Thank you, Heather. I am so so tired of The New York Times continuing to bash President Biden and now VP Harris. Writing to the paper voicing my dismay at their bias has done nothing to stop it.
Thank you, Heather. I am so so tired of The New York Times continuing to bash President Biden and now VP Harris. Writing to the paper voicing my dismay at their bias has done nothing to stop it.
I cancelled years ago... after reading the paper for decades. I recall the foul looks I once got when I carried around a copy in the Deep South. It might as well have been Pravda.
Yet the strange thing is that it's a curate's egg -- "good in parts" -- so the stink from journalistic incompetence by design wafts its way round the world, while some excellent ed-op and other material still gets published.
Selling mixed prejudices, because prejudices sell. Tarting up the old lady sells... News, apparently, doesn't... I find that hard to believe.
Readers aren't all junkies. Once upon a time, journalists weren't all pushers, weren't all hacks...
Undermining trust, rotting the bonds of community, cannot possibly work for long. Fast bucks can make for lasting failure. That of a great newspaper, that of a once great and immensely promising country.
First, consider that you are emulating the thinking of Trump: "a great newspaper, that of a once great and immensely promising country." And, then consider, that the NYT that has enhanced our appreciation of the world for many decades, requires our vigilance and confronting feedback for us to be responsible and effective. This issue (responsibility and vigilance) prevails as citizens of the world we live in, and as parents, friends, students.
Obviously, consider it lazy to simply abandon what we find fault with.
P.S. I continue to benefit greatly from attending to Tom Friedman's wisdom.
Interesting take on it. My take is that the New York Times' irresponsible reporting and editing helped get Trump elected in 2016. I dropped my subscription shortly thereafter. They don't seem to have learned anything since. It is not a democratic institution that can be influenced by our "feedback."
Susanna, I don't think it was just NYT. I noticed most of the media I had previously depended on prior to 2015, going nuts for the jerk who had no experience, no empathy, no civility, little intelligence beyond that of the con artist. He was the "new thing" and our decent media in large numbers jumped on board the Trump train all the way to Trumplandia. We are still recovering from the trip and that fool wants in again and has a whole lot of media support. Any criticism of Trump seems muted and tentative while criticism of Biden who has actually done a whole lot for this nation is loud, rude, and undeserved. How do we hold the media accountable. I pointed out a really bad pro-Trump but inaccurate item on NPR recently and only got back a standard "thank you for your comment; we'll get back to you on it." They never will. I did actually hear one criticism of Trump today on NPR, tentative, honest, and there! Shock!
Boy what rubes are you folks. "Whole lot of media support"? REALLY? Except for Fox (which of course is highly influential), SHOW me the "support" Trump has. The Times CALLED FOR HIM TO STEP ASIDE (which for me is a disaster, because we - the Democrats - will win SO MUCH MORE EASILY against Trump precisely because he is a disaster than we would against Nikki Halley or heaven forbid even Vance.). Again, as with the slanted media I have requessted, do not give my your opinions, those are worth about as much as MY opinions, GIVE ME FACTUAL REFERENCES to articles which are slanted. And by slanted I don't mean negative. It is the responsibility of the press to report the news whether good, bad or neutral. The negative reporting surrounding Biden should have been expected, he has shown repeatedly over many months a declining ability to focus and speak clearly. They should have been exposing that all along. And if anything, it might (if you take a few seconds to think) be the best thing that the press ever could have done (to get Biden to step aside) because he would have LOST THE ELECTION TO TRUMP ALMOST WITHOUT QUESTION and now with Harris firmly in the role of nominee, we actually have the chance to have the second black President and the first woman. HUGELY GOOD for the country. Trump is not. So I fail to see why you keep attacking ME when all I have asked for is proof (that you all claim you have read) of the so-called one-sidedness of the press, favoring Trump. I don't mean vague hand-waving, I mean what you do for research, i.e., you write down the articles and dates and page numbers and quote the sections. You do that and I promise you I will read every single line referenced and if I think you have a case, I also promise you I will mea culpa to the entire blog.
The problem is, I think there is no "there" there, i.e., the so-called articles you all claim are biased simply don't exist. You take a headline, misread it or interrpret it in the wrong way and then say "there's proof that the article is biased" except when you read it, there is no bias.
The TIMES reporting helped to get Trump elected? ARE YOU FROM MARS?!!! The Times avidly supported Hillary Clinton, but hey, you know, Hillary had some REAL baggage and the Times NEWS section (unlike the Editorial section) was obligated to report on that stuff. That was Hilary's burden to bear, she was the one who did stuff that looked at best fishy and are worst UGLY, and sadly, she was facing in the election the worst monster we have ever seen. But the newspaper's responsibility it to report the truth and they did. Sadly, the people in this country are as a group way to dumb to actually tease out the bad stuff from the good stuff and she lost, not by much either. She won the popular vote and only lost in the swing states which Biden turned around 4 years later.
Hilary was her own best enemy, for so so so many reasons and while I avidly supported her like a good Democrat, I was not stunned by her loss because I knew she was vulnerable. Trump's team was able to jump on it and divert attention away from his own nonsense (with one major difference... all of HIS stuff was "private" nonsense, while her stuff occurred while she was in service to the government and that made a HUGE difference).
I believe that Trump's grotesque moves WHILE he was President will as they did in 2020, hold as major negatives against him in 2024, especially now that Biden is out of the race. Those issues are/were just as relevant as the issues regarding Hilary in 2016, and Kamala Harris has few if any similar issues. She has been one of the most upstanding public servants in a long time, and I will be stunned if she loses this election.
