The New York Times - They're even more evil now
ml1 said:
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 have a study group consisting of one (1) member, my 94-year-old mother, who does not watch television news. She does read the NY Times every day, and for the local news reads the Bergen Record.
I gave her a "Trump countdown" calendar at Christmas, for her often-stated "When do we get rid of him?"
She seems fairly conversant with how awful he is.
DaveSchmidt said:
For instance, my comment that diagnosing Trump’s mental health from a transcript is akin to diagnosing Biden’s. By making that comparison, by questioning both analyses, I’m missing the truth that they’re not equivalent.
That’s the sort of training that’s flawed, that prevents readers from getting to the heart of matters. Raising and exploring counterarguments and other points of view does a disservice (unless they’re raised and explored only to condemn them). Instead of providing grist for reflection — an opinion, after all, is only as good as the information it’s based on, and its ability to address the strongest opposing opinions — this kind of reporting creates confusion and, worse, distracts from [ETA: or even undermines] reality.
Does that sum it up?
it sums up what you've been writing throughout this discussion. But reporters aren't automatons. They can look at a transcript from Trump and see that it's different than almost anyone else's contemporaneous speech.
I don't think what I've been writing is off base, considering that over the time this thread has been going on, both the WaPo and NYT are doing more of what db and I have been asking for. They still slip back into the habit of "both siderism" occasionally, but they are making what to me seems an obvious effort now to convey a more complete picture of Trump. I suspect the pandemic has given all of his actions a different and more dangerous context to report on.
nohero said:
I have a study group consisting of one (1) member, my 94-year-old mother, who does not watch television news. She does read the NY Times every day, and for the local news reads the Bergen Record.
I gave her a "Trump countdown" calendar at Christmas, for her often-stated "When do we get rid of him?"
She seems fairly conversant with how awful he is.
I'm going to guess that in 2016 your mother wasn't one of those people who thought Trump was a successful businessman who would "shake things up." They were the people who needed to know what Trump was really like, and how completely unfit he was for office. The people who weren't the hardcore MAGAs, but the ones who thought electing an non-politician was a good idea.
ml1 said:
it sums up what you've been writing throughout this discussion.
That’s discouraging, because I was trying to sum up what you, not I, have been writing.
ml1 said:
I'm going to guess that in 2016 your mother wasn't one of those people who thought Trump was a successful businessman who would "shake things up." They were the people who needed to know what Trump was really like, and how completely unfit he was for office. The people who weren't the hardcore MAGAs, but the ones who thought electing an non-politician was a good idea.
I don't think those people who thought it was a good idea were paying attention to what was reported in the NY Times.
DaveSchmidt said:
That’s discouraging, because I was trying to sum up what you, not I, have been writing.
I hadn't written most of those things, and I've never argued that sound journalistic practices are inherently a bad thing, so I guess I misunderstood your intent.
I think last year's Trump CPAC speech may have been a turning point for a lot of new organizations. They were unprepared for how to report on a president giving a 2 hour unscripted speech that sounded like the rantings of homeless person. They are doing a lot better now, which is why I'm surprised you continue to argue against them doing what they are apparently trying to do. Report on president whose unfitness is without precedent in our lifetimes (or pretty much anyone's).
Here's a good summary of last year's mainstream takes on the 2019 Trump CPAC speech. And I'll be the first to admit coverage of his pandemic briefings this year is 1000 percent better.
Donald Trump's CPAC speech was completely unhinged.
ml1 said:
I'm going to guess that in 2016 your mother wasn't one of those people who thought Trump was a successful businessman who would "shake things up." They were the people who needed to know what Trump was really like, and how completely unfit he was for office. The people who weren't the hardcore MAGAs, but the ones who thought electing an non-politician was a good idea.
And the question is how many of those people still don't know how "unfit" he is or still think electing a "non-politician" is a good idea? Really two questions.
nohero said:
I don't think those people who thought it was a good idea were paying attention to what was reported in the NY Times.
Maybe I should start my own thread. Because most of my comments are about all mainstream sources, although I read the NY Times every day so a lot of my examples come from it. And it's not my claim that they are a "force for evil." My point is that Trump is so far out of the norm of what is expected in a politician, that he's made it difficult to cover him accurately within the usual journalistic parameters. How do you report that a president gave a speech that sounded like a mentally ill person or a person impaired by drugs? But that's exactly what his rallies do sound like. And now his mental and personality shortcomings have all combined in the worst way to produce the worst possible response to a pandemic.
