The New York Times - They're even more evil now

jimmurphy said:

drummerboy said:

NPR is as bad as the Times.

 Interesting. Because they try to acknowledge the opposing view?

No, because they normalize Trump. They present "both sides" as being equal, when often they clearly are not.



but they don't do "this happened."  The do "The president said this, others disagree."  Even when Trump says something absurd or obviously untrue.  It gives cover to liars or truth deniers.  Yesterday was the day they proved true the old joke that they'd write a headline like "Democrats claim sun will rise in the east, Republicans disagree."  Yesterday Trump said maybe people could inject disinfectant, and "some experts" disagree.

This is how we got Trump as president.  Not entirely, but in large part.  The mainstream sources weren't able, within their paradigm, to call him out as a dishonest con man, who was wholly unqualified to be president.  If those sources aren't prepared to call out Trump's crazy talk at his press briefings, what good are they?  Because over the past few weeks he's been talking like a lunatic every day.  The emperor is stark naked, we can all see it, and the NYT and WaPo don't seem to have it in them to put it that bluntly.  "This happened" sure.  But when what happened was that the president was rambling like a drunk uncle and suggesting crazy remedies, maybe that should be the headline -- "Trump gives bizarre and dangerous speculation at press conference."


ml1 said:

But when what happened was that the president was rambling like a drunk uncle and suggesting crazy remedies, maybe that should be the headline -- "Trump gives bizarre and dangerous speculation at press conference."

The Times headline, which uses “muses” as a shorter synonym for “speculates” but omits “bizarre,” leaving readers at a loss to know whether this is normal:

Trump Muses About Light as Remedy, but Also Disinfectant, Which Is Dangerous


and here's an op-ed from the NYT that I wouldn't call "evil", but I'd call it dangerously illogical and probably irresponsible to have published.  Bret Stephens is a right wing idiot hack all the time (not unlike other NYT op-ed hacks like David Brooks) and he fails to note one very important fact about COVID-19.  NY and NJ have been hit particularly hard precisely because we did NOT lock down early enough.  The reason other parts of the country have not had the infections and deaths at the same rate we have is that they DID respond before the virus had infiltrated their populations at the rate it did here.  Advising that lockdowns should end in other part of the country is potentially dangerous, but that's what Stephens is doing.  

We don't have anywhere near the testing capability necessary to track the virus.  Why anyone thinks it would be safe to open areas of the country without having a clue how widespread the virus is in those places seems crazy, not to mention reckless.

America Shouldn’t Have to Play by New York Rules


ml1 said:

here's a good round up of which new orgs got it right, and which ones didn't (or couldn't bring themselves to):

Washington press corps covers up Trump’s profound stupidity

Presented with incontrovertible evidence that Donald Trump is stupid and clueless, reporters and editors in America’s top newsrooms averted their eyes.

Do you think the american media, as structured today, can handle a populist like trump? Same question for the american system of government in general.


basil said: 

ml1 said:

here's a good round up of which new orgs got it right, and which ones didn't (or couldn't bring themselves to):

Washington press corps covers up Trump’s profound stupidity

Presented with incontrovertible evidence that Donald Trump is stupid and clueless, reporters and editors in America’s top newsrooms averted their eyes.

Do you think the american media, as structured today, can handle a populist like trump? Same question for the american system of government in general.

 Is it the role of the media to "handle" or to report? It's not quite that binary, but I think they are poles that any given media organization leans more toward one or the other. I think the NYT, WaPo see themselves as striving for the "report" pole as much as possible. Places like Fox New lean pretty hard toward the "handle" (and for individuals within Fox, such as Chris Wallace, who place greater value on the "report" pole, it causes a certain amount of tension and dissonance).

I'd say there's a large number of outlets that lean ideologically left that see themselves as trying to do both -- "handing", but in a fact-based manner. It's not symmetrical though -- there are far fewer outlets that lean ideologically right that attempt that balance.


Another question: Which sentence would you rather see in an article about Thursday’s White House briefing?

A. President Trump speculated on the possibility that disinfectant could be injected to fight the coronavirus and asked about testing it as a treatment.

B. President Trump suggested that people inject themselves with disinfectant or bleach to treat the coronavirus.


I’ll add a choice from the Froomkin piece that ml1 linked to:

C. President Trump proposed injecting patients with disinfectants to see if they would kill the coronavirus in lungs like they do on the kitchen counter.


DaveSchmidt said:

Another question: Which sentence would you rather see in an article about Thursday’s White House briefing?

A. President Trump speculated on the possibility that disinfectant could be injected to fight the coronavirus and asked about testing it as a treatment.