There are actual stats out there on the number of articles the NYT put out that referenced HRC in a negative way, especially about her 'emails'. Many more of those than negatives about Trump.
Unfortunately I don't have those stats on hand, but people out there have crunched the actual numbers.
I agree with these productive talks. I long ago grasped the тАШunderstanding the audienceтАЩ reporting but тАж.
that the fight is going to be ongoing ..even after the Harris/Walz Win ..is a given. Our factual gains make little dent but good writing/reporting/headlines does. And I would agree the Republicans cornered the headlines with THE GRIFTER, THE CON hype using drama and a popular seduction , if not even cult approach. It worked тАжPAST TENSE.
Enough have now come back/seen the light , the eloquence of dedicated writers,historians,and amazing leadership has prevailed , mightily preserved, I favor.
The fight is not over.
We can never be complacent again.
Hopefully that lesson has received the A+ , TBD on 11/5/24 .
It requires a LANDSLIDE.
It requires GOTV/Volunteers amassing/Postcards/All hands on Deck! The grassroots led the charge , the American Rally Forth The Flag miracles is working.
Stay The Course ЁЯл╡
I love the тАШтАЩwrite it that wayтАЩтАЩ closing answer lineтАжBIDENтАЩs answer! Bravo my captain ЁЯл╢
The writing is clearly on the wall. Newspaper are JUST beginning to correct their lack of equal coverage..in part due too -to the new joy/hope/charisma that sells sells sellsтАжwe have a L O N G way to go before equality and facts surpass love of money and control . Few making the big bucks will like the roadтАжand those who contribute a THANK YOU EVERY TIME!
ItтАЩs perfectly clear to those with real leadership abilities тАж
Biden made a huge mistake with the border if for no reason then the optics of do nothing. I cringed for 3 years wondering why he was so dense. Maybe itтАЩs because he is dense.
And we all benefitted from their endless, baseless attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016, "But her emails," /s. And here we are the old playbook being recycled.
If you really believe that ALL the attacks on Hillary Clinton were baseless, you need to read some real history. Hillary was so vulnerable from many of her positions as both Senator and Secretary of State. She was a terribly weak candidate (I was so stunned when Biden decided to step aside for her, even though voting for a woman was something I was really anxious to do, I just wasn't convinced she was the right one).
John, so you were looking for perfect, huh. Clinton was a very qualified candidate, knew her stuff, and was far superior in every way to "the monster" as you call Trump. I did not see the NYT pushing nearly as hard to point out Trump's total inappropriateness for any office let alone president, then he proved it. There are plenty of folks saying your exact criticisms of Harris right now. Could it be, dare I say it, Misogyny or a fear of women in power? Nah, couldn't be that!
There is a problem with the NYT and reporting on the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Israeli relies on the "Israel Lobby" to control reactions. The head of the NYT is of a Jewish family that owned the paper for many years. I checked to see who the major shareholders are. It is Vanguard and Black Rock with controlling interest. They want profit, not controversy. V and BR have controlling interest in many important companies. One is Boeing. Boeing has put profit and share price ahead of engineering and safety. This country has a problem of profit over best practice.
If you don't like the New York Times, try CONSORTIUM NEWS. There you won't get a defense of US foreign policy, in Gaza, Ukraine, or anywhere else. It's full of former Peabody winners who've soured on the mainstream media and gone alternative. Scolding inevitably, and little appreciative of the difficulties of being the world's hegemonic power, - but throwing our many failures and atrocities into sharp relief. Give it a try.
Good luck with that. Be ignorant by choice. The Times is by far the best, most objective news source going these days. If you choose to get your "news" from MSNBC or CNN or some blog (like this one) then you are closing yourself off to actual facts and you will suffer for it, as will our entire country, if enough people turn out to be like you.
Wow, what a world we live in today. "I'd rather trust some unknown person writing a blog and their fans than an actual newspaper that has standards." Amazing.
Maybe I'm fortunate to read in several languages. But, for starters, someone here mentioned both The Guardian and the English language version of Haaretz...
"Letters from an American" is not "some unknown person writing a blog." Neither are the offerings from Timothy Snyder, Dan Rather, Joyce Vance, Simon Rosenberg, George Lakoff, Robert Reich, Bill Kristol, and The Intercept.
I trust their integrity a lot more than I trust the NYTimes or WSJ at present.
Except NONE of those report news objectively, they provide opinions. People need to differentiate, opinions and news are NOT the same thing. Sigh...
And I never put the WSJ in the same class as the Times. WSJ was purchased by the Murdochs and it has never been the same since. The Times is still owned by the Ochs/Salzburger family (as it has been for almost 120 years) and has steadfastly REFUSED to become fodder for the sell-out crowd.
And if you can't trust the Times, you (and the rest of us) are in a world of hurt, my friend, that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Trump.
But..... I still subscribe because out of their political reportage (which I agree is in need of a make-over), you do get pretty good coverage of world news, sports, and business. And, of course, Metropolitan Diary.
Which is why I will likely keep it for now. But I wouldnтАЩt pay full rate. Every time my annual special ends, I threaten to terminate and they extend it another year. Hope your not paying full rates.
Can you please provide even ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of "deliberate misinformation"??? Maybe you can, I am sure it has happened, but you will need to do a VERY diligent search because from where I sit (and I read the paper religiously every single day, cover to cover) because the number of times that has happened over many years has got to be single digits if that.
