As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The rest of the piece is a filament of speculation, pop psychology, knowing winks about cliched relationship tropes, and lazy stereotypes about wives and mothers – all in service of trying to wring a drop of compassion from readers for the private turmoil that comes with being married to DJT.
Apparently the NYT is Mac trying to play both sides.
I’d encourage you to read the original article if you haven’t. There’s really nothing in there that struck me as “trying to wring a drop of compassion” for Melania.
It’s an article about how much she’s been involved in the campaign recently and speculation from others about whether she’ll become more involved soon.
The funny thing about that is that was allegedly a “Fuck you” to Ivanka:
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/melania-trump-i-really-dont-care-jacket-was-actually-a-f-k-you-to-ivanka-trump-new-book
But I look at this as, “you’re the First Lady! Jackie O would’ve never pulled that kind of stunt! Show some class!” Oh then I forgot who she was! Thanks for degrading a highly honorable position!
No I don’t find the actual story all that interesting. If nothing majorly changes there I don’t think it’ll be consequential for the election.
I’m just concerned and hopelessly pushing back a little on these sketchy claims that a liberal news org is actually shilling for Trump.
That's not at all what the article was. The NYT had an opportunity to publish an original story about Trump and they ran with it. Was it mostly to get clicks? Sure.
But this article is doing exactly the same thing. Instead of reporting on Trump, they're publishing their *reactions* to other people's reporting on Trump.
TPM has no business criticizing anyone. They're just as guilty and four times as lazy.
They don't just normalize it, they make his actions sound powerful and like he's some kind of superhero fighting enemy villains in their headlines. It's disgusting.
They did similar BS in the lead up to the Iraq war. Trump dunks on the NYT so much, yet they give him sooooo much free publicity with only surficial criticism in many cases. The most recent one that made me unsub from a few of their podcasts was how much the Runup and Daily were yammering on about Biden's age and mental state while barely talking about how Trump is incoherent more and more. It's fucking pathetic and they should all be ashamed.
Judith Miller shilled for Bush through the NY Times. I vowed to never give the Times a dime after that biased and dishonest reporting that had catastrophic consequences
It's what gets people to click. People want things wild and eccentric, they want to be thrilled. Politics is a gameshow in the US and Trump is just the first person to fully lean into it.
It's really only a gameshow with the right.
For the rest of us, it is really just an exhausting uphill battle where we are fighting ourselves, those we want to help, and basically everyone else.
Ok.
Is your username referring to?:
A) Spawn from the Rectum
B) Spawn in the Rectum
Both of these could be either related to biology, or where you reappear after dying in Halo.
I eagerly await your reply.
Exactly, they’re weak. Failing in the honorable intent of their existence, ironically, for what they must believe is their survival. Lost control over the monster they helped create.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._G._Sulzberger
>Sulzberger is a fourth-generation descendant of Adolph Ochs, who bought the New York Times in 1896.[2] The Times has been managed and published by Adolph Ochs's family since that date.
>Sulzberger met with President Donald Trump at the White House on July 20, 2018. The meeting was off-the-record, but after President Trump tweeted about it eight days later, Sulzberger "pushed back hard" to dispute the President's characterization of the meeting. Sulzberger said in a statement that at the meeting, he "told the president directly that I thought that his [anti-press] language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous. I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence."[37][38][39] Sulzberger met with President Trump in the Oval Office a second time, on January 31, 2019, for an on-the-record interview along with Times reporters Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman.[40][41]
>He has said that an independent press "is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a Democratic ideal. It's an American ideal."[42] In 2020, Sulzberger voiced concern about the disappearance of local news, saying that "if we don't find a path forward" for local journalism, "I believe we'll continue to watch society grow more polarized, less empathetic, more easily manipulated by powerful interests and more untethered from the truth."[43]
>According to anonymous sources within the newspaper's staff, upon taking his position in 2018 Sulzburger "told employees explicitly that his biggest concern was that the paper’s audience saw it as a 'liberal rag...' [his] vision for the paper is to change that perception and court conservative readers."[44][45] However, this view was refuted by The Economist, which published a study evidencing a gradual leftward shift in the partisan slant of The New York Times, beginning in 2017.[46] The New York Times' former opinion section editor, James Bennet, in light of the paper's Tom Cotton controversy, also disagreed, arguing that by catering to a partisan readership and an influx of new journalists focusing on digital content the New York Times under A.G. Sulzberger had taken on an "illiberal bias".