STANV said:
And the question is how many of those people still don't know how "unfit" he is or still think electing a "non-politician" is a good idea? Really two questions.
if you've been reading wire service reporting of Trump in a local paper, you probably have very little idea that Trump is as out of his element as he really is. Why do 40+% of people give him positive grades on the COVID-19 response? They probably aren't all hardcore MAGAs.
ml1 said:
STANV said:
And the question is how many of those people still don't know how "unfit" he is or still think electing a "non-politician" is a good idea? Really two questions.
if you've been reading wire service reporting of Trump in a local paper, you probably have very little idea that Trump is as out of his element as he really is. Why do 40+% of people give him positive grades on the COVID-19 response? They probably aren't all hardcore MAGAs.
What percentage of those 40+% read the NYT or WaPo? Of those, what % do you think will change their mind if these papers change their coverage to be more in line with your suggestions?
nohero said:
I have a study group consisting of one (1) member, my 94-year-old mother, who does not watch television news. She does read the NY Times every day, and for the local news reads the Bergen Record.
I gave her a "Trump countdown" calendar at Christmas, for her often-stated "When do we get rid of him?"
She seems fairly conversant with how awful he is.
Most people in the NY area already knew Trump was a con man decades ago. Many in the rest of the country only got to know him through The Apprentice where he was pretending to be a successful businessman. That makes a big difference.
PVW said:
What percentage of those 40+% read the NYT or WaPo? Of those, what % do you think will change their mind if these papers change their coverage to be more in line with your suggestions?
what % will change their minds if Trump's behavior is presented as if it's typical of a president?
here is a good example of why Trump is so difficult to cover accurately. I don't think anyone is saying it's easy, because it's not. Trump is not like any other public figure in his opposition to the truth.
Gaslighting on Lysol-gate: Now Trump is denying he said what we heard him say
ml1 said:
How do you report that a president gave a speech that sounded like a mentally ill person or a person impaired by drugs? But that's exactly what his rallies do sound like.
To you they do. And what you seem to be saying is that if someone else believed that a lot of us might sound like that if we were so in love with every thought that sprang to mind that we let each one spill out without a filter, it’s the MSM’s duty to report in a way that would disabuse that person of such a notion. Because that’s how you see it, and if the MSM found a better way to do its job, more Americans would agree with you.
FWIW, since the end of February, these descriptions have appeared in NYT news articles about Trump: “rambling briefings,” “rambling delivery,” “rambling remarks at the CDC,” “ramblings and political attacks,” “rambling remarks on Afghanistan.” A search for some synonyms would probably bring up similar examples. Though it’s true you probably won’t find a reporter describing Trump as “unhinged,” “unfit” or “mentally unstable.”
what % will change their minds if Trump's behavior is presented as if it's typical of a president?
You’re not really contending that the MSM presents Trump’s behavior as typical for a president, though, are you? (I admit I’m having trouble following you in some places.)
DaveSchmidt said:
You’re not really contending that the MSM presents Trump’s behavior as typical for a president, though, are you? (I admit I’m having trouble following you in some places.)
I would refer back to my earlier post. I think up until around this time last year, Trump's behavior was conveyed in different ways than it is now. He was described as more unconventional or unorthodox than what he really is, which is more consistent with what you describe from the past couple of months ("rambling" is a pretty accurate description). But a "free wheeling" or "no holds barred" speech actually sounds like a good thing. Until you see the video or look at long quoted passages and you realize those are euphemisms.
Again, I think the press is doing a much better job than they had been. I'd just hope they would refrain from falling back into the habit of suggesting there's another side to some of the more outlandish things Trump says.
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
How do you report that a president gave a speech that sounded like a mentally ill person or a person impaired by drugs? But that's exactly what his rallies do sound like.
To you they do. And what you seem to be saying is that if someone else believed that a lot of us might sound like that if we were so in love with every thought that sprang to mind that we let each one spill out without a filter, it’s the MSM’s duty to report in a way that would disabuse that person of such a notion. Because that’s how you see it, and if the MSM found a better way to do its job, more Americans would agree with you.