And I am talking about NEWS, not columns or editorials. Those are always subject to points of view and can clearly contain infomation that is not vetted adequately. That should NOT be the case with actual hard news, which the Times has extremely rigorous policies on checking and double-checking. And when they are wrong, they own up pretty much instantly.
I cancelled my long term subscription with a note why a few years ago and just picked it back up for 4$ a month. I will cancel after trial. I like to read all the reporting during election season.
At the end of trial, if you threaten to end they will extend the special another year with no strings. So I give them $50 a year and I do receive good international and national news.
Hmmm so you DO admit that you receive good national news. Politics is national news. So how do you distinguish the "good" national reporting from the "awful" political reporting? Its all pretty much the same, and from where I sit, I can't even tell the difference.
Me too. They sicken me along with WaPo. Each journalist staying with them sickens me too. I am looking at the Tech Bros and the money they can throw at this election and it is frightening. How did we let them get so powerful? I see them as an evil that we need to revolt against. Not that the other super wealthy throwing money at this election are any more tasteful. It is just so wrong that we have all of the billionaires who are heading onto trillionairehood at some point.
Again as I have asked repeatedly, could you present even a SINGLE ARTICLE in which you claim a reporter (not a columnist but an actual reporter, like Maggie Haberman or Peter Baken) has lied in the Times? I challenge this because it is a vile accusation and if true would mean my entire belief system is screwed up. But sorry, I don't think it is. I think you are screwed up here, charging things that simply aren't true and if that is it, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I cancelled it when they banned me for commenting what I would do when Trump was laid in state at the capital and said I would crap in front of cameras on the steps of the Capital. (An assume statement to make for the world to view, isnтАЩt it.) And they refused to lift the ban. So they lost big time with my special sale rate ya ya.
But I will definitely urinate at his chosen grave site or toss cat shit from a distance if necessary. And I have 7 cats to choose from having a ready supply.
So typical of people who obscure the truth and throw "stones". As they say, you shouldn't live in a glass house, then. The use of foul language is just one clear example of your bias, so you can hardly accuse others of bias yourself.
Same here. It runs out in November -- nice coincidence. I've been subscribing to the Guardian, both UK and US digital editions, for several years, and just picked up Haaretz to follow Israel-Palestine news.
Haaretz is such an opinionated paper LOL! To give up the times and choose that left-wing rag is nonsensical. Don't get me wrong, I am FAR left wing especially when it comes to Israel (can't stand Netanyahu and believe they need to withdraw from Gaza and give that land to the Palestinians, oh yes and I am Jewish too) but to quote Haaretz while denigrating the NY Times is the height of absurdity.
Well, maybe (and I am happy for your heart) but you have also dumbed down your brain, because you are ignoring the best source of unbiased news available in this country. Wow, what a move forward that must be. Now you can rely on blogs and podcasts by people who have NOTHING but their own axes to grind and aren't held to ANY standards at all! Bravo!
Please provide a SINGLE EXAMPLE of their "biased reporting". IE, this means NEWS articles, not editorials or columnists, please. Those are going to have biases (and they should).
My guess is that you couldn't pick a biased article out if you fell over it. Because in fact there simply aren't many, probably not more than a few a month if that. THE NY TIMES is one of the most objective papers in the world and thats why it is also the BIGGEST paper in the world because people who count use it consistently.
Please distinguish... all of their reporting is in some sense investigative work. And if you feel that there is a bias in their reporting, I would LOVE for YOU to be the one to point out an actual article where this can be shown. I am sure there are some, but you and everyone else here seems to suggest that occurs in virtually every story and that simply is such nonsense. Sigh...
I have been saying she needs to stick to her winning formula of going directly to the people and then rebutting Trump's and others' lies on social media.
They have been doing that, and Harris and Walz have wisely ignored them. I am saying that if the MSM is not supporting democracy, which they clearly are not, then what use are they? I feel none. I go to better sources for information. If we stop 1) subscribing for money, 2) stop consuming, they will have contributed to their own demise. Harris and Walz are going to the voters, and clearly that is the best use of their time.
They do answer questions and lay out their policies and if the press is too lazy to figure it out without a one-on-one that they can brag about and market for days, and then totally bomb as they have been doing, and then blame it on Harris, and start gathering reasons to not believe in a capable woman than what have they, then too bad for them. And, while many may not notice, it seems the readership here is noticing that MSM does not have the same standards for Donald Trump. I don't care if their families are threatened if they ask him things he does not want to hear, then either their publications should back them, or they should find another line of work.
Maybe the outcome of something that has gone wrong in America -- living to work, not working to live.
And doing everything "aggressively", so that work becomes like war (except that everyone would be dead under this kind of management in a real war) and workers end up with combat fatigue because of management behaving like the enemy...
One consequence: people work till they drop... and those who can retire at 60 get the hell out despite, in many cases, being fit in mind and body for years to come...
In a hard-working but workaholism-free society, people might be willing to stay on for longer and help train young recruits...
Thank you Linda; after MSM's 2016 presidential reporting debacle I follow individual reporters (even books) on specific topics & digital authors only.
With Dems in Chicago shortly, MSM will distort history itself, searing 1968 political history. This coming week, I look forward to HCR's real time reports in her full historical context method.
Bryan, I totally agree with you. I am reading Project 2025 in a Democrats Abroad bookclub. I have read the Forward and 10 chapters, am starting on an 11th one. We are skipping around. I have to balance this bad prose and nastiness with some books too. I really appreciated Prof Ruth Ben-Ghiat's book Strongmen which I recently read, for its insights and history of fascism.
