The New York Times - Motley Rainbows and Dead Unicorns

today is one of those days where it's really hard not to cancel my subscription

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/us/politics/impeachment-partisan-democrats-republicans.html


drummerboy said:

today is one of those days where it's really hard not to cancel my subscription

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/us/politics/impeachment-partisan-democrats-republicans.html

Sometimes trying to be balanced results in being incredibly, deeply biased.  Presenting the impeachment in a "balanced" fashion is a tremendous pro-Republican bias.  


drummerboy said:

today is one of those days where it's really hard not to cancel my subscription

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/us/politics/impeachment-partisan-democrats-republicans.html

 and did they turn off comments on this article?  I'm not seeing any when I read the article.  If they did, it suggests they know how hard they'd get hammered by the readers.  It's a terrible, deeply ingenuous article.  Maybe the NYT is already ashamed of it, and don't want to deal with angry comments.



.The Times has been in opposition to all things Trump since he won the election. The front page rarely presents the news on the day objectively, going with “news analysis” often. Yet when it begins to recognize the dangerous fall-out from this purely partisan political impeachment it has supported all along, a timid attempt to show caution is considered “terrible and deeply disingenuous”.


“Mr. Trump and his close circle of advisers are convinced that the Ukraine inquiry is merely an extension of the investigation into Russian election meddling and the continuation of a three-year assault on his presidency that began the day he was inaugurated with the launch of an activist’s website.”


From the article:

The speaker could walk on water to be fair, and Republicans would still “criticize her for not being able to swim,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Caucus and an ally of Ms. Pelosi.

mtierney,

Is it your position that the President did not leverage foreign aid for assistance against his political opponent or is it your position that even if he did it does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense?

Please explain your answer. Thank you.


mtierney said:

.The Times has been in opposition to all things Trump since he won the election. The front page rarely presents the news on the day objectively, going with “news analysis” often. Yet when it begins to recognize the dangerous fall-out from this purely partisan political impeachment it has supported all along, a timid attempt to show caution is considered “terrible and deeply disingenuous”.

“Mr. Trump and his close circle of advisers are convinced that the Ukraine inquiry is merely an extension of the investigation into Russian election meddling and the continuation of a three-year assault on his presidency that began the day he was inaugurated with the launch of an activist’s website.”

Objectively, Donald Trump is a bigot, a misogynist, a bully, and a rapist. He's ignorant, and possibly suffering from dementia. He's corrupt, and a lifetime crook and con artist. He's a malignant narcissist. 

Any objective news organization SHOULD be in opposition to him. Was there a "balanced" side of the KKK or the Nazi Party that needed to be shown?



ml1 said:

mtierney said:

.The Times has been in opposition to all things Trump since he won the election. The front page rarely presents the news on the day objectively, going with “news analysis” often. Yet when it begins to recognize the dangerous fall-out from this purely partisan political impeachment it has supported all along, a timid attempt to show caution is considered “terrible and deeply disingenuous”.

“Mr. Trump and his close circle of advisers are convinced that the Ukraine inquiry is merely an extension of the investigation into Russian election meddling and the continuation of a three-year assault on his presidency that began the day he was inaugurated with the launch of an activist’s website.”

Objectively, Donald Trump is a bigot, a misogynist, a bully, and a rapist. He's ignorant, and possibly suffering from dementia. He's corrupt, and a lifetime crook and con artist. He's a malignant narcissist. 

Any objective news organization SHOULD be in opposition to him. Was there a "balanced" side of the KKK or the Nazi Party that needed to be shown?

 LMAO.  Hysterical much?


ml1 said:

Any objective news organization SHOULD be in opposition to him. Was there a "balanced" side of the KKK or the Nazi Party that needed to be shown?

 Are you making a comparison here? If so, desperation will defeat common sense. The Democratic loss in 2016 was self-inflicted by pompous disregard of reality. HRC ran a poor campaign and her baggage was way to big to fit into the White House. Don’t blame Trump for being in the right place at the right time. The deplorables didn’t elect DJT — you all did!


I thought the NYT feature was a fine article. It went beyond just what’s going on with impeachment, to a deeper contextual dive into how both parties are acting differently v. previous impeachments (or at least this is alleged by the other side), and what it all might mean for the future.

News organizations write articles based on news value and taking a different angle to an ongoing story. That’s what this is. I highly doubt the reporters and editors huddled together to ensure the “balance” of the story. 

Sometimes a story is just that — a story.


ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

today is one of those days where it's really hard not to cancel my subscription

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/us/politics/impeachment-partisan-democrats-republicans.html

Sometimes trying to be balanced results in being incredibly, deeply biased.  Presenting the impeachment in a "balanced" fashion is a tremendous pro-Republican bias.  

I never thought I’d live to see the day that the NYT is incredibly, deeply, and tremendously biased in favor of Republicans. 


ml1 said:

Was there a "balanced" side of the KKK or the Nazi Party that needed to be shown?

Do you see any constructive comparisons to be drawn with the way contemporary journalists like William Shirer and Dorothy Thompson covered the Nazis or Horace Carter and Claude Sitton reported on the Klan?


Smedley said:

I thought the NYT feature was a fine article. It went beyond just what’s going on with impeachment, to a deeper contextual dive into how both parties are acting differently v. previous impeachments (or at least this is alleged by the other side), and what it all might mean for the future.

News organizations write articles based on news value and taking a different angle to an ongoing story. That’s what this is. I highly doubt the reporters and editors huddled together to ensure the “balance” of the story. 

Sometimes a story is just that — a story.

No, the article is sh**.

example one:

Mr. Trump’s lawyers have made a similarly cold calculation. After a year
of defying without consequence Congress’s attempts to investigate the
president’s conduct, they have no intention of taking part in what they
view as an illegitimate impeachment
, initially conducted without a
formal House vote in a break with recent precedent.

That is an example of mind-reading. The reporters have no idea what the Trumpers view this as. By phrasing it this way, it implies that the Trumpers are operating based on a good-faith belief that it's illegitimate.

example 2:

Determined not to let Mr. Trump and his Republican allies in Congress
derail their efforts with legal delays or time-consuming diversions,
Democrats have decided it is not worth waiting for cooperation they are
all but certain not to receive
as they press forward to charge the
president with high crimes and misdemeanors.

Well, gee, why are they certain they won't receive cooperation?  Maybe the reporters should spend some time on this question, and whether it makes sense for the Dems to plow ahead, since the Trumpers are clearly bad-faith actors here.

example 3:

Upset by the rapid pace of the inquiry and frustrated by Democratic
rules he says are unfair
— including the lack of subpoena power for the
White House — Mr. Trump is simply refusing to engage.

More mind-reading. Are the Trumpers really upset at the "rapid pace of the inquiry"? Who the hell knows, but let's report on it as if it's true. And while we're at it, let's throw in this little bit about subpoena power. Is that a legitimate complaint? Who knows - let's throw it in anyway, to further buttress Trump's side.


The article is sh** and exemplifies the absolute worst aspect of the Times's political reporting.

Be wary of any Haberman byline.



terp said:

 LMAO.  Hysterical much?

 no. Not at all. 


Smedley said:

I never thought I’d live to see the day that the NYT is incredibly, deeply, and tremendously biased in favor of Republicans. 

 in this case "balance" equates to a Republican bias. The parties are not behaving in an equivalent way. 


I asked mterney a couple of questions. Instead of answering she posts about Hillary Clinton. that has nothing to do with this discussion.

The impeachment is about what Trump did after he was elected. Were the Dems and their supporters upset by Trump's election? Obviously. But after Obama was elected the Republicans began attacking him from day one. They did not try to impeach him, but however upset the Dems were with the election of Bush in 2000 there was no serious attempt to impeach.

Trump brought this all on himself. 


ml1 said:

 in this case "balance" equates to a Republican bias. The parties are not behaving in an equivalent way. 

 They complained that the Dems wouldn't let trump's lawyers participate in the House hearings. Now that the Judiciary Committee has invited the participation of Trump's counsel he says "no thanks"


STANV said:

ml1 said:

 in this case "balance" equates to a Republican bias. The parties are not behaving in an equivalent way. 

 They complained that the Dems wouldn't let trump's lawyers participate in the House hearings. Now that the Judiciary Committee has invited the participation of Trump's counsel he says "no thanks"

Its their big lie. Repeated often and therefore believed by many, mostly the deplorables. Goebbels would be proud.

The lie that the impeachment is an illegitimate farce. To first attack - see how the president is not allowed to defend himself, they're not calling his counsel this is a farce.

When his counsel is then invited its we're not going to participate in this farce.

The impeachment power lies with the house, not the senate, not the executive branch, not the courts. Its not up to the president or the executive branch to determine legitimacy of impeachment. Its up to the house, no one else.

Many liken impeachment to a grand jury, with the trial being held in the senate. Normally grand juries don't allow defense attorneys or defendant into their hearings. Grand juries hearings are primarily presentations by prosecutors. In impeachment the president is given a lot more rights than criminal grand juries offer defendants. Yet, we hear this constant whining from Republicans - their big lie.


