 1926 Railway Labor Act(PDF link).
Passing legislation that prevents railway workers from protesting and in turn working out a private deal where they get a one time raise that isnt codified in law is pro union?
Yes, that is progressivism. Its being crony conservative, but Democrat.
Damn... I am just taken aback by your take. Eat up their lies, keep your eyes as tightly shut as possible.
Which were your favorite pro-Palestinian establishment Democrats from back in the day, again?
I'm sure the story you told about how you used to support them but now they've turned into Israel-enablers and so you can't anymore was just you relaying the truth of what had happened. Not just sneakily plausible-sounding messaging that doesn't correspond to your actual political history. So which ones?
Well, Bill Clinton bombed the fuck out of Serbia to end the Croatian genocide, and a ton of people supported that.
That sounded right.
Now Biden is sending massive amounts of the public trust to Israel so they can spend that money to buy the ammunition that is committing genocide on Palestine, and the Democrats CENSURED a Democrat who dissented.
My viewpoint isn't pro-Palestine. My viewpoint is con-genocide. And the 2 party system rang true when Reds wanted slaughter and Blues wanted peace.
Now that Dems want genocide, I have no party. We need something else.
Biden's too far right for you so you miss Clinton? Do you know what happened to the Democratic party's general alignment, in the years that came between Carter and Obama?
You know Trump says we should just kill them all, right?
I mean... in fairness, I read a bunch of this thinking through what to write here, and (a) it just made me real real sad (b) I do genuinely think Clinton wanted genuine peace in the middle east. The thing is, he sent billions of dollars of weapons every year too. The stuff you're complaining about Biden doing, Clinton was doing too. Clinton's attitude was if we just get together and talk, maybe we can work it out. I won't say that's wrong. IDK. Like I say, I read up that little summary and it just made me real sad.
All I can really say is that domestically, Clinton pulled the whole party real real far to the right, and Biden is pulling it significantly to the left as compared with the Obama and Hilary positioning.
They censured her because she said "from the river to the sea."
Do you know what would have happened to an American congresswoman who said that in the mid-1990s Democratic party?
This idea that Biden wants what's happening in the middle east right now is absolutely nuts to me. Why do you think he wants that?
I get criticizing him because we're still sending weapons (or trying to). Why do you think he wants this to be happening, though?
(Edit: Oh, also there's this. Not that I think a return to the status quo is all that great a thing, but definitely better than what it was before he came in, yes.)
Beautiful 'I know I'm voting for Baal, but I'm not voting for Diablo" logic.
This country needs more than 2 parties.
Not planning on addressing anything I actually said? I asked a few questions, and Biden isn’t Baal or Diablo, although that is a quippy stock response you can throw to avoid continuing the conversation.
I read it all.
Your mental gymnastics are FANTASTIC!
I responded to your comment.
How does it feel to be Blue MAGA?
Being pro-worker for a tepid neoliberal is like being woke for a member of the GOP. While better than outright fascism, of course, liberalism is inherently anti-worker and pro-Capitalist. Biden has been giving band-aids to gaping stab wounds and running victory laps, without attempting to meaningfully address the root cause.
Maybe because Trump supporters don't care what he says or does, while nobody fanatically supports Biden
Yeah, exactly. Nothing is bad for Trump because he has turned into a quasi-religious figure.
Power bases are dangerous because they attract the truely insane, people who seek power only for the sake of power.
Frank Herbert
Trump is the dumpster fire the Republican party has been working towards since Reagan. He is exactly what is expected on the Red side.
Biden is a union busting right leaning genocidal sociopath, which is the exact opposite of what you would expect from the Blue side.
America has been lost.
It seems like everybody needs to remind democrat voters that it was Hilary that made Trump a Republican candidate so she would have a better chance at winning. Republicans work towards Trump, Democrats did. Voting for Democrats is a vote for worse Republican candidates and I assume vice versa.
And then she still lost. Why? Because she was a conservative running as a Democrat because her husband gave her an in with the party.
We do not currently have a liberal party in America. We have a bunch of dunce christian conservatives on the red side and we have a bunch of brainwashed not-christian conservatives on the blue side.
We have VERY few that are anti-war, anti-genocide, anti-cash-in-politics, pro-working-class politicians because Hilary and her circle murdered the moral compass of the Democrat party.
Look, you have two choices:
Agree
I actually don't even agree that Biden is a "lesser evil" in the first place, I've talked about it
But even accepting for a second the premise that there's nothing to support about Biden, I like how to these guys the lesson of 2016 and Hilary Clinton is "let's refuse to support the establishment candidate against someone who's clearly worse, what harm could come of it?"
I blame South Park.
I very much believe -- I'm being completely serious about this -- that 4chan making good memes about Trump becoming president, because it really is just inherently a funny idea, had a lot to do with elevating him from 0 support to a little kernel of popularity that could start to grow into something.