FWIW, since the end of February, these descriptions have appeared in NYT news articles about Trump: “rambling briefings,” “rambling delivery,” “rambling remarks at the CDC,” “ramblings and political attacks,” “rambling remarks on Afghanistan.” A search for some synonyms would probably bring up similar examples. Though it’s true you probably won’t find a reporter describing Trump as “unhinged,” “unfit” or “mentally unstable.”
what % will change their minds if Trump's behavior is presented as if it's typical of a president?
You’re not really contending that the MSM presents Trump’s behavior as typical for a president, though, are you? (I admit I’m having trouble following you in some places.)
You are normalizing this president. Just like he did with neo-nazi's ("there are good people on both sides"). Trump and the current republican party are not normal. As I said before, when history is written, it won't be kind to those who normalized this.
ml1 said:
if you've been reading wire service reporting of Trump in a local paper, you probably have very little idea that Trump is as out of his element as he really is. Why do 40+% of people give him positive grades on the COVID-19 response? They probably aren't all hardcore MAGAs.
So should the criticism be directed at the AP and Reuters rather than the NY Times?
How many of those who when polled give favorable answers don't ready any newspaper?
How many who aren't "hardcore MAGA's" nevertheless get their news from FOX? How many don't pay any attention to news at all?
I guess there are millions of people in this country who know only that Trump gives a daily briefing on Coronavirus but don't know what he says. There are people who favor his building a border wall but pay no attention to what is actually being done or not done.
To me a major problem is the incredible ignorance about government of a huge portion of the population.
STANV said:
So should the criticism be directed at the AP and Reuters rather than the NY Times?
How many of those who when polled give favorable answers don't ready any newspaper?
How many who aren't "hardcore MAGA's" nevertheless get their news from FOX? How many don't pay any attention to news at all?
I guess there are millions of people in this country who know only that Trump gives a daily briefing on Coronavirus but don't know what he says. There are people who favor his building a border wall but pay no attention to what is actually being done or not done.
To me a major problem is the incredible ignorance about government of a huge portion of the population.
I had admitted earlier that my concerns are with a lot of mainstream sources, not just the NYT. But most of my daily news does come from the Times. And there is a log of ignorance among voters, which is why the general narrative and framing of stories is important. Someone with only a passing awareness of Trump's press briefings is only going to take a couple of bits away from the coverage. And if it's described as "rambling" and full of misinformation, as opposed to "off the cuff" with information that some experts dispute, there will be a different take away.
ml1 said:
STANV said:
So should the criticism be directed at the AP and Reuters rather than the NY Times?
How many of those who when polled give favorable answers don't ready any newspaper?
How many who aren't "hardcore MAGA's" nevertheless get their news from FOX? How many don't pay any attention to news at all?
I guess there are millions of people in this country who know only that Trump gives a daily briefing on Coronavirus but don't know what he says. There are people who favor his building a border wall but pay no attention to what is actually being done or not done.
To me a major problem is the incredible ignorance about government of a huge portion of the population.
I had admitted earlier that my concerns are with a lot of mainstream sources, not just the NYT. But most of my daily news does come from the Times. And there is a log of ignorance among voters, which is why the general narrative and framing of stories is important. Someone with only a passing awareness of Trump's press briefings is only going to take a couple of bits away from the coverage. And if it's described as "rambling" and full of misinformation, as opposed to "off the cuff" with information that some experts dispute, there will be a different take away.
I don't think you can make a category like "mainstream media" and then draw any kind of useful conclusions. Getting your news from a text-based outlet like the NYT is significantly different than getting it from a video-based outlet like CNN. I am very skeptical that there is such a thing as a person who has "only a passing awareness of Trump's press briefings" whose primary news source is the NYT, but it's a lot more likely to find such a person whose primary news source is CNN.
PVW said:
ml1 said:
STANV said:
So should the criticism be directed at the AP and Reuters rather than the NY Times?
How many of those who when polled give favorable answers don't ready any newspaper?
How many who aren't "hardcore MAGA's" nevertheless get their news from FOX? How many don't pay any attention to news at all?
I guess there are millions of people in this country who know only that Trump gives a daily briefing on Coronavirus but don't know what he says. There are people who favor his building a border wall but pay no attention to what is actually being done or not done.
To me a major problem is the incredible ignorance about government of a huge portion of the population.