As a PAID subscriber, I have reading weekly preview chapters of Dr. Bandy X. Lee's new book, "The Psychology of Trump Contagion: An Existential Threat .... I just received and will read her "Epilogue" in the book later this morning.
Dr. Lee's forensic psychiatrist group has been directly involved in a campaign regarding DJT's 9/18/24 sentencing on the 34 jury determined felonies & the Defendant's ten (10) contempt convictions already decided by the Court as violations of the Court's Protective Order (PTO) to protect jurors & witnesses.
What "better sources"? Please provide citations for that. There are none that I can find, certainly not local (US) sources. There are some fine journalism examples elsewhere, but in the US, the NY Times is top of the list. And you, like virtually everyone else on this blog, mimics the nonsensical accusations without providing any hard evidence (or any evidence at all). Just because you SAY IT IS SO doesn't make it so.
Have a great day if you can get your head into fresh air.
Jon, you can have your opinion, but I don't agree. I think the NYT has covered this election so poorly, and continues to do so, that it outweighs anything else. One example is that the NYT called for Biden to drop out of the race based on one debate where he was under the weather and barraged with fascist propaganda, with the station doing no live fact checking nor did they shut Trump's mike off when he ranted as they had promised to do. Trump has given numerous lying ranting speeches and have we hear the same response.*****
I have had correspondence with editors from the Times that is so off base and stupid it could be like talking to a MAGA or Russian Bot. Not something I am willing to spend my time doing. I am also not White and male and so might take more offense to it then you do. I live a multinational life and since I spend more time outside of the US right now than in it I want sources that do what I need them to do, when I consume US news which because of the election I am doing more so. The NYT does not fit the bill. In fact, since I stopped subscribing to them my quality of life has gone up. ******
I get the AP each day. While I do not always like their slant, I don't pay them money for their opinions. I get the Guardian. I donate to them, they are independent news. I read both the US and the European editions. I also get Foreign Affairs, the Carnegie Foundation for Peace, Substacks from people like Heather Cox Richardson, Timothy Snyder, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, and other people who also write books. I still get news from my US city, and neighborhood, which give me information that is useful. I would not say that about NYT.*****
As for fresh air, while my US city does not offer much of that, my city in the EU tends to have air quality in the green zone. Also, the walls of my house are made with loam, an ancient material that insulates for temperature and sound and also absorbs toxins from the air. it is having a big revival here. My drinking water is clean from the tap too, but it is night here and I am not going out. As it is still day in the US I hope you can get to fresh air too.
Yes, and Kamala ought to answer journalistsтАЩ gotcha and click-bait questions (that are so shallow and meaningless) with substantive policy answers. Let her insist on her own agenda at any pressers.
And shut it down & tell them why & walk away IF they treat her disrespectfullyтАФrecently Lawrence OтАЩDonnell (MSNBC) had an excellent segment going ballistic over (many of) the pressтАЩs outburst-hostile-clambering style of lobbing (not asking) questions at, for example, Biden & his press secretary (as opposed to the softball manner TFFFG is questioned): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD-oTJ49nls
She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. At the moment, "she's not doing enough pressers, not talking about policy." You can bet that the minute she does, she will be ciriticized further. Why bother? Especially when the other side isn't? As Reed Galen on The Daily Beast today said, Trump is like those 90's mix tapes that just play over and over.
Follow the click-bait? No, Kamala should take over the pressers by providing substance of giving policy responses and ignore gotcha and click-bait questions.
Does anyone know if Harris/Walz has a nice, comprehensive website of their own where they've made all of their policy/issue positions available for public view? Whenever I go to a candidate's website, all they seem to offer are opportunities to donate money. I've long thought it odd that politicians whine about bias in the press, then ignore the most common way to bypass the press and get information directly to the public -- a well-designed website that fronts for a good database of material, including supporting links for fact-checking.
I dropped my NY Times subscription after 30(!) headlines in a row in a Google search, about BidenтАЩs age following HurтАЩs report. And following their non-stop attacks on Biden after the debate, I have never looked backтАж
That's about when I dropped it. If they want to fight the Wall Street Journal and the NY Post for subscribers and more importantly advertisers -- go for it.
Natalie Burdick and others -- I'm very grateful for the comments about the NYTimes. I cancelled at the end of 2023. (Because I live in Canada, I subscribe for only digital.) WAPO is another matter, and I pay a very small monthly fee there for digital only.
With Joe Kahn as executive editor of the Tarnished Lady who has made it known that defending democracy is partisan and he won't do it, what can one expect.
To really defend democracy perhaps it is time to torpedo the New York Times and advocate for people canceling their subscriptions. The law of diminishing profits seems to be the only thing Kahn and cohorts understand. Funny the editorial board has no problem cosseting a fascist wannabe and doesn't worry about appearing partisan.
If you mean by defending democracy that the NY times STOPS being a fair and unbiased news source, that is nuts! Their job is to REPORT, accurately, not "defend democracy". If you have actual evidence in dates and pages, please post them because I have their complete index at my disposal (I subscribe) and I have seen no (or at least extremely little) evidence of this bogus claim. All you critics are sounding like Trump, just making up stuff in the hours that no one questions you. You should think about that before making false criticisms or at least be ready to back up your allegations with dates and page numbers. Trust me I will look up every citation and see if you have a valid claim.