Boomers don't pay attention to 4Chan. It's such a small segment of the population.
Gen X and Millennials pay attention to South Park, though. They see that "douche vs. turd sandwich" bit and think "Hey, that applies to our situation now!" Then they stay home in protest, because they don't like certain aspects of Hillary's campaign and ideals, as opposed to hating every aspect that Trump does or represents.
It's not about picking the "lesser evil". It's about having realistic expectations and analyzing the situation as a whole. During the primaries, you pick the candidate you want. During the general election, you pick the party you want, even if your primary pick didn't win. That's it.
I honestly agree and America is the dumbass that microwaved their iPhone to charge it.
If you went here and had a substantive rebuttal to the reasons Biden's actually been way above average for a US president, you'd be the first.
I feel like you laid out why ^ in your own post where you think you're supporting Biden. You're also is incorrect about the US putting military personnel in Gaza (they're not, but that wouldn't be good anyways). They're explicitly building the pier without actually landing any personnel. You're also overstating the 'sanctions' Biden is putting on settlers; they applied to like
7(sorry, after double-checking that I wasn't understating it, it turns out I was overstating it; it only applies to) 4 nobodies who the sanctions in no way actually harm.Might-actually-be-the-Devil-Ronald-Reagan was harsher on Israel than Biden is being, and it wasn't even over a genocide. Reagan cut off weapons sales to Israel after they bombed Iran's nuclear materials program at Osirak. He allowed 21 UN resolutions condemning Israel to pass without vetoing them, and even backed the resolution (UNSC 248) condemning the attack on Osirak. He also slowed down aid to Israel to pressure them to withdraw troops from Lebanon, and publicly condemned them on multiple occasions.
Meanwhile, Biden is still calling for more weapons for Israel.
Reagan is a literal evil gremlin, and Biden doesn't even come close to matching his response to Israel's evil bullshit.
Every time you downplay or misrepresent Biden's actions on Gaza, you normalize them.
You think they're gonna build the port and then extend aid packages on long poles so their feet don't have to touch the soil?
Compared to the IDF being there unsupervised? Yes it would.
Correct. It's crap. But, it's more than anyone else has done.
Iraq, not Iran (unless I missed something big about Reagan's geopolitical alignments).
And you have to go back 42 years to find a US president who did more than what Biden's doing, and the reason he did it was nothing to do with the Palestinians but just because the IDF was attacking our ally.
But yeah, if you want to tell me bad about what Biden's doing with Israel, you honestly won't get a lot of argument from me.
My point is (a) what the fuck, it's way more than any other US president has done actually on behalf of the Palestinians that I'm aware of, for whatever fucking weak sauce that is (b) Trump is way worse; Trump wants to "finish the problem" in Gaza (c) I'm a lot more open to criticism of him from people who seem like they are reality based as far as politics and world events overall. If he suddenly starts doing everything right in Gaza, and becomes the president who reverses 75 years of genocide enablement (4 fucking blood-soaked months too late) -- are you gonna start saying hey this guy seems like he's produced a genuine permanent improvement in the US's policy which pretty badly needs the help, and as a person who wants to see it get better I'm behind that? Or are you gonna pivot to some other talking point to use to criticize him, if the ones that have some validity are no longer available? And if it's (b)... why?
No, I don't think that, because I actually read about what the plan is: they're having third-party organizations do the delivery of the aid.
You think the US military would do shit if the IDF stepped in?
Except it's... not? Sanctioning 4 nobodies is somehow more than cutting off weapons sales? What?
Correct, my mistake.
Yes, you claimed that no US president has been harsher on Israel than Biden. That's complete bunk, and I laid out the evidence. Now you're moving the goalposts.
No one else here is talking about Trump. Your apparent need to make everything a comparison of the 2 in no way lessens the actual actions Biden has taken.
Sure, I can commit to a fantasy scenario: If Biden makes the US no longer support Israel materially, politically, or ideologically, YES, I will absolutely say he deserves credit for it.
But he's not going to.
That's not what I said. The two main things I said initially were:
and
I don't feel that having a tactical disagreement with Israel over something unrelated, while fully supporting their ongoing program to kill Palestinians whenever they feel like and arming them the entire time, represents any humanity in Reagan's Israel policy. I feel like giving food aid to the Gazans and telling Netanyahu there are particular cities he's not allowed to bomb does. Not enough, by any means. But some. You might disagree, and point to the recent past as an argument for why. And fair enough if you do. Most especially fair enough if we do actually follow through on giving them $14 billion worth of weapons and money to keep killing with, which we seem poised to do at any moment.
