Just because you don't like what is being reported doesn't mean it is biased. And there needs to be a bright line between reportage and opinion. (Wife of a 40-year journalist here who had that repeated over and over again.)
Just because you don't like what is being reported doesn't mean it is biased. And there needs to be a bright line between reportage and opinion. (Wife of a 40-year journalist here who had that repeated over and over again.)
It's not just whether Maggie Haberman is a fine journalist (she is). Instead we need to pay attention to decisions about what and whom is covered. Those choices have frequently reflected bias. When asked about why the press does not talk more about Trump's cognition problems, reporters have said, "It's old news." Here's a great example - When the entire ridiculous Trump Mar a Lago excuse for a press conference was covered live while ignoring the speech Kamala Harris gave to the members of the UAW. And I am still furious about the NYT and WAPO piling on President Trump after the debate. People failed to notice the the initial barrage came from the NYT Editorial Board - NOT the newsroom. That means opinions, not facts. I have written to NYT and WAPO that I'm disgusted with some of their choices. They need to clean up their act. As my son once said to my grandson about bringing their dog in from the cold, "Willow doesn't always make good choices."
First of all, I am going to assume you MEANT "President Biden" being "piled on" after the debate and that you mistyped, no problem. If I am wrong and you really DID mean President Trump (?!!?) please let me know.
The piling on from the editorial board is perfectly acceptable. Editorial staff (and by that we mean the "editors" of the paper, not the newsroom editors who are journalists) have every right to express their opinions and if you don't know the editorial staff position of the papers you read, you need to research that so you take and read the "right" (for you) papers.
You are totally entitled to be disgusted with their opinions, that's why those are editorials. But if you can find evidence in the New York TImes of the REPORTING staff putting out opinions, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I read the paper from front to back every day (except for all of the sports which bores me) and I can honestly say that the number of times I have seen actual editorial opinions in the news section of the New York Times I can count on two hands (maybe only one) in more than 50 years. They just do NOT let that kind of stuff slip through and if they do, people get fired. It is, without question, one of the most stringently monitored news sources out there.
We used to be able to get the same from the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the LA Times, sadly that is less and less true. The latter three are now in the hands of people who are NOT diligent journalistic managing editors (where is Ben Bradlee when we need him?!) and they have made their papers more like MSNBC.
And please don't get me wrong, I love to watch MSNBC, certainly far more than Fox Snooze (that tells you how I feel about them LOL), but when I watch MSNBC, I ***know*** that I am getting opinions, from start to finish, every show, every day. There is nothing on MSNBC that really could pass for serious journalism. Yes, they DO provide factual stuff within their opinions, but the OPINIONS are what matter, not the facts and so often times, they screw it up, particularly when Joy Reid and Lawrence O'Donnell are the talking heads. I have more confidence in Rachel Maddow, Nicole Wallace, Alex Wagner and Chris Hayes, as all of those seem to understand the need for at least some level of journalistic integrity.
Lawrence, to me, is now a waste of time. I can't stand his pregnant pauses and I think he still wishes he were the producer of The West Wing. That's great for a TV producer, but horrible for a journalist. And the less I say about Joy, the better. There have been a few moments where I thought, wow, she CAN provide some journalistic integrity, but those are rare moments. Most of the time, she is more interested in being like Morning Joe and Lawrence, than actual reporting facts. Sigh...
(Call me racist, I've heard it before, I'm not just because I am willing to criticize an overly officious black commentator. There are PLENTY of excellent black journalists around, just not on MSNBC.)
Just because you don't like what is being reported doesn't mean it is biased. And there needs to be a bright line between reportage and opinion. (Wife of a 40-year journalist here who had that repeated over and over again.)
It's not just whether Maggie Haberman is a fine journalist (she is). Instead we need to pay attention to decisions about what and whom is covered. Those choices have frequently reflected bias. When asked about why the press does not talk more about Trump's cognition problems, reporters have said, "It's old news." Here's a great example - When the entire ridiculous Trump Mar a Lago excuse for a press conference was covered live while ignoring the speech Kamala Harris gave to the members of the UAW. And I am still furious about the NYT and WAPO piling on President Trump after the debate. People failed to notice the the initial barrage came from the NYT Editorial Board - NOT the newsroom. That means opinions, not facts. I have written to NYT and WAPO that I'm disgusted with some of their choices. They need to clean up their act. As my son once said to my grandson about bringing their dog in from the cold, "Willow doesn't always make good choices."
Boy did I screw that up! I meant to say piling on President Biden! Sorry!
LOL, no problem, I was SURE that's what you meant! :-) I make typos all the time these days!
First of all, I am going to assume you MEANT "President Biden" being "piled on" after the debate and that you mistyped, no problem. If I am wrong and you really DID mean President Trump (?!!?) please let me know.
The piling on from the editorial board is perfectly acceptable. Editorial staff (and by that we mean the "editors" of the paper, not the newsroom editors who are journalists) have every right to express their opinions and if you don't know the editorial staff position of the papers you read, you need to research that so you take and read the "right" (for you) papers.
You are totally entitled to be disgusted with their opinions, that's why those are editorials. But if you can find evidence in the New York TImes of the REPORTING staff putting out opinions, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. I read the paper from front to back every day (except for all of the sports which bores me) and I can honestly say that the number of times I have seen actual editorial opinions in the news section of the New York Times I can count on two hands (maybe only one) in more than 50 years. They just do NOT let that kind of stuff slip through and if they do, people get fired. It is, without question, one of the most stringently monitored news sources out there.
We used to be able to get the same from the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the LA Times, sadly that is less and less true. The latter three are now in the hands of people who are NOT diligent journalistic managing editors (where is Ben Bradlee when we need him?!) and they have made their papers more like MSNBC.
And please don't get me wrong, I love to watch MSNBC, certainly far more than Fox Snooze (that tells you how I feel about them LOL), but when I watch MSNBC, I ***know*** that I am getting opinions, from start to finish, every show, every day. There is nothing on MSNBC that really could pass for serious journalism. Yes, they DO provide factual stuff within their opinions, but the OPINIONS are what matter, not the facts and so often times, they screw it up, particularly when Joy Reid and Lawrence O'Donnell are the talking heads. I have more confidence in Rachel Maddow, Nicole Wallace, Alex Wagner and Chris Hayes, as all of those seem to understand the need for at least some level of journalistic integrity.
Lawrence, to me, is now a waste of time. I can't stand his pregnant pauses and I think he still wishes he were the producer of The West Wing. That's great for a TV producer, but horrible for a journalist. And the less I say about Joy, the better. There have been a few moments where I thought, wow, she CAN provide some journalistic integrity, but those are rare moments. Most of the time, she is more interested in being like Morning Joe and Lawrence, than actual reporting facts. Sigh...
(Call me racist, I've heard it before, I'm not just because I am willing to criticize an overly officious black commentator. There are PLENTY of excellent black journalists around, just not on MSNBC.)