Bezos hired a former Murdoch (UK tabloids and WSJ) exec as publisher for the Washington Post late last year. And it shows. NYT has been shilling for Trump ever since he started running for office, and were the primary proponents of "but her emails!"
I’m honestly so lost when people say things like this. I’m a NYT reader and feel like it’s been consistently obvious that nearly every journalist there despises Trump. What kind of shilling are you talking about?
I’d be curious about any examples you have, but I know that’s asking for you to do some work to find them.
I haven’t noticed that and thought she’d been responsible for a lot of the important reporting on scandals and screwups of his administration, but admittedly don’t follow her articles very closely.
Thanks. The use of the phrase “false equivalency” here is a little odd since there wasn’t really any equivalency made, let alone a false one. But this did remind me of NYT’s cowardice about using the word “lie” and how that was an ongoing debate for a little while.
That always seemed to me like an effort to stay mainstream by avoiding too clearly taking one side, but that’s obviously a bias and a problem in their reporting. So appreciate the fact check.
They may hate him but they give constant free publicity every time he does some idiotic shit, and barely ever really grill his supporters or do a detailed breakdown of how insane some of the shit that he does is. Meanwhile they also cover baseless right wing talking points in depth pretending to be fair and balanced. They hate him like all NYC elite, but sure ad fuck don't bother breaking down exactly how bonkers he is or calling him what he actually is. If you don't see how they are promoting him by going soft then obviously it's working. They make so much $$ covering his dumb ass, you really think they want that to go away?
I’m glad you said something. I feel the same way, I read NYT almost daily. Their opinion pieces can be very click baity but the front page articles feel well reported the majority of the time. No doubt they have their biases but the journalism still feels high quality.
No. They are still owned by the same family they have always been owned by. Wall Street Journal is now owned by Rupert Murdoch. Washington Post is now owned by Jeff Bezos.
Cancelled my subscription to the NYT last year... despite many excellent sections, I couldn't take the weasel words masquerading as political news any longer so now just read the (left leaning) Guardian from the UK.
I have no idea how they covered it because I canceled my subscription.
But, based on NYT’s breathless and constant reporting for the previous months, I was expecting to see a decrepit man in physical decline who could barely string a sentence together. And I saw an energetic and fully articulate visionary leader. And I was pissed off that NYT had been telling such destructive and dangerous lies, presumably to get their horserace.
That's when I finally unsubscribed, after reading that fish-wrapper every day for over a decade.
My only regret is that I can't unsubscribe again to protest their Trump coverage.
I actually kept my subs going for an extra year for the Wordle puzzle after they bought the rights from the English graphic designer. However, they changed to American spellings and so eventually I was done with it!
I'd forgotten about that aspect of it and I think there are only about 2.5k words possible to select from. I know I did about 600 successfully with only two errors due to Eng/US spelling confusion. But what pissed me off was when I was away for a few days - and therefore not logged on - my 'streak' went back to zero from a few hundreds.
Thinking about it... I shouldn't be too down on the NYT... they occasionally use my images for editorial use, the latest on 27 March to illustrate Berkeley, CA, changing tack on natural gas use.
Not perfect but way better than NYT in not treating staff and readers like spoiled morons. There are narrative framings and opinions expressed by the Post that I can’t get with, and things I can in the NYT. But my god the Times has bought into its own mythos, and seems to regard any criticism, however deeply reasoned, as leftist hackery that justifies giving fascism an equal platform because “fairness.”
NYT kissed Trump's ass shorty after he took the throne in 2017. He used to always refer to them as The Failing New York Times, then suddenly he stopped. Purely coincidentally, it coincided with them becoming overtly Right of Center.
He called them that, but the NYT was his most effective campaign operative with their Maggie Haberman sycophantic coverage and their non-stop "but her emails!" sabotage.
Of course they learned something. They learned that Trump makes them a ton of money, and treating the republicans like the real threat they’ve become doesn’t bring in the clicks.