I had admitted earlier that my concerns are with a lot of mainstream sources, not just the NYT. But most of my daily news does come from the Times. And there is a log of ignorance among voters, which is why the general narrative and framing of stories is important. Someone with only a passing awareness of Trump's press briefings is only going to take a couple of bits away from the coverage. And if it's described as "rambling" and full of misinformation, as opposed to "off the cuff" with information that some experts dispute, there will be a different take away.
I don't think you can make a category like "mainstream media" and then draw any kind of useful conclusions. Getting your news from a text-based outlet like the NYT is significantly different than getting it from a video-based outlet like CNN. I am very skeptical that there is such a thing as a person who has "only a passing awareness of Trump's press briefings" whose primary news source is the NYT, but it's a lot more likely to find such a person whose primary news source is CNN.
CNN talks for hours about the briefings every day, so their viewers are probably aware. I'm thinking of people who watch local broadcast news and read a local paper like thir version of the Star-Ledger, which gets most of its DC news from wire services.
Don’t know how the NYT will handle the Reade accusations against Sen Biden back in the day. The story should have been a snapped up by the #Metoo folks, but are they giving Biden a pass? The media devoured the 30 year old allegations against Justice Kavanaugh.
Biden was an adult married family man, a U.S. Senator; Kavanaugh was a teenager.
Any guesses?
mtierney said:
Don’t know how the NYT will handle the Reade accusations against Sen Biden back in the day. The story should have been a snapped up by the #Metoo folks, but are they giving Biden a pass? The media devoured the 30 year old allegations against Justice Kavanaugh.
Biden was an adult married family man, a U.S. Senator; Kavanaugh was a teenager.
Any guesses?
If you want to "know how the NYT will handle the Reade accusations", you could read about it in the NY Times.
ml1 said:
PVW said:
ml1 said:
STANV said:
So should the criticism be directed at the AP and Reuters rather than the NY Times?
How many of those who when polled give favorable answers don't ready any newspaper?
How many who aren't "hardcore MAGA's" nevertheless get their news from FOX? How many don't pay any attention to news at all?
I guess there are millions of people in this country who know only that Trump gives a daily briefing on Coronavirus but don't know what he says. There are people who favor his building a border wall but pay no attention to what is actually being done or not done.
To me a major problem is the incredible ignorance about government of a huge portion of the population.
I had admitted earlier that my concerns are with a lot of mainstream sources, not just the NYT. But most of my daily news does come from the Times. And there is a log of ignorance among voters, which is why the general narrative and framing of stories is important. Someone with only a passing awareness of Trump's press briefings is only going to take a couple of bits away from the coverage. And if it's described as "rambling" and full of misinformation, as opposed to "off the cuff" with information that some experts dispute, there will be a different take away.
I don't think you can make a category like "mainstream media" and then draw any kind of useful conclusions. Getting your news from a text-based outlet like the NYT is significantly different than getting it from a video-based outlet like CNN. I am very skeptical that there is such a thing as a person who has "only a passing awareness of Trump's press briefings" whose primary news source is the NYT, but it's a lot more likely to find such a person whose primary news source is CNN.
CNN talks for hours about the briefings every day, so their viewers are probably aware. I'm thinking of people who watch local broadcast news and read a local paper like thir version of the Star-Ledger, which gets most of its DC news from wire services.
The population of people reading local papers like the Star-Ledger is even smaller than that reading the WaPo or NYT. I would be very, very surprised if a reader motivated enough to make the conscious decision to read their local paper has only a passing awareness of Trump's press briefings.
CNN and local broadcast news, otoh, takes almost a conscious effort to avoid. It's on at the Dunkin Donuts, at the airport, in the bar. It's the sort of thing that can be on at the DD, the airport, or the bar. TV news is a medium, in other words, that doesn't inherently demand much attention from its audience, and so while I'm sure CNN talks for hours about the briefings, I doubt the average viewer actually watches for hours (and of those that do -- that make a conscious effort to consume that much news -- would such a person really be uninformed about Trump's character?)
ml1 said:
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.
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"?
And I'll be the first to admit coverage of his pandemic briefings this year is 1000 percent better.
Again, I think the press is doing a much better job than they had been. I'd just hope they would refrain from falling back into the habit of suggesting there's another side to some of the more outlandish things Trump says.
This is one of the reasons I’m having trouble following. On Saturday, news outlets have no idea how to cover Trump; two days later, they’re doing a much better job than they were a year ago.