I take accusations of journalistic bias seriously having worked for a news paper in a former life and trust me if the NY times is biased in anyway its in FAVOR of democracy and our current president and not in favor of trump. But I suspect what you see is that they don't come down hard enough on trump for your satisfaction but that is just them doing the proper job of a newspaper.
Jon, they are neither reporting fairly and accurately, nor defending democracy, but while that may not be "their job" it is their role in a democracy, and if they cannot do that, then we should not be wasting our time supporting them.
I, too, am a retired journalist. Just yesterday, I posted about their extreme bias in the comments section. They're losing subscribers for a reason AND harming their own reputation. Very disappointing. Read carefully. They use deprecatory language when describing Harris Walz and laudatory language for Trump. Very disappointing, especially the decks, which erroneously used the term "rebuffed" in describing Harris.
We all read enough papers to know that the NYTimes is not reporting fairly. They have printed seven or eight times as many Trump and Republican related stories as Biden stories. I stopped the times went they relentlessly went after Biden to withdraw from the race.
Try to find a NY Times story where they call Trump on his lies. They report them as fact.
Even Maggie Haberman has towed the line when reporting on Trump and she is one of the best journalists they have.
And the WAPO is only marginally better because they have Jennifer Rubin, Catherine Rampell, Max Boot, Alexandra Petri, Dana Milbank to offset the bias of their editors.
I just don't think you're going to get a lot of support on your position here Jon -- sorry.
That's why all of us need to "take up oxygen" and make sure to get this information out there. I always re-post on all the legislators in my state and have started posting on Mike Johnson's page as well.
You just got an example in the article. IтАЩve seen it done by Fox for years. Take a true set of circumstances and, sure, report the facts but write it in ways that make the facts seem questionable. Or at least seem to be indicating something other than what they do. IтАЩve seen articles where the first two or three paragraphs are a basic synopsis, followed by the next three or four that pull in marginally relative facts and quotes that donтАЩt necessarily correlate, but add to the storytelling in a way that makes it seem they do. IтАЩve seen them pick and choose quotes from people who slant the point of view of the entire article without providing equally valid quotes that would balance it out. Writing is an art; not a science. And art can tell you whatever vision of the truth the artist wants you to see. All without ever actually lying or ignoring the facts. NYT has become adept at that kind or article. ItтАЩs a shame. I used to like and respect them for refusing to dip into the fray.
That whole "a neurologist visited the White House umpteen times in the past six months; is Biden on the verge of collapse?" nonsense from just a few months ago is the best example I can think of lately. This is what Mr. Rosen above considers probative and unbiased reporting?
Granted, I'm not interested in or set up for keeping track of published articles in enough detail to get a statistically accurate view of bias and distortions, so I well recognize my vulnerability to my own millieu, biases, and prejudices. Instead, I'm just sitting by the river of information watching stuff float by, wondering if the water really smells funny or is it just me...
I cancelled my subscription over a month ago. (I did keep the puzzles, however. Bad me!) Nothing the NYT has published since then has made me regret my decision.
A buddy of mine went to his public library every week and copied The NY Times crossword puzzle. He would read the paper at the library as well, but only the Sunday edition.
What Jon Rosen means is, How would you know that 'nothing the NYT has published since then has made you regret your decision' if you've canceled your subscription.
How I know is that every Substack I read refers time to time to headlines or things they do, and my life has improved greatly lessening their aggravation to me. I do not miss it at all. In fact, I would say I am better off, because dealing with stupid editors who do not have the life experience to even understand my words as I intend is not a good use of my life. Same for WaPo. Even not doing their crosswords, for which one does not need subscription with my daughter. We are reading books and other things instead. And, reading Project 2025 in my Democrats Abroad bookclub makes me very clear why I am not supporting them. I also know my fascist history to some extent, and am not participating in supporting their propaganda.
I still check the headlines once in awhile and it still favors Trump even though Harris/Walz are far superior representatives of Democracy.
And if the NYTimes is such a great defender of democracy why have there been so few headlines on Project 2025 and it's myriad threats to democracy. Or stories tying Trump and Vance and the rest of the Republicans to Project 2025?
The truth: I don't really care, it's what came before that I objected to. Also the truth: You can still read the headlines, and many articles, even when you do not have a subscription.
I still get their emails with news summaries. I still read their headlines (which, even when they don't match the content of the story, are hideous). I occasionally get a gifted article. I can't understand defending them. The NY Times Pitchbot nails it on the head. And I used to even take the paper version of the Sunday edition, and read it cover it cover--even though I'm in Nebraska.
Wow what weird newspaper are you reading LOL? I see nothing in the NY times today that "bashes" Biden! And I see nothing in Heather's article that says this or bashes the.ny run news either! If anything for almost two weeks now their articles have been extremely favorable to Harris/ Walz.
Please please quote me dates and pages of articles but NOT columnists or editorials though, those are not relevant, I am asking for news articles which you suggest slam Biden or Harris unfairly... I suggest you can't find any. Everything i see in the news section is fact and quite clearly established by good reporting.
It's the headlines and placement of articles. Headlines about the Ashville speech should be, "Trump lies about economy." About the X "conversation, "Trump gibberish."
Lately, I have been thinking about the blurred lines that arise between op-ed and the news sections of newspapers. I grew up in the era of hard copy newspapers, and those had a clear structure to them: Front Page, International, National, State/Local, Opinion, Sports, Social/Special Interest.