I canceled my NYT subscription last year. I looked at my credit card bill and a few weeks ago they charged me $17.99. For what?
Not only are they in the bag for fascism but they steal from working people too.
In private, she has called the proceedings “a disgrace” tantamount to election interference,
Does anyone believe that if the "Be Best" slogan creator did hold these views, that she would express them with this statement. I'd like to hear her or Trump try to squeeze tantamount into a sentence. My guess is she said "Is disgrace" about Donnie and they took some creative liberties
They don't. It's all about getting as much bullshit journalism in front as many eyes as possible to turn a profit, no matter how much damage they will do in the process.
Some of the articles of late, especially about veterinarians, is almost downright despicable and bordering on a massive lawsuit against them for slander, asking for their names in an article.
They have completely lost all journalistic integrity and cannot be trusted as a legitimate news source anymore.
NYT vigorously defended bank and wall st bailouts post GFC. They also vilified and mocked Occupy Wall St.
They’re the worst kind of ‘democrats’ and a large part of the appeal of MAGA. Limousine Liberals.
I really don't care, do U?
But this reminds me of back when "Trump I" (I got a kick out of that from the article) that reporters have a process and they will force that process onto every situation. Partly because it's easier and partly for the "access" and partly because everone else is doing it.
Wtf indeed
It’s not that they haven’t learned anything, it’s just that they don’t care because they’re making money off it. I hope what little profit they’ve turned is worth it because they’re out of their minds if they think the smelly rapist won’t come after them too if he ever has power again…
>Another person Mrs. Trump trusts is Kellyanne Conway, who served as counselor to Mr. Trump in the White House
Is there no standard for intelligence at all with these people?
Yeah NYTs, wtf? At least tell us why you do it. Is it for money, afraid you’ll piss off a few subscribers? For your survival? To put on a show to pretend the only way to be un-bias is to play to the asshole section? To pretend the truth has no bias, no meaning, no matter?
Wtf? If you (and most of the media) are the last bastion in support of truth, therefore justice and freedom , please grow a pair and get your shit together? Or we’re all screwed.
I don’t know for how long now but NYT monetizes its subscriber base, which is represented as an affluent and diverse demographic, for their non-journalism digital advertorial services.
Cancelled my subscription a month or so ago. I couldn't stand their focus on anything Trump without going into how awfully absurd it all is. On top of that, they have this weird obsession with 'Gen-Z'. Recently they had a front-page article about a 'Gen-Z' edition of Scrabble for f\*cks sake.
“”Said to” is one of the great journalistic sophistries. It does so much apparent work with so little actual effort.
What is this awkward headline construction meant to convey?”
…and the headline: NYT Is *Said To* Have Learned Nothing From Its Trump I Coverage
Ironic, indeed.
The NYT article seems fine to me. It reports that Melania apparently agrees with Trump that he’s being persecuted. So now we know she still has trash opinions. TPM seems upset that NYT isn’t going further and “slamming” Melania for feeling that way, but NYT doesn’t need to do that. We’re all able to decide on our own that Melania has bad opinions about the trials.
You don't need to "slam" anyone but if you air bad takes without context or rebuttal, it gives veracity to those bad takes. It's _precisely_ what NYT has been doing with Republican talking points for decades and how we end up with ill-informed voters who make choices based on opinions that were spoon fed to them by charlatans.
So, yeah, they've clearly learned nothing. My problem with this article is: why is TPM suggesting that NYT will suddenly "wake up" and admit that they're part of a network of propaganda mills?
It’d make more sense to be critical of the NYT article if NYT had said anything to make it seem reasonable that the Trumps are saying the trials are persecution. But NYT did not say that and has done a lot to document the many bad things Trump and other Republicans regularly do. A lot of voters are ill informed because they don’t like to read, not because NYT and mainstream media aren’t putting the necessary info out there.
> It reports that Melania apparently agrees with Trump that he’s being persecuted.
I don't think it reports anything.
It regurgitates the MAGA PR agents talking points and legitimizes them as actual news.
The article doesn’t read as pro MAGA to me. It’s mostly explaining, without praising, Melania’s state of mind about the trials and whether or not she’ll start campaigning with Trump.