B. President Trump suggested that people inject themselves with disinfectant or bleach to treat the coronavirus.

News organizations need to be factual, but they need to also interpret these facts and its possible consequences. So a better option would be:

C. President Trump speculated on the possibility that disinfectant and bleach could be injected or ingested into the lungs as a possible form of treatment, raising alarms within the medical community because such treatments would likely be lethal.


basil said:

News organizations need to be factual, but they need to also interpret these facts and its possible consequences. So a better option would be:

C. President Trump speculated on the possibility that disinfectant and bleach could be injected or ingested into the lungs as a possible form of treatment, raising alarms within the medical community because such treatments would likely be lethal.

He didn’t say anything about bleach, and he didn’t say injected or injested into the lungs. You’ve just given me an opening, if I chose to take it, to dismiss your reporting as nonfactual and to distract from the content and consequences of what Trump actually said.


From reading Right-Wing comments I would add

D. President Trump responded to a reporter by making a joke and much of the media went crazy.


DaveSchmidt said:

Another question: Which sentence would you rather see in an article about Thursday’s White House briefing?

A. President Trump speculated on the possibility that disinfectant could be injected to fight the coronavirus and asked about testing it as a treatment.

B. President Trump suggested that people inject themselves with disinfectant or bleach to treat the coronavirus.

 the first sentence is accurate.  it's also crazy talk.

clearly the NYT itself thought its tweet was off base.  it was deleted.


from the transcript.  it's nuts, and not pointing it out as such is more proof that our news orgs have no idea how to deal with a wholly dishonest and possibly mentally ill president.

THE PRESIDENT: So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting.

ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’ll get to the right folks who could.

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.So we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s — that’s pretty powerful.

basil said:

ml1 said:

here's a good round up of which new orgs got it right, and which ones didn't (or couldn't bring themselves to):

Washington press corps covers up Trump’s profound stupidity

Presented with incontrovertible evidence that Donald Trump is stupid and clueless, reporters and editors in America’s top newsrooms averted their eyes.

Do you think the american media, as structured today, can handle a populist like trump? Same question for the american system of government in general.

 obviously not to the first question.

the second question is more about the Republican Party.  Theoretically the Congress is supposed to be a check on the executive regardless of party.  Clearly the GOP is not interested in that, and they are a monolith, and would not put any checks on this president.


I'm wondering how far Trump would have to go for some of the news orgs to call it as it is.  If Trump came into the next pandemic briefing in a bathrobe with a cat on his head and declared that he is convinced our allies on the planet Remulak have developed a COVID-19 vaccine, would the headline be "Trump sounds hopeful note on a vaccine, Democrats are doubtful"?


ml1 said:

I'm wondering how far Trump would have to go for some of the news orgs to call it as it is.  If Trump came into the next pandemic briefing in a bathrobe with a cat on his head and declared that he is convinced our allies on the planet Remulak have developed a COVID-19 vaccine, would the headline be "Trump sounds hopeful note on a vaccine, Democrats are doubtful"?

 Keep watching and you will probably find out.


ml1 said:

I'm wondering how far Trump would have to go for some of the news orgs to call it as it is. If Trump came into the next pandemic briefing in a bathrobe with a cat on his head and declared that he is convinced our allies on the planet Remulak have developed a COVID-19 vaccine, would the headline be "Trump sounds hopeful note on a vaccine, Democrats are doubtful"?

I’d expect the headline to tell me the briefing was “bizarre” or “nuts.” Otherwise, I wouldn’t know what to think.


DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

I'm wondering how far Trump would have to go for some of the news orgs to call it as it is. If Trump came into the next pandemic briefing in a bathrobe with a cat on his head and declared that he is convinced our allies on the planet Remulak have developed a COVID-19 vaccine, would the headline be "Trump sounds hopeful note on a vaccine, Democrats are doubtful"?

I’d expect the headline to tell me the briefing was “bizarre” or “nuts.” Otherwise, I wouldn’t know what to think.

 You don't think any of his briefings so far have risen to "bizarre" or "nuts"?


DaveSchmidt said:

I’d expect the headline to tell me the briefing was “bizarre” or “nuts.” Otherwise, I wouldn’t know what to think.

 I don't think the word "bizarre" would be out of place in a headline.  "Trump's press briefing includes bizarre speculation on cure" wouldn't be out of line.


DaveSchmidt said:

He didn’t say anything about bleach, and he didn’t say injected or injested into the lungs. You’ve just given me an opening, if I chose to take it, to dismiss your reporting as nonfactual and to distract from the content and consequences of what Trump actually said.

Link to the transcript (from the official White House site below). Two quotes:

...

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

...

ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’re also testing disinfectants readily available. We’ve tested bleach, we’ve tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus, specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids. And I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes; isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds, and that’s with no manipulation, no rubbing — just spraying it on and letting it go. You rub it and it goes away even faster. We’re also looking at other disinfectants, specifically looking at the COVID-19 virus in saliva.

...

