The New York Times - They're even more evil now
ml1 said:
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.
All my work quoting them in my post last night, for naught. Will I ever find a useful way to while away these homebound hours again?
DaveSchmidt said:
All my work quoting them in my post last night, for naught. Will I ever find a useful way to while away these homebound hours again?
was it only that one post you quoted? I thought you were referring to a pattern of lots of posts. If it's just that one (or even others), I'll cop to being wrong with "no idea." I'd suggest it's more of a dilemma than it is having "no idea."
nohero said:
Conclusion (I'll put it in all-caps so it's not missed): THE HEADLINE IS ACCURATE.
NO WAY IN HADES!
PVW said:
mtierney's post is a good example of why I find this hand wringing over whether newspaper headline are sufficiently (what's the adjective I'm looking for here? Strident? Emphatic? Non-disinterested?). I have no doubt that if the headline were "Biden proposes testing plan, but less than what may be needed" she'd understand it perfectly, because partisanship is the dominating and most relevant factor in how people consume not just political news, but increasingly all news. So pointing to things like how many people approve of Trump, or their opinions of his press conferences, says less about how the media cover him and more about the power of partisanship.
Personally, I find value in news outlets that, even in the face of a situation as extreme as the Trump presidency, strive mightily for objectivity. I don't think they actually succeed -- the reporters and editors writing these stories are human, and as prone to bias as the rest of us -- but in the pursuit of that ideal I think the succeed in putting some breaks on our tendency to consume news in ways that only serve to reinforce our pre-existing beliefs.
I think what you're missing is that as they "strive mightily for objectivity", they create a balance between sides which actually does not exist. This serves to elevate positions which really do not deserve elevation.
It is not bias, for example, to point out that one side is completely detached from reality. Look at the whole climate change "debate" over the past twenty years. The denialist side counted on the media striving for objectivity to give their side credence that was not warranted by the facts.
As the old saw goes - If one side says it's raining and the other says it's not, it's the journalist's job to stick their hand out of the window to see if it's raining or not.
drummerboy said:
I think what you're missing is that as they "strive mightily for objectivity", they create a balance between sides which actually does not exist. This serves to elevate positions which really do not deserve elevation.
It is not bias, for example, to point out that one side is completely detached from reality. Look at the whole climate change "debate" over the past twenty years. The denialist side counted on the media striving for objectivity to give their side credence that was not warranted by the facts.
Do you know many people whose primary news source is newspapers and who believe those denying climate change have equal credibility with the those bringing attention to it?
from the article I linked to yesterday:
This is a classic example of how gaslighting differs from plain old lying. Trump is insisting here that those of us who heard him suggest injecting disinfectants in people's lungs have broken brains — if we didn't detect the slightest hint of sarcasm in his tone, it's because we are defective in some way, not because he wasn't actually being sarcastic. The point is to force people who heard him perfectly well to defend their own ability to hear and see things, knowing full well that there's no definitive, objective way for human beings to "prove" that they know the difference between sarcasm and not-sarcasm.
this is a common dilemma for reporters who want to be able to objectively prove one side or the other before they print a conclusion. It's what Trump and other dishonest actors count on. Nobody can prove Trump's intent wasn't sarcasm, and yet any sentient person watching the video knows at 99.99% assurance that it wasn't. But Trump counts on a "balanced" report including his claim of sarcasm without the reporter saying what everyone knows, which is the claim is bogus.
and yes it's a dilemma if you are trying to report because it's not as simple as looking outside to see if it's raining or not.
ml1 said:
If it's just that one (or even others), I'll cop to being wrong with "no idea."
No need to cop again after 10:07. My confusion is already abated.
and yes it's a dilemma if you are trying to report because it's not as simple as looking outside to see if it's raining or not.
You write a four-paragraph article about Trump’s sarcasm claim and leave it to readers to take that for what it’s worth, as The Associated Press did, or you give it a line or two in a follow-up story, as The Times did. (“That was before Mr. Trump said that he had spoken ‘sarcastically,’ to get a rise out of journalists.”) Or ... you use it as fodder for a Salon piece about how coverage of Trump requires a “meta-response.”
mtierney said:
NO WAY IN HADES!
the headline is a spot on summary of the first paragraph:
President Trump, under growing pressure to expand coronavirus testing as states move to reopen their economies, unveiled a new plan on Monday to ramp up the federal government’s help to states, but his proposal runs far short of what most public health experts say is necessary.
"more" but less than needed makes perfect sense. If I need $2000 to pay my rent each month, and I'm currently making $1000 a month, expecting a raise to $1500 a month, I'll have more but less than what is needed.
So one poster thinks the NY Times is biased against Trump and another believes they are whitewashing his "performance".
Does that make the Times objective?
STANV said:
So one poster thinks the NY Times is biased against Trump and another believes they are whitewashing his "performance".