Most newspapers retain that structure in their e-editions but if you are clicking through from social media or reading on some newspaper apps, the lines between opinion and news get blurred.
The other trend is the click-bait headline and short summary in a social media post that people see without reading the article. These headlines create perceptions.
I would like to see more in-depth reporting on the lies that Trump states and the true horror of the impact his policies would have. But now is not the time I will be canceling subscriptions.
I agree. You have to hold your nose when seeing the political reportage - and really it's the headline writers who may not be the reporters. But outside of politics, the reportage in the NYT is worth hanging onto. And Metropolitan Diary, Wordle, Spelling Bee, thank goodness. A small price to pay
Mr. Rosen, I see that you aren't getting very many responsive answers to your requests for elaboration. As tempting as it may be to apologize for the group, because you deserve a better answer, I'll decline in favor of a more process-oriented answer. Firstly, a great many people don't distinguish very clearly between op-ed and news, a confusion heartily supported by op-ed writers who, in the best of circumstances, include verifiable facts within their articles that support their opinions/analyses. And secondly, I suspect that I'm not the only one who just doesn't keep track of news articles and trends like I expect a working journalist would. Instead, the things that create a lasting "bump" of memory are likely to tend to the outragreous and to have fuzzy attribution, and having a "sense of a trend" is more a feeling than a judgment.
I understand that my reliance on using such vague "impressions" to form my own opinions makes me more vulnerable to misinformation campaigns that drift by. On the other hand, I've got other things to do, thank God, besides obsess over the news. That's why I use as many sources as I can find to get my sense of the world and hope I'm right enough to get through the day.
I think I saw you mention that you're a professional journalist, right? May I ask, where do you get your news from, and who do you work for?
I didn't expect to get many responses because factually speaking, it will be difficult to actually find real excerpts that uphold the view that the NY Times is biased, simply because those excerpts really don't exist (or if they do, there are extremely few available). Sure, the Times makes mistakes, but it is a scrupulously even-handed piece of journalism, which to agree at least a little with the complainers, is very rare. It is one of the few major papers that provides immediate feedback on errors, in the online version right in the stories themselves and typically within a day or so after publication. They also print these retractions prominently.
I was a professional journalist but that was many lives ago LOL, in the 60s and 70s. I worked for the Tucson Daily Citizen (now defunct) and prior to that the Arizona Daily Star (still in publication). Back then our journalism was stellar. I don't think it is anymore (I still read it occasionally as while I live in San Francisco, I have many friends from high school who still live in Tucson). It was acquired by one of the major accumulators of local papers back in the 90s I believe and now it is a homogenized relic with some AP news and some local fluff pieces but very little that would pass as outstanding journalism. Sadly, that is true of most local papers today.
I get my news from a variety of sources, including obviously the New York Times, with occasional glances at the WaPo (which has gone horrendously downhill since the Bezos acquisition, sigh), the LA Times and (said with nose held between two fingers) the Wall Street Journal. I also watch MSNBC, but as I have said, it is NOT journalism, it is the left-wing version of Fox Snooze. Since the commentators on MSNBC tend to tell the truth much more than those at Fox, I find it more palatable, but again, it is almost 100% opinion, not journalism. Favorite commentators are Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Alex Wagner, Stephanie Rule, Ari Melber and Nicole Wallace. I abhor Joy Reid, Lawrence O'Donnell and "Morning" Joe Scarborough, and refuse to watch them anymore. I can handle puffery, but I can't handle the constant pounding of their attitudes. I also enjoy watching Michael Steele (former RNC Chairperson who has abandoned the GOP at least for now) although the further we get away from his departure from his party, the harder line he gets and it starts to be officious, sigh. I also like Jonathan Capehart when he is on, although he also goes to far at times, IMHO.
I almost never watch Fox Snooze because it just takes too much work to listen to the drivel. I watch CNN at times, but relatively rarely. For news, it is slightly better than MSNBC, but what was once a pretty reputable television news operation has fallen on hard times, IMHO, and now is a lot more like MSNBC than it is like the NY Times. Where are you Ted Turner when we need you? (Did I REALLY say that? LOL)
I read plenty of books, particularly about politics. And of course I have been a daily reader of HCR's newsletter for over two years.
I am surprised by the emphasis on "headlines". Anyone who reads a headline and then goes on a rant about the "content" of news in papers is a freaking idiot, IMHO. Apparently that includes a LOT of people who read this blog, which again is surprising to me. Headlines are written by copy editors or a headline desk, which is designed to attract readers. It conveys a minimal amount of information, and is permitted to do so in an "attractive" (or if you prefer obnoxious LOL) manner, that is part of journalism. I remember writing stories at the Star or Citizen, waking up in the morning and looking at the paper and would be astonished at what the headline writer had done (astonished often in a bad way).
But for me, headlines were just to grab a set of eyes. If you use the headline as a benchmark for what is in the story, you are ignorant and uninformed. Read the ARTICLE, that is what the headline is there for, to draw your attention. But it does NOT have to convey much information, and it can even be somewhat deceptive without violating any real journalistic standards.
If you just stay with the headlines, then you are going to be disappointed and shocked, and you will continue to be ignorant. READ THE FREAKING ARTICLES. Then make up your mind.
As I have challenged, I would love to see ANY actual quotations from a NY Times political article that shows extreme (or even moderate) bias toward Trump. I state that it simply doesn't exist and while I might find that I am wrong on a couple or three occasions, it is NOT by any means a major problem, certainly not at the Times (although it is much more a problem nowadays at the LA Times, WaPO and certainly at the WSJ which is of course owned by the Murdochs).
