Home / General / An editorial decision by the NYT

An editorial decision by the NYT


NYT 2017-01-24

I would call the tone of the article non-conciliatory.

Nice, but I still prefer a press that doesn’t wait until the demagogue is in power to state that he is an insecure liar. Time will tell if this is just a one-off or the new standard for reporting on the tangerine nightmare.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • CP

    About fucking time. Now let’s see if they stick to this tone.

    As one of the few right wingers I still follow on Facebook rightly pointed out the other day, the problem with this is that as low as Trump’s popularity ratings are, the MSM’s are as low or even lower. They’d be in a stronger position if they hadn’t spent the last couple decades shitting and pissing on so much of the liberal side of the aisle while chasing the one demographic they could never get.

    • so-in-so

      That’s the side that owns the presses, and has most of the money, so…

      • humanoid.panda

        That’s the side that owns the presses, and has most of the money, so…

        I hear this line a lot, but I am skeptical of it. I doubt that anyone in the ownership group of the Times, for instance, is a republican.
        As for who has the money: its a complicated question, but most consumers of elite media- tend to have post-graduate education, and people with post-graduate education tend to be Democrats. Put simple: what percent of people who pledge money to NPR voted Trump? 10%? 20%? So the reason why NPR is balanced-to-the-point-of-lobotomy is not about the money.

        • NPR depends on corporate sponsorship and federal funding (which Ronald T. Dump now says he’s going to eliminate). The totebaggers who give them $60 are Marin county types who are socially liberal but don’t like paying taxes on their six figure incomes.

          • humanoid.panda

            YEah, and none of them votes Republican. Which is my my point: I understand why the Times/NPR coverage of economics is slanted to the “reasonable center” (TM). But there is no reson why their political coverage to slant thus. (And FWIW, my local NPR sponsors tend to be foundations and universities- not exactly GOP bastions).

            • DAS

              Few of the elite, NY Times reading, NPR listening people I know actually vote Republican, but they are Sensible Sentrists, committed to “balance”, etc. For them, the NY Times and NPR are the left edge of acceptable discourse. If NPR, for example, were to move any further left, it would no longer be “acceptable” (and hence they’d stop donating).

              And I suspect many of the reporters for the NY Times and NPR are proud liberals … in their own minds: anyone to the left of them, therefore, must be a raving communist or something. And because they think of themselves as left-leaning, they go out of their way to give deference to the right because they don’t want to be seen as biased.

              • humanoid.panda

                Yeah, what DAS said. And its a totally different dynamic then “journalists write what their republican puppet-masters tell them.”

                • DAS

                  A different dynamic, but they are not incompatible dynamics, to be sure. “Journalists like to think of themselves as being both liberal and objective and hence will go out of their way to give deference to the right, lest they seem biased and will also go out of their way to denigrate those they see as too far to the left”, for example, can certainly occur along with “Republicans, both within the media ownership class and in politics, know how to manipulate journalists and work the refs”.

                • CP

                  I’d agree with this – the NPR/CNN/etc demographic is liberal, after a fashion, in a Sorkinesque fair-and-balanced way that skews center, prides itself on its moderation, responds well to punching left, and has been in denial about the lunatics’ takeover of the GOP for years. (Using my own relatives as an example, they’re the kind of people who thought if it came down to a race between those horrible extremists Trump and Sanders, they hoped that nice reasonable moderate Mr. Bloomberg ran).

                  My point, though, is… there’s really not that many of these people. And there are a lot of other left-of-center demographics that’re going untapped. But the mainstream media never saw much interest in pursuing any of them. And they’ve never made a connection between that and the fact that they’re so near-universally despised.

        • NPR views Trump (and even more so, this Congress) as an existential threat. Newt tried to defund it, and that caused it to pretty much completely restructure its funding model, but it is still pretty vulnerable, and you can hear it in their voices.

          • so-in-so

            Must be why they were so firm that the emails were nothing – oh, wait…

          • howard

            I gave up on NPR news during the run-up to the bush 43 Iraq war and consistently tell my local stations that I would give more if they stopped carrying the news.

        • One thing to keep in mind is that Bothsides articles are easy to write. A brand new reporter who is replacing several veterans who have just been laid off can whip them out in his sleep.

  • ΧΤΠΔ

    Anybody of the opinion that Liz Spayd’s basically served as a bullet sponge for Dean Baquet? (Not taking away the fact that her BOFF SIDES bromides were the second-worst such series of the election cycle).

    • Downpuppy


      I’d also say that her last column was a pretty clear statement that she’d taken the last shot for him.

  • Rob in CT

    Way too late. But better late than never I guess.

    • humanoid.panda

      I presume the media is much more comfortable doing actual reporting when there is only one story to tell than during an election, where they have to balance two candidates.

      • BigHank53

        Horseraces sell, because they’re fun to follow. Had election coverage treated the candidates’ flaws and scandals with appropriate scale…well, we’d have had a considerably more boring year, and we’d be looking forward to a considerably less interesting future. In the Chinese curse sense of “interesting”.

        We shall see if the media has learned anything about horseraces.

        • StellaB

          And they’re getting a lot more eyeballs/ear drums now with lurid meltdown stories than they would with tedious stories about subject matter experts receiving predictable cabinet appointments.

  • politicalfootball

    This isn’t the first time. It’s been a long education for the NYT, but they began that education before the election.

    In fact, the need was so obvious that even the execrable
    Liz Spayd admitted that it had to be done.

    • McAllen

      The media as a whole was willing to call Trump a liar during September and early October last year, when his campaign was at its lowest. That stopped as soon as they’s got distracted by shiny Clinton scandals, of course.