Does that make the Times objective?
I think the Times is relatively objective, but not for that reason. The truth is not something that should be determined by popular vote.
PVW said:
drummerboy said:
I think what you're missing is that as they "strive mightily for objectivity", they create a balance between sides which actually does not exist. This serves to elevate positions which really do not deserve elevation.
It is not bias, for example, to point out that one side is completely detached from reality. Look at the whole climate change "debate" over the past twenty years. The denialist side counted on the media striving for objectivity to give their side credence that was not warranted by the facts.
Do you know many people whose primary news source is newspapers and who believe those denying climate change have equal credibility with the those bringing attention to it?
That's kind of a silly question. Even if I knew some people that would fit that category, it would mean little.
But I find it hard to believe that climate change denialism would have lived for such a long time (we're talking decades) without the implicit support they've historically gotten from the media.
What and how the media reports on is not as benign as you think it is.
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
drummerboy said:
I think what you're missing is that as they "strive mightily for objectivity", they create a balance between sides which actually does not exist. This serves to elevate positions which really do not deserve elevation.
It is not bias, for example, to point out that one side is completely detached from reality. Look at the whole climate change "debate" over the past twenty years. The denialist side counted on the media striving for objectivity to give their side credence that was not warranted by the facts.
Do you know many people whose primary news source is newspapers and who believe those denying climate change have equal credibility with the those bringing attention to it?
That's kind of a silly question. Even if I knew some people that would fit that category, it would mean little.
But I find it hard to believe that climate change denialism would have lived for such a long time (we're talking decades) without the implicit support they've historically gotten from the media.
What and how the media reports on is not as benign as you think it is.
Correlation may not mean causation, but a complete lack of correlation seems to rule causation out. If there are no people who read the more objective media and are climate denialists, then it seems the case against such outlets is pretty weak.
PVW said:
Correlation may not mean causation, but a complete lack of correlation seems to rule causation out. If there are no people who read the more objective media and are climate denialists, then it seems the case against such outlets is pretty weak.
You cannot draw logical conclusions from assumed facts. If you are going to talk mathematical logic you must also follow the rules.
"media" isn't just newspapers. And it's not just the WaPo and NYT. I think at this point it's no longer clear to me who's arguing what about what news sources.
ml1 said:
"media" isn't just newspapers. And it's not just the WaPo and NYT. I think at this point it's no longer clear to me who's arguing what about what news sources.
Ah, you know me -- I don't watch Jimmy Dore videos, and CNN is something that happens when you're stuck at the airport.
ridski said:
I have literally no idea what anyone is arguing about in this thread.
What's your point?
ridski said:
I have literally no idea what anyone is arguing about in this thread.
A rough summary: Some posters say the NYT and other MSM are failing to get across how horrible and demented Trump is, mainly because they’re beholden to practices that too often drag them down into both-siderism, false equivalencies and normal reporting. Other posters aren’t convinced that the examples that pop up on this thread are emblematic of a problem, but they’re wrong.
STANV said:
What's your point?
I disagree, why does every post have to make a point?
DaveSchmidt said:
A rough summary: Some posters say the NYT and other MSM are failing to get across how horrible and demented Trump is, mainly because they’re beholden to practices that too often drag them down into both-siderism, false equivalencies and normal reporting. Other posters aren’t convinced that the examples that pop up on this thread are emblematic of a problem, but they’re wrong.
hmm. All this time I thought the consensus was that I'm wrong, examples notwithstanding.
ml1 said:
hmm. All this time I thought the consensus was that I'm wrong, examples notwithstanding.
May I offer that both of you are wrong? As a compromise?
basil said:
May I offer that both of you are wrong? As a compromise?
sure. I'm not sure that makes logical sense, but why not?
ml1 said:
sure. I'm not sure that makes logical sense, but why not?
@DaveSchmidt : do you concur?
we could take a vote...
Sooooooo much material for the panto this year, and it’s not even May yet! 
Rentals
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
mtierney's post is a good example of why I find this hand wringing over whether newspaper headline are sufficiently (what's the adjective I'm looking for here? Strident? Emphatic? Non-disinterested?). I have no doubt that if the headline were "Biden proposes testing plan, but less than what may be needed" she'd understand it perfectly, because partisanship is the dominating and most relevant factor in how people consume not just political news, but increasingly all news. So pointing to things like how many people approve of Trump, or their opinions of his press conferences, says less about how the media cover him and more about the power of partisanship.
Personally, I find value in news outlets that, even in the face of a situation as extreme as the Trump presidency, strive mightily for objectivity. I don't think they actually succeed -- the reporters and editors writing these stories are human, and as prone to bias as the rest of us -- but in the pursuit of that ideal I think the succeed in putting some breaks on our tendency to consume news in ways that only serve to reinforce our pre-existing beliefs.