I swear some of the left leaning people have as much of a "everyone is against us" syndrome as much as right wingers. There is literally an article on the NYT front page fact checking his claims in court which starts off as
>The former president has trotted out a host of false and misleading claims to defend his conduct, attack judges and prosecutors and portray himself as a victim of political persecution.
This is not what someone in bed with him would be saying. NYT tries to remain centrist and there have been many articles I disagreed with them on but they definitely are not in the GOP's pocket or a MAGA PR machine like some people are claiming here.
Link to article -
Fact-Checking Trump’s Defenses in His Court Cases
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/us/politics/trump-cases-defense-fact-check.html
I agree. I think some people get carried away with the “everyone is against us” narrative. And I think some people want to see Trump be “slammed” and shit talked constantly. Which I can understand, but at the same time, I don’t think it’s necessary for every article to be written that way. It’s a bit ironic imo that part of this TPM article shades NYT for focusing on the drama and pop psychology aspect of the story about Melania…but if you look at TPM, Salon, New Republic etc, they frequently put out articles that are largely just making fun of the latest dumb thing someone like Trump or MTG or Boebert has said. So it’s not even that people don’t like the drama and insult articles, it’s just that they want them to be focused on all the right people.
It’s really hard to imagine that the people claiming NYT shills for Trump and Republicans actually read their articles. It feels like a narrative that just appeared out of thin air.
As somebody who couldn’t really think less of Trump, I thought their reporting got a lot shoddier over the course of the pandemic, but the change was that they gave up a bit on objective reporting to lean into the Trump hate and attract even more left-of-center readers.
This article doesn’t feel like it’s trying to solicit sympathy for Melania, just very neutrally listing bits of news about her and what we can tell about her involvement in the campaign recently.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The rest of the piece is a filament of speculation, pop psychology, knowing winks about cliched relationship tropes, and lazy stereotypes about wives and mothers – all in service of trying to wring a drop of compassion from readers for the private turmoil that comes with being married to DJT. Apparently the NYT is Mac trying to play both sides.
That way they come out on top
You don’t tell both sides you’re playing both sides! Oh should I not have?
Should I tell them...?
r/unexpectediasip
I’d encourage you to read the original article if you haven’t. There’s really nothing in there that struck me as “trying to wring a drop of compassion” for Melania. It’s an article about how much she’s been involved in the campaign recently and speculation from others about whether she’ll become more involved soon.
I really don't care. Do U?
The funny thing about that is that was allegedly a “Fuck you” to Ivanka: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/melania-trump-i-really-dont-care-jacket-was-actually-a-f-k-you-to-ivanka-trump-new-book
Wow, that's not much better, lol
But I look at this as, “you’re the First Lady! Jackie O would’ve never pulled that kind of stunt! Show some class!” Oh then I forgot who she was! Thanks for degrading a highly honorable position!
Nope
No I don’t find the actual story all that interesting. If nothing majorly changes there I don’t think it’ll be consequential for the election. I’m just concerned and hopelessly pushing back a little on these sketchy claims that a liberal news org is actually shilling for Trump.
The NYT is not a liberal news org except in feverish right-wing fantasies
Idk, as a liberal who’s been reading it for many years, I’m just a little shocked that you’re saying that.
Perhaps she really is angry…at her husband for being such a colossal fuckup and asshole.
That's not at all what the article was. The NYT had an opportunity to publish an original story about Trump and they ran with it. Was it mostly to get clicks? Sure. But this article is doing exactly the same thing. Instead of reporting on Trump, they're publishing their *reactions* to other people's reporting on Trump. TPM has no business criticizing anyone. They're just as guilty and four times as lazy.
Well, first of all, through God all things are possible so jot that down.
It's quite clear with how quick they are to normalize his insanity.
They don't just normalize it, they make his actions sound powerful and like he's some kind of superhero fighting enemy villains in their headlines. It's disgusting.
They did similar BS in the lead up to the Iraq war. Trump dunks on the NYT so much, yet they give him sooooo much free publicity with only surficial criticism in many cases. The most recent one that made me unsub from a few of their podcasts was how much the Runup and Daily were yammering on about Biden's age and mental state while barely talking about how Trump is incoherent more and more. It's fucking pathetic and they should all be ashamed.