If you want to continue elaborating, maybe a separate thread isn’t a bad idea.
I did not read this article — the headline stumped me.
Trump Vows More Coronavirus Testing, but Less Than What May Be Needed
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
How can the president be negligent (implied) for supplying less than an unknown amount? Since 2016, the Times seems to have made a crusade via its headlines to attribute wrongdoing, incompetence, mental acuity, etc. Maybe the editors think that their readers are that stupid?
I’ll read the article in full after my coffee. I might be in a better mood
DaveSchmidt said:
This is one of the reasons I’m having trouble following. On Saturday, news outlets have no idea how to cover Trump; two days later, they’re doing a much better job than they were a year ago.
If you want to continue elaborating, maybe a separate thread isn’t a bad idea.
I'm surprised you are using such absolutes. The coverage is a lot better than it was, but still occasionally falls back into both siderism. It's possible to hold both thoughts in my head. And at this point, in the middle of the worst crisis of our lifetimes, even occasional articles that appear to normalize Trump's behavior shouldn't be appearing.
mtierney said:
I did not read this article — the headline stumped me.
Trump Vows More Coronavirus Testing, but Less Than What May Be Needed
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
How can the president be negligent (implied) for supplying less than an unknown amount? Since 2016, the Times seems to have made a crusade via its headlines to attribute wrongdoing, incompetence, mental acuity, etc. Maybe the editors think that their readers are that stupid?
I’ll read the article in full after my coffee. I might be in a better mood
I have an idea, let's read the article before condemning the headline.
From the article:
An administration official said the federal government aimed to give states the ability to test at least 2 percent of their populations per month, though the president did not use that figure and it was not in his written plan. Instead, Mr. Trump and other officials with him in the Rose Garden said the United States would “double” the number of tests it had been doing.
Also from the article:
Outside experts have recommended that anywhere from 0.9 percent to 50 percent of the American public must be tested for the coronavirus every week.
“I think it’s really important that the White House has put out much more specific guidance for states around testing,” said Jen Kates, a senior vice president and director of global health and H.I.V. policy for the Kaiser Family Foundation, who has analyzed states’ capacity for testing. But the plan to test 2 percent, she said, “may not be enough.”
Paul Romer, a Nobel Prize-winning economist from New York University who has recommended that 50 percent of the population be tested each week, said testing 2 percent “is not enough to test everyone in health care even once, let alone to keep retesting them every day, which is what it would take to keep those who do get infected from going on shift and infecting their colleagues.”
Conclusion (I'll put it in all-caps so it's not missed): THE HEADLINE IS ACCURATE.
ml1 said:
I'm surprised you are using such absolutes. The coverage is a lot better than it was, but still occasionally falls back into both siderism. It's possible to hold both thoughts in my head. And at this point, in the middle of the worst crisis of our lifetimes, even occasional articles that appear to normalize Trump's behavior shouldn't be appearing.
All right. Because I’m not like you and can’t hold both “have no idea” and “occasional” in my head at the same time, I’ll tell it to drop your earlier absolute and keep the qualifiers.
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
I'm surprised you are using such absolutes. The coverage is a lot better than it was, but still occasionally falls back into both siderism. It's possible to hold both thoughts in my head. And at this point, in the middle of the worst crisis of our lifetimes, even occasional articles that appear to normalize Trump's behavior shouldn't be appearing.
All right. Because I’m not like you and can’t hold both “have no idea” and “occasional” in my head at the same time, I’ll tell it to drop your earlier absolute and keep the qualifiers.
I don't have the patience to go back and read all my posts. But if I used words like "always" or "never" or other similar absolutes that didn't leave room for nuance in any of them, I was wrong.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For instance, my comment that diagnosing Trump’s mental health from a transcript is akin to diagnosing Biden’s. By making that comparison, by questioning both analyses, I’m missing the truth that they’re not equivalent.
That’s the sort of training that’s flawed, that prevents readers from getting to the heart of matters. Raising and exploring counterarguments and other points of view does a disservice (unless they’re raised and explored only to condemn them). Instead of providing grist for reflection — an opinion, after all, is only as good as the information it’s based on, and its ability to address the strongest opposing opinions — this kind of reporting creates confusion and, worse, distracts from [ETA: or even undermines] reality.
Does that sum it up?