Link to transcript from White House site: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-31/


ml1 said:

 obviously not to the first question.

the second question is more about the Republican Party.  Theoretically the Congress is supposed to be a check on the executive regardless of party.  Clearly the GOP is not interested in that, and they are a monolith, and would not put any checks on this president.

Yeah, but as a result the SCOTUS is now infested, as is the Senate, the AG, and probably half of Government. Clearly our system was not designed to be able to withstand a corrupt political party. So what do we do now? Declare the American Experiment over and move on?


drummerboy said:

You don't think any of his briefings so far have risen to "bizarre" or "nuts"?

I don’t share my opinions about politicians on MOL, so I’ll put it this way: If the argument is that MSM coverage of the briefing impeded readers or viewers from reaching that conclusion, I’d have to disagree.

Alternatively, I’d say coverage that tried to lead readers or viewers by the nose was more likely to impede that conclusion by leaning on easily rebutted language like my Choice B, which I’ve seen a lot, or Froomkin’s or basil’s attempts to describe what Trump said.



ml1
said:

I don't think the word "bizarre" would be out of place in a headline. "Trump's press briefing includes bizarre speculation on cure" wouldn't be out of line.

You’ve just given readers a dose of subjectivity. To what purpose? Could a reader not conclude that on his or her own?

Then there are the readers who might not conclude that on their own. Either (a) you can’t imagine how anyone couldn’t or (b) you’re willing to write them off. Neither seems like a good newspaper strategy.


DaveSchmidt said:

You’ve just given readers a dose of subjectivity. To what purpose? Could a reader not conclude that on his or her own?

Then there are the readers who might not conclude that on their own. Either (a) you can’t imagine how anyone couldn’t or (b) you’re willing to write them off. Neither seems like a good newspaper strategy.

 actually I can imagine part a.  I don't even have to imagine, I know they're out there and I read and hear what they're saying.  And if by part b, you're suggesting news orgs pull their punches for fear of alienating a segment of readers, I get that too.  If anything, it would be the most honest statement of heard for why mainstream newspapers can't bring themselves to bluntly state that our president's press briefings show him to be some combination of incompetent, impaired or dangerously unintelligent or incurious.  They are afraid of losing readers.  That's a logical business decision, and it makes more sense than trying to make the case that journalists shouldn't report what is right in front of their eyes at these briefings.


ml1 said:

This was their correction on Twitter. If this wasn't in the context of a pandemic it would be hilarious. But under the circumstances it's more tragic that they can't bring themselves to say that the president is saying crazy stuff. 

 and I think we need to go back to this.  It isn't just that the NYT didn't call Trump's speculation about a cure weird or absurd, they actually wrote a story that implied some experts didn't think it was dangerous. The Times itself is acknowledging there's no defense for this sort of reporting.


I think that people who get most of their news from the Times get a very skewed vision of Trump - one that portrays him as someone clearly not on top of things, but that doesn't get at the true depths of his inadequacy.  They just think of him as a poor President - not the narcissistic sociopath he really is.

As such, I don't think the Times is doing it's job, nor serving it's purpose as the pre-eminent news source on the planet. And heaven help historians of the future going to the Times as a primary resource.


Should the NY Times simply print the entire transcript with the headline being:

"TRANSCRIPT OF PRESIDENTIAL BRIEFING

Once they decide to write a story about it some sort of bias has to get in. If like me or DB you feel Trump is the scum of the Earth, totally evil, just about anything they write will look to us like a whitewash. If you are a Trumpite cultist just about anything they write will look to you like an attack. 


ml1 said:

actually I can imagine part a. I don't even have to imagine, I know they're out there and I read and hear what they're saying. And if by part b, you're suggesting news orgs pull their punches for fear of alienating a segment of readers, I get that too.

Yes, but can you imagine how readers in (a) could fail to reach that conclusion? That is, in a way that wouldn’t automatically make them irrational? And if you can get past (a) — grant that a sensible reader could have a different opinion of the presser from yours — do you insist on (b) punching him or her with “bizarre” anyway? (Because that’s the apparently important punch you’re talking about being pulled.) Again, to what purpose?

Under those conditions, I don’t think you get past (a). I suspect you’d call that sort of acknowledgment a manifestation of both-siderism. In my opinion, good newspapers make it a priority to see how, see why, and have more respect for their readers than that.


STANV said:

Should the NY Times simply print the entire transcript with the headline being:

"TRANSCRIPT OF PRESIDENTIAL BRIEFING

Once they decide to write a story about it some sort of bias has to get in. If like me or DB you feel Trump is the scum of the Earth, totally evil, just about anything they write will look to us like a whitewash. If you are a Trumpite cultist just about anything they write will look to you like an attack. 

I get your point, but Trump supporters are not going to believe the NYT no matter how independent they write. There is a real concern that the media somehow accepts the fact that the current situation is normal. It is not normal. The man is running the government like it is a mob family. That needs to be reported, otherwise why do we have free media?.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.