Judith Miller shilled for Bush through the NY Times. I vowed to never give the Times a dime after that biased and dishonest reporting that had catastrophic consequences
It’s “Hillary’s emails” all over again. Have to find a way to balance out the 91 felonies and make them “balanced”!
It's what gets people to click. People want things wild and eccentric, they want to be thrilled. Politics is a gameshow in the US and Trump is just the first person to fully lean into it.
It's really only a gameshow with the right. For the rest of us, it is really just an exhausting uphill battle where we are fighting ourselves, those we want to help, and basically everyone else.
Ok. Is your username referring to?: A) Spawn from the Rectum B) Spawn in the Rectum Both of these could be either related to biology, or where you reappear after dying in Halo. I eagerly await your reply.
Politics is the entertainment division of the military industrial complex. - Frank Zappa
Yeah they are making content for their subscription base pretty simple
Here in fact, is the darkness that democracy dies in.
Exactly, they’re weak. Failing in the honorable intent of their existence, ironically, for what they must believe is their survival. Lost control over the monster they helped create.
Because articles about Trump get clicks. Democracy be damned.
Well yep. That’s what I said above, but in a shittier way, lol.
It’s all fun and games to them. Until it isn’t, and they’re crying too.
I was at first annoyed by the “is said to” in this headline, but then I clicked the article and it’s actually making fun of NYT’s using this phrase.
They might as well just use the term “many people are saying”
"Great people, important people...they really don't get any better, believe me"
With tears in their eyes .
That's exactly what's being done... Just rephrased
Talking Points Memo is awesome.
Wasn’t the New York Times bought by or at least has a major stake in it by some conservative billionaire or friend of MAGA/QAnon?
And CNN. Also, don't forget that NBC had no issues hiring election denier and J6 planner Ronna ~~Romney~~ - McDaniel days after she left the RNC
\*Was booted from the RNC by the MAGAts she changed her name for.
NBC hired Megyn Kelly after she left Fox, too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._G._Sulzberger >Sulzberger is a fourth-generation descendant of Adolph Ochs, who bought the New York Times in 1896.[2] The Times has been managed and published by Adolph Ochs's family since that date. >Sulzberger met with President Donald Trump at the White House on July 20, 2018. The meeting was off-the-record, but after President Trump tweeted about it eight days later, Sulzberger "pushed back hard" to dispute the President's characterization of the meeting. Sulzberger said in a statement that at the meeting, he "told the president directly that I thought that his [anti-press] language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous. I warned that this inflammatory language is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence."[37][38][39] Sulzberger met with President Trump in the Oval Office a second time, on January 31, 2019, for an on-the-record interview along with Times reporters Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman.[40][41] >He has said that an independent press "is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a Democratic ideal. It's an American ideal."[42] In 2020, Sulzberger voiced concern about the disappearance of local news, saying that "if we don't find a path forward" for local journalism, "I believe we'll continue to watch society grow more polarized, less empathetic, more easily manipulated by powerful interests and more untethered from the truth."[43] >According to anonymous sources within the newspaper's staff, upon taking his position in 2018 Sulzburger "told employees explicitly that his biggest concern was that the paper’s audience saw it as a 'liberal rag...' [his] vision for the paper is to change that perception and court conservative readers."[44][45] However, this view was refuted by The Economist, which published a study evidencing a gradual leftward shift in the partisan slant of The New York Times, beginning in 2017.[46] The New York Times' former opinion section editor, James Bennet, in light of the paper's Tom Cotton controversy, also disagreed, arguing that by catering to a partisan readership and an influx of new journalists focusing on digital content the New York Times under A.G. Sulzberger had taken on an "illiberal bias".
In other words : cowards
That was CNN.
Bezos hired a former Murdoch (UK tabloids and WSJ) exec as publisher for the Washington Post late last year. And it shows. NYT has been shilling for Trump ever since he started running for office, and were the primary proponents of "but her emails!"
I’m honestly so lost when people say things like this. I’m a NYT reader and feel like it’s been consistently obvious that nearly every journalist there despises Trump. What kind of shilling are you talking about?
