The New York Times - They're even more evil now
DaveSchmidt said:
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.
not only can I imagine, I posted yesterday about the logic people are using to explain what Trump said on Thursday. They aren't irrational people.
Just reporting what was said isn't sufficient. The reporters are the eyes and ears of people who weren't in the room. The fact that the president is rambling and semi-coherent in these briefings IS the story. No one should be listening to any advice from him.
And this has been going on for years. I'll have to find the link, but there was a foreign reporter who covered a Trump press conference last year. And she was stunned by how rambling and incoherent it was. She recognizes that news organizations need to edit his remarks and put them into coherent sentences to publish them and have readers understand. But she wrote about how that kind of reporting missed the real story of what the president is really like. And it's true. When you watch a long segment of video, or read long passages of transcripts, it becomes clear that our president is not a reasonable person. He may in fact be seriously cognitively impaired. And that hasn't been reported because it doesn't fit the paradigm of political reporting. Everyone knows Trump is "nuts" in the words of Mitch McConnell, and a "******* moron" in the words of Rex Tillerson. And yet, the press doesn't know how to tell this story to the public. It's the hugest elephant possible in the room, and there's no apparent journalistic paradigm for reporting it.
ml1 said:
And this has been going on for years. I'll have to find the link, but there was a foreign reporter who covered a Trump press conference last year. And she was stunned by how rambling and incoherent it was. She recognizes that news organizations need to edit his remarks and put them into coherent sentences to publish them and have readers understand. But she wrote about how that kind of reporting missed the real story of what the president is really like. And it's true. When you watch a long segment of video, or read long passages of transcripts, it becomes clear that our president is not a reasonable person. He may in fact be seriously cognitively impaired.
We’ve heard this diagnosis before, only it was Biden, and it was from nan and her impeccable sources.
DaveSchmidt said:
We’ve heard this diagnosis before, only it was Biden, and it was from nan and her impeccable sources.
false equivalence. When Biden says anything like the excerpt from the Trump transcript posted above, let us know.
DaveSchmidt said:
We’ve heard this diagnosis before, only it was Biden, and it was from nan and her impeccable sources.
Donald J ******* Trump is President of the US. And he is bringing the country down, because he is a psychopath that is fully supported by the GOP and that includes mtierney and a couple of other cowards pretending to be normal on MOL. Please stop talking about Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Benghazi, the 2016 election, or Adam and ******* Eve.
Ml1, I think you’re referring to the Guardian’s Katherine Murphy from Australia. You commented at the time.
I'm not sure how anyone at this point would argue that news organizations aren't struggling with how to cover a president who doesn't follow any previous norms for the office. This is at least the second time the NYT itself has acknowledged their coverage of a Trump speech was lacking important context.
joanne said:
Ml1, I think you’re referring to the Guardian’s Katherine Murphy from Australia. You commented at the time.
I believe that is correct. I can't find the article online though.
“At least the second time.”
“In the view of some experts.”
In both cases, we see writers going only as far as what they can document — one can point to two times, the others spoke to only some experts — at the risk of understating the full extent of The Times’s context lapses and of expert opinion.
The second excerpt was revised in short order. Now that it has been called to his attention that a mere two examples (even with the qualifier of “at least”) could leave readers with a false impression of the problem, we’ll see if ml1 prefers to let it stand at that.
ml1 said:
joanne said:
Ml1, I think you’re referring to the Guardian’s Katherine Murphy from Australia. You commented at the time.
I believe that is correct. I can't find the article online though.
Lenore Taylor: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/20/as-a-foreign-reporter-visiting-the-us-i-was-stunned-by-trumps-press-conference
DaveSchmidt said:
“At least the second time.”
“In the view of some experts.”
In both cases, we see writers going only as far as what they can document — one can point to two times, the others spoke to only some experts — at the risk of understating the full extent of The Times’s context lapses and of expert opinion.
The second excerpt was revised in short order. Now that it has been called to his attention that a mere two examples (even with the qualifier of “at least”) could leave readers with a false impression of the problem, we’ll see if ml1 prefers to let it stand at that.
we've been here documenting a lot of other examples that the Times didn't feel the need to correct. I can also point to the NYT's own Paul Krugman who has been complaining for years in his column about mainstream news false equivalences between Democrats and Republicans. If you don't think such a phenomenon exists, that's your prerogative. But there are many, many press critics out there who have been documenting this for years. Why would anyone even make the "sun rises" joke if there wasn't some shared understanding that there's some truth underlying it? The joke would be a non sequitur otherwise.
ml1 said:
we've been here documenting a lot of other examples that the Times didn't feel the need to correct.