      • humanoid.panda

        Yeah. In general, my big complaint is not that the media didn’t cover Trump negatively (they did, by and large). It’s that they created the impression that HRC and him were on the same general level of awfulness.

        • Rob in CT

          Right. People understood that Trump was terrible. They just also got the impression that Clinton was equally terrible, which is abject nonsense.

        • so-in-so

          Also, they hardly covered him at all in the last two weeks. So the last news many voters probably saw before voting was negative nonsense on Clinton.

        • CP

          They covered him negatively, but they didn’t give him or any of his scandals the kind of relentless drumbeat attention that they did Hillary’s emails, despite the fact that there were so many more, any one of them with more meat to it. They covered him negatively, but in a “ha ha, isn’t this guy silly, now let’s get back to Hillary’s emails” kind of way.

  • econoclast

    The Republicans, since Reagan, have been careful to manage the media. I remember journalists complaining as far back as Reagan that the White House would generate a “news story of the day”, and the editors would complain if the Post covered the story of the day and their own paper missed it because they were researching a non-garbage story. Trump clearly has abandoned this strategy.

    I think that in this case the interests of the news and anti-Trump are aligned. The people who read newspapers are more likely to be socially liberal, and are the people most hurt by destroying the current international trade regime. There’s literally nothing good about Trump for the average New York Times reader, other than maybe tax cuts.

    • humanoid.panda

      And if one believes that Republicans are going to cut deductions, which is where the upper-middle classes make bank, not even taxes.

  • Marlowe

    This is good, but like Angel, the vampire cursed with a human soul, the NYT has much to make amends for. And not just in regard to coverage of this election. Their unfair campaign against Clinton (and that’s what it amounts to whether intended or not) goes back twenty-five years, was extremely influential in setting the tone of mainstream press coverage and creating the “Clinton Rules,”, and was certainly a huge factor in creating Clinton’s unpopular public image.

    • VCarlson

      The NYT has a nasty habit of sitting on stories that would hurt the GOP candidate until after the election. I still haven’t forgiven them for the Bush (II) surveillance story.

  • ice9

    Enlightened…maybe…but the story is absent from my ‘National Edition’ in Minnesota. I just shared the difference with my high school journalism class. I have a photo of the front page but don’t know how to post it here. The Schwartz/Rappeport story on jobs is there, but there is no story on the lie, and definitely no headline using (it’s about time) the word ‘lie.’


    • humanoid.panda

      Interesting, because the Times website has the “lie” headline in a prominent spot.

    • WMB

      That almost certainly is explained by the fact that the story broke last evening, after the national edition had gone to press.

    • Taters

      I’m curious to see it. You could paste a link to photobucket or some such…

    • That’s odd. If you want, send the picture to: [email protected].

      I’d be interested to know what the NYC version looks like.

  • AB

    Indeed, missing in the edition “Printed in Chicago.”

    • ice9

      Midwesterners are sensitive about diction. Just sayin’.


      • Hogan

        It’s not in the Philadelphia edition either, and we don’t know diction from dick pics.

  • “Repeats a lie” is not the same as “lying.” They thereby evade the question of intentional falsehood.

    • so-in-so

      That depends on the origin of the lie.

      If you lie to me, and I repeat it to someone else, I might not be fairly called a liar (just misinformed).

      If I originate the lie, and repeat it, I’m just a continuous liar.

  • Crusty

    I’m in a pessimistic mood today and I’m concerned that any accurate reporting on Trump, e.g., Trump is a liar, will be seen by his supporters as conclusive evidence that the fix is in and that the media is bent on oppressing them and their ilk, you know- the oppressed, white males of this world.

    • Rob in CT

      Of course it will. Their brand is grievance. ~46% of the electorate will see things that way. At least at first. Unless there are glaring obvious disasters they’ll stick with it too.

      But that leaves 54% of the electorate, and we can get a higher share of that group (3rd party vote share dropped between 2000 and 2004 for some mysterious reason, and stayed low in 2008), and of course the non-voters. The non-voters are very hard to motivate, but GOP rule should help with that a bit, plus we won’t be nominating History’s Greatest Monster in 2020 (though 2018 has to be the focus for now).

    • CP

      That’s the entire point of fifty plus years of “liberal media” slurs. Any story that shows a conservative in a bad light, a lot of people, especially low-infos of all stripes, don’t believe, because “oh, they’re so liberal, of course they’d say that.” Any story that shows a liberal in a bad light, those same people take much more seriously, because “even the liberal New York Times says so! It must be bad!”

      The MSM has tried to counteract this by shifting further and further right in a pointless quest for “balance,” but they can’t get any traction because the howler monkeys at Fox News have never stopped the deafening chants of “liberal bias!” and “liberal media!” … and by refusing to contradict them, the MSM basically cedes the point and guarantees that that’s the only narrative out there, thus digging themselves even further in the hole.

      Meanwhile, they lose entire demographics on the other side of the aisle who get the message loud and clear that the MSM couldn’t possibly give a shit what they think, which leaves them in an even weaker position than if they simply stopped digging, accepted that they’re going to be tainted with the “liberal media” smear no matter what they do, and tried to actually earn it instead of running from it.

  • Philip

    Meanwhile in the August Pages of the New York Times, Bobo is very concerned about women’s marches.

  • CNN’s Jack Tapper has gotten unexpectedly blunt:


    “Donald Trump is claiming – and the White House is reaffirming- the fiction that millions of illegal votes were cast in the 2016 election”

    “empirically…a stunning allegation for which the White House is providing no evidence. And there is a reason they are providing no evidence. There is no evidence. It is not true.

    “It was interesting what Mr. Spicer did not say…he did not say that he shared (Trump’s) belief, even after he was asked. Now why would that be? Possibly because there is zero evidence”

It is main inner container footer text