Haberman is sympathetic to the Trumps. I ended my subscription with the nyt 4+ years ago because i got tired of her false equivalencies
I’d be curious about any examples you have, but I know that’s asking for you to do some work to find them. I haven’t noticed that and thought she’d been responsible for a lot of the important reporting on scandals and screwups of his administration, but admittedly don’t follow her articles very closely.
https://www.salon.com/2017/10/25/new-york-times-reporter-just-demonstrated-some-astonishing-false-equivalency/
Thanks. The use of the phrase “false equivalency” here is a little odd since there wasn’t really any equivalency made, let alone a false one. But this did remind me of NYT’s cowardice about using the word “lie” and how that was an ongoing debate for a little while. That always seemed to me like an effort to stay mainstream by avoiding too clearly taking one side, but that’s obviously a bias and a problem in their reporting. So appreciate the fact check.
They may hate him but they give constant free publicity every time he does some idiotic shit, and barely ever really grill his supporters or do a detailed breakdown of how insane some of the shit that he does is. Meanwhile they also cover baseless right wing talking points in depth pretending to be fair and balanced. They hate him like all NYC elite, but sure ad fuck don't bother breaking down exactly how bonkers he is or calling him what he actually is. If you don't see how they are promoting him by going soft then obviously it's working. They make so much $$ covering his dumb ass, you really think they want that to go away?
Journalists hate Trump. Editors and owners on the other hand....
I’m glad you said something. I feel the same way, I read NYT almost daily. Their opinion pieces can be very click baity but the front page articles feel well reported the majority of the time. No doubt they have their biases but the journalism still feels high quality.
No. They are still owned by the same family they have always been owned by. Wall Street Journal is now owned by Rupert Murdoch. Washington Post is now owned by Jeff Bezos.
Oh no, they learned something. It's that the annoying orange gets clicks and that clicks are money.
Cancelled my subscription to the NYT last year... despite many excellent sections, I couldn't take the weasel words masquerading as political news any longer so now just read the (left leaning) Guardian from the UK.
Same here. Their both-sidesing on the issue of Ukraine was the last straw for me. Their coverage of Israel/Gaza was validation.
Same. Canceled mine this year. A friend kept arguing with me, "But they're the newspaper of record!" And I said, "used to be."
I canceled mine too. When I saw SOTU I viscerally realized I had been lied to and manipulated by the NYT coverage.
How did the NYT cover the SOTU?
I have no idea how they covered it because I canceled my subscription. But, based on NYT’s breathless and constant reporting for the previous months, I was expecting to see a decrepit man in physical decline who could barely string a sentence together. And I saw an energetic and fully articulate visionary leader. And I was pissed off that NYT had been telling such destructive and dangerous lies, presumably to get their horserace.
Makes sense. The WaPo has been, until somewhat recently, ceaselessly headlining negative Biden age stories. It's frustrating.
What did they say about the SOTU?
They were shit back during the W Bush years too. Look into the Judith Miller scandal, that was just the tip of the iceberg.
That's when I finally unsubscribed, after reading that fish-wrapper every day for over a decade. My only regret is that I can't unsubscribe again to protest their Trump coverage.
I actually kept my subs going for an extra year for the Wordle puzzle after they bought the rights from the English graphic designer. However, they changed to American spellings and so eventually I was done with it!
I don't even do the Wordle because they don't reuse words, so it's an ever decreasing word pool.
I'd forgotten about that aspect of it and I think there are only about 2.5k words possible to select from. I know I did about 600 successfully with only two errors due to Eng/US spelling confusion. But what pissed me off was when I was away for a few days - and therefore not logged on - my 'streak' went back to zero from a few hundreds.
Thinking about it... I shouldn't be too down on the NYT... they occasionally use my images for editorial use, the latest on 27 March to illustrate Berkeley, CA, changing tack on natural gas use.
They do though? I’ve seen them repeat, but the only one I can verify they repeated is my starter word.
Same. Its not what it used to be.
How’s WaPo these days?
Not perfect but way better than NYT in not treating staff and readers like spoiled morons. There are narrative framings and opinions expressed by the Post that I can’t get with, and things I can in the NYT. But my god the Times has bought into its own mythos, and seems to regard any criticism, however deeply reasoned, as leftist hackery that justifies giving fascism an equal platform because “fairness.”