True, your comment was only about times that The Times acknowledged a pivot, which my reply obscured. Its main purpose was to suggest an educated guess about why reporters would have attributed the danger to “some” experts — because they could contact only “some” on deadline, and good reporters are careful about crediting too much authority to what a few sources tell them.
(“Why would any reporters need experts to tell them that injecting disinfectants is dangerous?” The attribution referred to Trump’s “theorizing” — that the theorizing alone, about “the powers” of not just disinfectants but also light, was dangerous. If that all sounds oblique or confusing, like it could be clarified, that’s a hazard of deadline reporting — and given a little more time, it was.)
DaveSchmidt said:
True, your comment was only about times that The Times acknowledged a pivot, which my reply obscured. Its main purpose was to suggest an educated guess about why reporters would have attributed the danger to “some” experts — because they could contact only “some” on deadline, and good reporters are careful about crediting too much authority to what a few sources tell them.
(“Why would any reporters need experts to tell them that injecting disinfectants is dangerous?” The attribution referred to Trump’s “theorizing” — that the theorizing alone, about “the powers” of not just disinfectants but also light, was dangerous. If that all sounds oblique or confusing, like it could be clarified, that’s a hazard of deadline reporting — and given a little more time, it was.)
This is why this is not just a theoretical discussion by the way: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/25/845015236/nyc-poison-control-sees-uptick-in-calls-after-trumps-disinfectant-comments
basil said:
This is why this is not just a theoretical discussion by the way: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/25/845015236/nyc-poison-control-sees-uptick-in-calls-after-trumps-disinfectant-comments
New York’s surge in calls that day was compared with a year earlier. The article says the CDC started seeing that kind of spike nationally last month, before Trump’s remarks.
DaveSchmidt said:
New York’s surge in calls that day was compared with a year earlier. The article says the CDC started seeing that kind of spike nationally last month, before Trump’s remarks.
Both of these can be true: people have more bleach incidents because of Corona, and then even more after Trumps remarks.
basil said:
Both of these can be true: people have more bleach incidents because of Corona, and then even more after Trumps remarks.
They can be. I’d note, however, that the increase in NYC was 130 percent, which is in line with the already established trends on those national charts.
question for dave,
Today, Trump is rage tweeting about the "Noble" prizes won by journalists, and demanding that the prizes be given back because they're just fake news (more or less).
How should this be reported?
WTF is he talking about? The only Nobel prize having to do with the written word is the one for literature.
Btw, its Nobel, not Noble.
DaveSchmidt said:
They can be. I’d note, however, that the increase in NYC was 130 percent, which is in line with the already established trends on those national charts.
Well I guess we will never know for sure until we have detailed day-by-day data from Poison Center in NYC going at least 12+ months back.
Look, don't get me wrong, I think we should uphold high standards for the Media and fact-based reporting, and we should hold them to that. And I actually believe that most of mainstream media in this country lives by these standards (although they are never perfect).
But we should also have high standards for our elected officials, especially our president, especially in times of national crisis. We should call a spade a spade. What Trump did at the press conference about disinfectants and UV light was just completely embarrassing, and I want the media to call that out, because otherwise they are undermining themselves. History will be written on this, and it won't be kind on those of us who did somehow try to normalize this president, and this administration, and this republican party.
Not to mention the rest of the world. They see this too. Friends in Europe are asking me if I now drink a glass of bleach every morning to stay healthy. Remember how we always laugh at these cringing television moments of the North Korean dictator? The rest of the civilized world is now looking at us like that. I know Trump doesn't care about that, but we should, because it undermines our position in the world. We are the nation that we are because of immigration, and because the brightest minds in the world always wanted to come here and do their best work. What do you think they are going to think if they see a performance like this?
drummerboy said:
How should this be reported?
Personally, I wouldn’t report it at all, except maybe as a line or two in some larger news story about Trump’s actions today or as part of a wider look at his relations with the media or his error-ridden Twitter habits. (Neither of which I’d have in the works at the moment, because they’ve been done many times and I haven’t come up with anything new to say about them.) Perhaps a columnist can use it for further fodder.
Does denying one of Trump’s Twitter eruptions its own headline (like this) keep readers in the dark about additional evidence of his mental state? Are they now missing a piece that could have helped explain his typical behavior to them? As much as some people would like to see the president flayed over a rant that’s a copy editor’s field day, I’m still thinking it adds nothing to what they already know.
basil said:
Well I guess we will never know for sure until we have detailed day-by-day data from Poison Center in NYC going at least 12+ months back.
I’d say an indication of how unusual 30 calls were over the last month would have been enough to give some better context.
ml1 said:
joanne said:
Ml1, I think you’re referring to the Guardian’s Katherine Murphy from Australia. You commented at the time.
I believe that is correct. I can't find the article online though.
I misspelt her name. The article was around this time:
Thanks DaveSchmidt, for supplying Lenore’s article. I should read the whole thread before replying. 