I feel like you're trying to make a disagreement here, like I'm for Biden and you're against Biden and we're each trying to make the best argument because one of us has to win. I am not operating that way. There's actually not a whole lot of difference between how we see what he's been doing and saying on Israel. Maybe I have a little more hope that he'll start to do better things soon. But go back and read what I actually said. I'm just a person trying to make sense of the world and explain how I see it; for as much as I say good things about Biden, I'm not really on anybody's "side."
Biden is arguably the most pro-union president in recent history, hands down.
https://www.americanprogressaction.org/article/8-ways-the-biden-administration-has-fought-for-working-people-by-strengthening-unions/
If you're talking about the one time he signed a bill to force the rail workers to work ... while we were in the middle of already very very serious supply chain issues right before the holiday season... We got through the season and the rail unions ultimately ended up winning https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
How?
If he didn't help Isreal he'd be thrown under the bus for weakening the US's only ally in the middle east. He'd also likely be opening up a power vacuum (and potentially larger war) that would backfire very badly for the US.
The real issue is the Isreal people elected their own version of Trump so Biden is dealing with a "Trump of Isreal" that's more than happy to run down civilians.
It's not like he hasn't been trying to go behind Isreal's back and help Palestine. It's just not a "press a button to stop sending them weapons and all the problems go away" situation.
https://old.reddit.com/user/thenewyorktimes/submitted/
The clear business goal of "let's pay the NYT to get more involved at Reddit!" is just one more reason I'm glad that I only go there in response to posts like this at Lemmy.
(That and their horseshit replies in that thread.)
Most likely main news outlets want to gain favor with the impending fascist takeover so if Trump wins and the takeover does happen, they aren't seized or gone after or imprisoned. While they KNOW a Biden or other sane president would never dare attack a newspaper or news channel without clear felonious activity. It's an effort to play both sides that WILL end with fascists attacking them regardless of how much of Trump's chode they suck.
Before we get out the flaming pitchforks, let us not forget that pretty much no one reads or cares about the New York Times. Their readership (print and web) is minuscule compared to entities like CNN, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC (and Fox, OANN, Breitbart, Joe Rogan...).
Sure, it sucks that the NYT is sucking Trump cock, but in the end, that won't move the needle.
I won't necessarily disagree wrt the small readership -- but The New York Times is notable because it is at this point the only big outlet which is both still doing actual journalism (as in researching big stories from scratch and determining the truth of them from primary sources) and also making a profit at it. There are lots of examples of each one in isolation (although, tragically, less and less of the first one year by year), but they are the only one left that is doing both.
If they're starting to turn over to the "truth doesn't matter gimme that bag" side (which it seems like to some degree they are), then it's a significant loss.
I haven't read anything from the NYT that would constitute "actual journalism" in what seems like many years now. It's not much different than the NY Post, just with less bombast.
This is just exposing that you don't actually read the New York Times.
Here's an article on the plight of Gazans in Rafah in the face of a potential Israeli invasion.
Here's an overview on the gang situation in Haiti as the government is functionally collapsing.
And here's an article discussing the increasingly common practice of restaurants charging significant cancellation fees.
Meanwhile, the NY Post has such great stories as:
The formal news section of the NY Post is not that different than the NY Times. It's just not the focus of the NYP. And the NYT isn't reporting anything beyond the most basic of news events. It's pretty much the same thing as reading the AP. I can't remember the last time they got a real scoop or any inside sources on anything.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039 NYT not the only big outlet doing "actual journalism" --- not sure about WSJ's profitability quarter to quarter, but I don't think they are actively sinking.
And of course: opinion side of any paper is NOT news, regardless of your alignment.
So most of my assertion that the Times is the only profitable one comes from this article.
The Facebook Files story is not exactly the victory for journalism you're saying though... my immediately takeaway from that is that the journalistic impact of the (surely accurate) information in it will probably be exceeded by the propaganda impact of adding weight to the "Twitter Files" mythology by simply running the story and calling it that. Maybe I am wrong in that but that's my immediate takeaway.
So doomsaying stories about how all their readers are dying notwithstanding, I guess I should admit that WSJ is consistently making money (even during recent quarters when NewsCorp has dipped into the red overall). My own internal compass categorizes them not quite in the journalism category because they have such a right-wing-friendly perspective but I'll admit that's 100% based on ideology. They are journalism I guess, yes; it's not like they print lies or made up stuff or anything.
A viable Trump candidacy courts controversy and sells subscriptions. End of democracy? We will worry about that later.
Man, this is just maddening. The comment OP highlighted is terrible, but the reply to another just drips condescension.
I used to respect the NYT. But between the Trump coverage and their viewpoint on the war in Ukraine, they can go kiss me where the sun don't shine. (What I'm trying to say is, both are ass.)
Holy shit man
“Opinion X”
“Here’s why I don’t agree with opinion X”.
“Awww buddy, nice try, but I actually said opinion X, not what you said. Try again.”
Jesus Christ what a self-absorbed wanker