My major concern is that the NY Times seems to have this need to give equal weight to "both sides" when one side is basically a web of lies and deceit.


yahooyahoo said:

My major concern is that the NY Times seems to have this need to give equal weight to "both sides" when one side is basically a web of lies and deceit.

 Exactly.  That's a habit they are having trouble breaking.


That's what editorials are for -- to state opinions on what's a lie and what's deceit and which side is right. NYT editorial writers publish a regular stream of these and I can assure you there has been no "balance" of pro-impeachment and pro-Trump editorials. 

I'd love to see what MOLers would write for the non-editorial impeachment front pager. Lead would be something like "Corrupt conman President Donald Trump faces the next step in the Impeachment hearing this week, which should finally trip up the Republicans in their own web of lies and deceit...."


Smedley said:

That's what editorials are for -- to state opinions on what's a lie and what's deceit and which side is right. NYT editorial writers publish a regular stream of these and I can assure you there has been no "balance" of pro-impeachment and pro-Trump editorials. 

I'd love to see what MOLers would write for the non-editorial impeachment front pager. Lead would be something like "Corrupt conman President Donald Trump faces the next step in the Impeachment hearing this week, which should finally trip up the Republicans in their own web of lies and deceit...."

 that would be more reflective of reality than what they wrote. 


There are those on the Right who try to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, but sometimes support of Israel is rooted in antisemitism.


again they did it again. It's been less than a week since the last both-sides-do-it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/13/us/politics/impeachment-partisan-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

“Ukraine was not aware of the aid,” Mr. Johnson insisted Thursday, referring to the $391 million in security assistance that Mr. Trump had ordered withheld. If they didn’t know the money had been frozen, he explained, Ukraine couldn’t have been on the receiving end of a pressure campaign by the president.

When it was his turn, Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, asserted exactly the opposite, alluding to email evidence and testimony that disproved Mr. Johnson’s argument. “They knew it on July the 25,” Mr. Cohen said of the Ukranians. “There were communications from the embassy that have been released that they knew the aid was being held up. They knew it was being held up.”

It was an example of the different impeachment realities that the two parties are living in. But it was hardly the only one.

hey dickweed reporter. Is it maybe your job to let us know which of those positions reflect reality?


“Email evidence and testimony that disproved Mr. Johnson’s argument.”

There, I hit you over the head with it.


DaveSchmidt said:

“Email evidence and testimony that disproved Mr. Johnson’s argument.”

There, I hit you over the head with it.

really? you think that satisfies the need here? the problem is the framing of the piece.

gaaaa

too early to drink



drummerboy said:

really? you think that satisfies the need here?

I wanted something to hit you over the head with. That line was handy. So I’d have to say yes, it satisfied the need here.


jay rosen distills the aforementioned article


Also from Rosen in that Twitter thread:

The year-old blog post of his that he links to is worth reading. There’s at least one more answer, though, that I think Rosen misses: that good journalists want, above all, to understand. And true understanding requires that you grasp the views of others as clearly as they do. (I recall reading, in my younger years, Orwell make this point in his typically incisive manner, but I can never find the passage when I’d like to quote it.)

It isn’t about balance; journalists can, and often do, conclude that what they’ve kenned isn’t worth further attention (a.k.a. censorship, to critics who disagree). On the other hand — yes, that maligned phrase — they may decide that an outlook or an argument deserves attention whatever its own merits, because understanding it helps readers make sense of what’s going on in the world. Or in Congress on Thursday.

Take MOL. Relatively few commenters ask the questions or write the replies that show you they’re really interested in what other people are getting at. They, not the truth tellers, are the ones I learn the most from, and they’d fit right in with the kind of journalists I learn the most from, too.


I'm not sure what your point is. The problem with much of the Times' reporting is that it elevates a point of view that should not be elevated, thereby confusing the public and further muddling a world in which we increasingly no longer share the same set of facts. To my mind, this is just about the most serious issue that we're facing - it drives everything else. And the wrong side is winning, and they've been abetted by outlets like the Times.

Baquet says he doesn't want to be the "opposition", but I think he doesn't understand what that means. It's one thing to be opposed on the basis of policy - fine, news reporting should not pick sides in those cases. But this is not about policy. This is about one side lying and lying constantly. The Times seems to take the position that there are two sets of facts. Which is crazy and irresponsible. The newspaper of record is not presenting an accurate record of the day.


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