It turns out it is possible to write a blunt headline about the president's press briefings:
ml1 said:
It turns out it is possible to write a blunt headline about the president's press briefings:
So if one looks at the NYT news stories as a whole, rather than picking individual headlines, does that alter the judgement of its coverage?
I think it's generally a mistake to pick an individual headline, much less a tweet.
I'm not quite sure exactly what you think the NYT should be doing that it's not. If the concern is that a regular reader of the NYT won't understand the depth of the damage and dysfunction Trump is inflicting, I can't agree. If the complaint is that the NYT isn't doing its part as a member of the #resistance, I'd agree, but disagree that it ever claimed to be a member.
PVW said:
So if one looks at the NYT news stories as a whole, rather than picking individual headlines, does that alter the judgement of its coverage?
I think it's generally a mistake to pick an individual headline, much less a tweet.
I'm not quite sure exactly what you think the NYT should be doing that it's not. If the concern is that a regular reader of the NYT won't understand the depth of the damage and dysfunction Trump is inflicting, I can't agree. If the complaint is that the NYT isn't doing its part as a member of the #resistance, I'd agree, but disagree that it ever claimed to be a member.
the "papers of record" like the NYT and WaPo have not been able to consistently portray the depths of Trump's dishonesty. They also don't seem to have a mechanism for accurately portraying how demented most of his public speeches have been. And I get it. How do you write a news article that somehow gets across to readers that the president is rambling and belligerent like the drunk at the bar you want to run away from? But watching video excerpts of a minute or longer, or reading a transcript make it clear from the time Trump declared for president til today, his rallies and speeches are crazy talk. And dishonest from start to finish.
I don't think any of that is typically portrayed in news summaries of his appearances, and yet in terms of what's really important, isn't the president's unhinged behavior the story? Certainly it's not easy, and it doesn't fit what journalists have spent their careers training to do. But shouldn't there be an attempt at informing the public that it's nearly certain that their president is wholly unfit for office? The inability to do this in 2015-16 is how we got here in the first place. Shouldn't there be an attempt to properly inform the public in 2020?
ml1 said:
PVW said:
So if one looks at the NYT news stories as a whole, rather than picking individual headlines, does that alter the judgement of its coverage?
I think it's generally a mistake to pick an individual headline, much less a tweet.
I'm not quite sure exactly what you think the NYT should be doing that it's not. If the concern is that a regular reader of the NYT won't understand the depth of the damage and dysfunction Trump is inflicting, I can't agree. If the complaint is that the NYT isn't doing its part as a member of the #resistance, I'd agree, but disagree that it ever claimed to be a member.
the "papers of record" like the NYT and WaPo have not been able to consistently portray the depths of Trump's dishonesty. They also don't seem to have a mechanism for accurately portraying how demented most of his public speeches have been. And I get it. How do you write a news article that somehow gets across to readers that the president is rambling and belligerent like the drunk at the bar you want to run away from? But watching video excerpts of a minute or longer, or reading a transcript make it clear from the time Trump declared for president til today, his rallies and speeches are crazy talk. And dishonest from start to finish.
I don't think any of that is typically portrayed in news summaries of his appearances, and yet in terms of what's really important, isn't the president's unhinged behavior the story? Certainly it's not easy, and it doesn't fit what journalists have spent their careers training to do. But shouldn't there be an attempt at informing the public that it's nearly certain that their president is wholly unfit for office? The inability to do this in 2015-16 is how we got here in the first place. Shouldn't there be an attempt to properly inform the public in 2020?
I feel adequately informed. I'm not convinced that those who disagree with me in their assessment of Trump would have their minds changed by the NYT and WaPo changing their coverage.
ml1 said:
Certainly it's not easy, and it doesn't fit what journalists have spent their careers training to do.
One thing I know that newspaper journalists are trained to do is investigate and think about all sides of an issue so that by the time they start writing or finish editing they’re no longer wondering, “I don’t understand how ...”
What’s one thing that you know about journalist training?
DaveSchmidt said:
One thing I know that newspaper journalists are trained to do is investigate and think about all sides of an issue so that by the time they start writing or finish editing they’re no longer wondering, “I don’t understand how ...”
What’s one thing that you know about journalist training?
I know that they are trained to investigate and verify sources. And yes, they are supposed to think about all sides of an issue. It appears too often that events that don't have an equivalent other side or sides are presented as if there is one. There are many examples in this thread.
and to be fair, reporters are doing a better job than they had been. Here's one from today's NYT:
Trump’s Disinfectant Remark Raises a Question About the ‘Very Stable Genius’
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I don't think "just think of him as a poor President" is the impression you get from actually reading the contents of the NY Times, as opposed to some selected headlines.