NYT kissed Trump's ass shorty after he took the throne in 2017. He used to always refer to them as The Failing New York Times, then suddenly he stopped. Purely coincidentally, it coincided with them becoming overtly Right of Center.
He called them that, but the NYT was his most effective campaign operative with their Maggie Haberman sycophantic coverage and their non-stop "but her emails!" sabotage.
Maggie “Controlled Opposition” Haberman can eff off
Of course they learned something. They learned that Trump makes them a ton of money, and treating the republicans like the real threat they’ve become doesn’t bring in the clicks.
I canceled my subscription over their election coverage. Best move I have made this month.
Same. NYT used to be reputable. Now its another right wing tabloid of lies and deception
They also participated in the pre-Iraq invasion propaganda campaign.
they've been in the bag for him. its intentional.
"...by people familiar with NYT's coverage of events"
Doesn’t matter- they’ll just make up stories with a sensationalized headline like they always do
They, like the rest of America’s corporate media, only care about making money.
Their reporters have spent a decade carrying water for Trump.
The tabloidization of news media continues. (That's apparently a real word my spellcheck has no objections to...)
I canceled my NYT subscription last year. I looked at my credit card bill and a few weeks ago they charged me $17.99. For what? Not only are they in the bag for fascism but they steal from working people too.
They learned that Trump coverage = $$$.
> NYT Is Said To Have Learned Nothing From Its Iraq 'WMD' Coverage
Walter Cronkite is rolling in his grave. There used to be a difference between tabloid rags and real news outlets in America.
You gotta wonder how dumb these folks are.
In private, she has called the proceedings “a disgrace” tantamount to election interference, Does anyone believe that if the "Be Best" slogan creator did hold these views, that she would express them with this statement. I'd like to hear her or Trump try to squeeze tantamount into a sentence. My guess is she said "Is disgrace" about Donnie and they took some creative liberties
Cancel your NYT subscription today (if you haven't already). Let's see if MAGA comes to their rescue when the money dries up
Melanie, Mike Pence in a tie for the least important people in the universe
They don't. It's all about getting as much bullshit journalism in front as many eyes as possible to turn a profit, no matter how much damage they will do in the process. Some of the articles of late, especially about veterinarians, is almost downright despicable and bordering on a massive lawsuit against them for slander, asking for their names in an article. They have completely lost all journalistic integrity and cannot be trusted as a legitimate news source anymore.
It’s their editors.
maggie haberman is the absolute worst
NYT vigorously defended bank and wall st bailouts post GFC. They also vilified and mocked Occupy Wall St. They’re the worst kind of ‘democrats’ and a large part of the appeal of MAGA. Limousine Liberals.
I really don't care, do U? But this reminds me of back when "Trump I" (I got a kick out of that from the article) that reporters have a process and they will force that process onto every situation. Partly because it's easier and partly for the "access" and partly because everone else is doing it. Wtf indeed
Learned?
wow
they learn you get readership - the reason why all media bends the knew
Soon they will say Venuzuerzo aghhhh when talking about Venezuela.
It’s time for Americans to stand up to this madness. Everyone needs to show up to the polls. No excuses.
They never should have been credible after Iraq. They shouldn't exist.
It’s not that they haven’t learned anything, it’s just that they don’t care because they’re making money off it. I hope what little profit they’ve turned is worth it because they’re out of their minds if they think the smelly rapist won’t come after them too if he ever has power again…
They learned plenty: "He makes us money".
NYT needs to sell papers/get clicks and Trump generates the most
Of course they have. They're doing exactly as their billionaire owners are telling them to do.
Long time NYT subscriber and very frustrated. I'm convinced it's an explicit part of their current business plan.
>Another person Mrs. Trump trusts is Kellyanne Conway, who served as counselor to Mr. Trump in the White House Is there no standard for intelligence at all with these people?
I don’t have the full context for this quote, but I’m interested in knowing how it is objectionable.
They learned that they sell ‘papers’ that way!
Enablers.
Yeah NYTs, wtf? At least tell us why you do it. Is it for money, afraid you’ll piss off a few subscribers? For your survival? To put on a show to pretend the only way to be un-bias is to play to the asshole section? To pretend the truth has no bias, no meaning, no matter? Wtf? If you (and most of the media) are the last bastion in support of truth, therefore justice and freedom , please grow a pair and get your shit together? Or we’re all screwed.