I think (don't know for a fact, but it is suspicion) that people are just too lazy to actually READ things and so they figure they can get an idea by reading the headlines. Sorry folks, it is hard work to be diligent about what you want to criticize and you owe it to yourself AND to those who might listen to you to DO the work and then make u p your mind.
And anyone who STILL will say "the NY Times is biased towards Trump", at least IMHO, is just expressing their OWN bias against having to read things and finding them NOT "critical enough" because they have already taken a position and won't be open-minded enough to read and learn. That is a sorry state to be in. It is of course EXACTLY what we complain about with respect to the right-wing media and their minions, that "those people don't read anything". Sadly we have the same problem and it is, at least from my perspective, worse, because WE should know better.
With that, I am outa here. There is too much blather with very little actual content from the various talking heads on this blog and it just bores me. The number of people who "commented" on my challenge with (as you noted) nothing but vague comments and hand waving rather than actual citations is a joke and I can't waste my time anymore. If Heather wants to let this blog become just ANOTHER source of disinformation, with a hive mind that ignores facts and amplifies nonsensical opinions, that's her choice, it is after all her blog. But I pay a fee to read it and sadly I am now disillusioned that she doesn't weigh in here. Maybe she is worried about her source of income, I could understand that, but to me, this is now nothing but click-bait, just as bad (and maybe worse given how much smarter I think most of these people OUGHT to be) as the right-wing Maga propeller heads.
Have a nice day, week, month and election season. I hope there is still enough sanity in this country to elect Kamala, but judging from the idiots on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, I am not sure any of THEM deserve it.
The headline mentioned by HCR literally insults Kamala HarrisтАЩ speech before she even gives it. How do they know it will be тАЬ light on details?тАЭ IтАЩve been reading the Times for years, and believe me, they have shown editorial bias repeatedly during that time. We can go all the way back to the run-up to the Iraq war if you like, but more recent examples include their focus on ClintonтАЩs emails and BidenтАЩs age while never exploring the truly insane, fascistic ranting of the Republican nominee. I havenтАЩt cancelled yet, but I no longer read the paper and I feel quite well informed without it.
If you subscribe to the NYT and WaPo, you are supporting propagandists. Their models are no longer based on reporting the news, but rather on creating controversy. They have lost all credibility.
Most people won't drop the NYTimes until after the election. But like others here, story after story for the past 18 months by Ezra Klein and others dwelling ONLY on Biden's age and NEVER on Trump's was unforgivable.
They only care about the numbers. -- advertising dollars and total subscribers. Once either number hits their "tipping point" then maybe they will care. That's when to send the exchange.
If I wanted to read propaganda and lies, IтАЩd read Russian news. ItтАЩs really too bad there isnтАЩt an independent group to review media and report their biases.
Unadulterated bs. If anyone does that (only reads the headlines,) that is just their own fault. But obviously YOU don't read the articles or don't care because if you went past the headlines you would see how wrong you are.
Thank you, Heather. I am so so tired of The New York Times continuing to bash President Biden and now VP Harris. Writing to the paper voicing my dismay at their bias has done nothing to stop it.
I canceled my subscription long ago.
NYT= NEW YORK TROLLS.
I cancelled years ago... after reading the paper for decades. I recall the foul looks I once got when I carried around a copy in the Deep South. It might as well have been Pravda.
Yet the strange thing is that it's a curate's egg -- "good in parts" -- so the stink from journalistic incompetence by design wafts its way round the world, while some excellent ed-op and other material still gets published.
Selling mixed prejudices, because prejudices sell. Tarting up the old lady sells... News, apparently, doesn't... I find that hard to believe.
Readers aren't all junkies. Once upon a time, journalists weren't all pushers, weren't all hacks...
Undermining trust, rotting the bonds of community, cannot possibly work for long. Fast bucks can make for lasting failure. That of a great newspaper, that of a once great and immensely promising country.
If it was Pravda today, you would be cheered by the MAGA crowd of republicans.
lol...
First, consider that you are emulating the thinking of Trump: "a great newspaper, that of a once great and immensely promising country." And, then consider, that the NYT that has enhanced our appreciation of the world for many decades, requires our vigilance and confronting feedback for us to be responsible and effective. This issue (responsibility and vigilance) prevails as citizens of the world we live in, and as parents, friends, students.
Obviously, consider it lazy to simply abandon what we find fault with.
P.S. I continue to benefit greatly from attending to Tom Friedman's wisdom.
Interesting take on it. My take is that the New York Times' irresponsible reporting and editing helped get Trump elected in 2016. I dropped my subscription shortly thereafter. They don't seem to have learned anything since. It is not a democratic institution that can be influenced by our "feedback."
Susanna, I don't think it was just NYT. I noticed most of the media I had previously depended on prior to 2015, going nuts for the jerk who had no experience, no empathy, no civility, little intelligence beyond that of the con artist. He was the "new thing" and our decent media in large numbers jumped on board the Trump train all the way to Trumplandia. We are still recovering from the trip and that fool wants in again and has a whole lot of media support. Any criticism of Trump seems muted and tentative while criticism of Biden who has actually done a whole lot for this nation is loud, rude, and undeserved. How do we hold the media accountable. I pointed out a really bad pro-Trump but inaccurate item on NPR recently and only got back a standard "thank you for your comment; we'll get back to you on it." They never will. I did actually hear one criticism of Trump today on NPR, tentative, honest, and there! Shock!