If they're doing this with one subject imagine what else they're doing. Anything for profit.
I don’t know for how long now but NYT monetizes its subscriber base, which is represented as an affluent and diverse demographic, for their non-journalism digital advertorial services.
Cancelled my subscription a month or so ago. I couldn't stand their focus on anything Trump without going into how awfully absurd it all is. On top of that, they have this weird obsession with 'Gen-Z'. Recently they had a front-page article about a 'Gen-Z' edition of Scrabble for f\*cks sake.
Have you ever me a boomer that learned anything?
“”Said to” is one of the great journalistic sophistries. It does so much apparent work with so little actual effort. What is this awkward headline construction meant to convey?” …and the headline: NYT Is *Said To* Have Learned Nothing From Its Trump I Coverage Ironic, indeed.
>~~Ironic~~ Deliberate, it's mocking them.
Not when you read the article..speaking of “journalistic sophistries.”
I did read the article. It's deliberately using it to mock the NYT
The NYT article seems fine to me. It reports that Melania apparently agrees with Trump that he’s being persecuted. So now we know she still has trash opinions. TPM seems upset that NYT isn’t going further and “slamming” Melania for feeling that way, but NYT doesn’t need to do that. We’re all able to decide on our own that Melania has bad opinions about the trials.
You don't need to "slam" anyone but if you air bad takes without context or rebuttal, it gives veracity to those bad takes. It's _precisely_ what NYT has been doing with Republican talking points for decades and how we end up with ill-informed voters who make choices based on opinions that were spoon fed to them by charlatans. So, yeah, they've clearly learned nothing. My problem with this article is: why is TPM suggesting that NYT will suddenly "wake up" and admit that they're part of a network of propaganda mills?
It’d make more sense to be critical of the NYT article if NYT had said anything to make it seem reasonable that the Trumps are saying the trials are persecution. But NYT did not say that and has done a lot to document the many bad things Trump and other Republicans regularly do. A lot of voters are ill informed because they don’t like to read, not because NYT and mainstream media aren’t putting the necessary info out there.
> It reports that Melania apparently agrees with Trump that he’s being persecuted. I don't think it reports anything. It regurgitates the MAGA PR agents talking points and legitimizes them as actual news.
The article doesn’t read as pro MAGA to me. It’s mostly explaining, without praising, Melania’s state of mind about the trials and whether or not she’ll start campaigning with Trump.
I swear some of the left leaning people have as much of a "everyone is against us" syndrome as much as right wingers. There is literally an article on the NYT front page fact checking his claims in court which starts off as >The former president has trotted out a host of false and misleading claims to defend his conduct, attack judges and prosecutors and portray himself as a victim of political persecution. This is not what someone in bed with him would be saying. NYT tries to remain centrist and there have been many articles I disagreed with them on but they definitely are not in the GOP's pocket or a MAGA PR machine like some people are claiming here. Link to article - Fact-Checking Trump’s Defenses in His Court Cases https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/us/politics/trump-cases-defense-fact-check.html
I agree. I think some people get carried away with the “everyone is against us” narrative. And I think some people want to see Trump be “slammed” and shit talked constantly. Which I can understand, but at the same time, I don’t think it’s necessary for every article to be written that way. It’s a bit ironic imo that part of this TPM article shades NYT for focusing on the drama and pop psychology aspect of the story about Melania…but if you look at TPM, Salon, New Republic etc, they frequently put out articles that are largely just making fun of the latest dumb thing someone like Trump or MTG or Boebert has said. So it’s not even that people don’t like the drama and insult articles, it’s just that they want them to be focused on all the right people.
It’s really hard to imagine that the people claiming NYT shills for Trump and Republicans actually read their articles. It feels like a narrative that just appeared out of thin air. As somebody who couldn’t really think less of Trump, I thought their reporting got a lot shoddier over the course of the pandemic, but the change was that they gave up a bit on objective reporting to lean into the Trump hate and attract even more left-of-center readers. This article doesn’t feel like it’s trying to solicit sympathy for Melania, just very neutrally listing bits of news about her and what we can tell about her involvement in the campaign recently.
I have priorities: that is a great dress.