Ruth, I *know* it wasn't just the NYT, but their email obsession was pretty relentless.
Boy what rubes are you folks. "Whole lot of media support"? REALLY? Except for Fox (which of course is highly influential), SHOW me the "support" Trump has. The Times CALLED FOR HIM TO STEP ASIDE (which for me is a disaster, because we - the Democrats - will win SO MUCH MORE EASILY against Trump precisely because he is a disaster than we would against Nikki Halley or heaven forbid even Vance.). Again, as with the slanted media I have requessted, do not give my your opinions, those are worth about as much as MY opinions, GIVE ME FACTUAL REFERENCES to articles which are slanted. And by slanted I don't mean negative. It is the responsibility of the press to report the news whether good, bad or neutral. The negative reporting surrounding Biden should have been expected, he has shown repeatedly over many months a declining ability to focus and speak clearly. They should have been exposing that all along. And if anything, it might (if you take a few seconds to think) be the best thing that the press ever could have done (to get Biden to step aside) because he would have LOST THE ELECTION TO TRUMP ALMOST WITHOUT QUESTION and now with Harris firmly in the role of nominee, we actually have the chance to have the second black President and the first woman. HUGELY GOOD for the country. Trump is not. So I fail to see why you keep attacking ME when all I have asked for is proof (that you all claim you have read) of the so-called one-sidedness of the press, favoring Trump. I don't mean vague hand-waving, I mean what you do for research, i.e., you write down the articles and dates and page numbers and quote the sections. You do that and I promise you I will read every single line referenced and if I think you have a case, I also promise you I will mea culpa to the entire blog.
The problem is, I think there is no "there" there, i.e., the so-called articles you all claim are biased simply don't exist. You take a headline, misread it or interrpret it in the wrong way and then say "there's proof that the article is biased" except when you read it, there is no bias.
Again, prove me wrong. I don't think you can.
The TIMES reporting helped to get Trump elected? ARE YOU FROM MARS?!!! The Times avidly supported Hillary Clinton, but hey, you know, Hillary had some REAL baggage and the Times NEWS section (unlike the Editorial section) was obligated to report on that stuff. That was Hilary's burden to bear, she was the one who did stuff that looked at best fishy and are worst UGLY, and sadly, she was facing in the election the worst monster we have ever seen. But the newspaper's responsibility it to report the truth and they did. Sadly, the people in this country are as a group way to dumb to actually tease out the bad stuff from the good stuff and she lost, not by much either. She won the popular vote and only lost in the swing states which Biden turned around 4 years later.
Hilary was her own best enemy, for so so so many reasons and while I avidly supported her like a good Democrat, I was not stunned by her loss because I knew she was vulnerable. Trump's team was able to jump on it and divert attention away from his own nonsense (with one major difference... all of HIS stuff was "private" nonsense, while her stuff occurred while she was in service to the government and that made a HUGE difference).
I believe that Trump's grotesque moves WHILE he was President will as they did in 2020, hold as major negatives against him in 2024, especially now that Biden is out of the race. Those issues are/were just as relevant as the issues regarding Hilary in 2016, and Kamala Harris has few if any similar issues. She has been one of the most upstanding public servants in a long time, and I will be stunned if she loses this election.
There are actual stats out there on the number of articles the NYT put out that referenced HRC in a negative way, especially about her 'emails'. Many more of those than negatives about Trump.
Unfortunately I don't have those stats on hand, but people out there have crunched the actual numbers.
That, Valerie Meluskey, is why I took this paper for decades.
And why I look forward to victory, recovery, return to all that is admirable in America.
While expecting a hard fight and a very different world, if we all make it safely to 2026.
I agree with these productive talks. I long ago grasped the тАШunderstanding the audienceтАЩ reporting but тАж.
that the fight is going to be ongoing ..even after the Harris/Walz Win ..is a given. Our factual gains make little dent but good writing/reporting/headlines does. And I would agree the Republicans cornered the headlines with THE GRIFTER, THE CON hype using drama and a popular seduction , if not even cult approach. It worked тАжPAST TENSE.
Enough have now come back/seen the light , the eloquence of dedicated writers,historians,and amazing leadership has prevailed , mightily preserved, I favor.
The fight is not over.
We can never be complacent again.
Hopefully that lesson has received the A+ , TBD on 11/5/24 .
It requires a LANDSLIDE.
It requires GOTV/Volunteers amassing/Postcards/All hands on Deck! The grassroots led the charge , the American Rally Forth The Flag miracles is working.
Stay The Course ЁЯл╡
I love the тАШтАЩwrite it that wayтАЩтАЩ closing answer lineтАжBIDENтАЩs answer! Bravo my captain ЁЯл╢
The writing is clearly on the wall. Newspaper are JUST beginning to correct their lack of equal coverage..in part due too -to the new joy/hope/charisma that sells sells sellsтАжwe have a L O N G way to go before equality and facts surpass love of money and control . Few making the big bucks will like the roadтАжand those who contribute a THANK YOU EVERY TIME!
ItтАЩs perfectly clear to those with real leadership abilities тАж
ЁЯТЩЁЯТЩVOTE BLUE , END THIS COUPЁЯТЩЁЯТЩ
ЁЯСН
тАЬO Captain! my Captain! rise up and hear the bells; ...тАЭ
Biden made a huge mistake with the border if for no reason then the optics of do nothing. I cringed for 3 years wondering why he was so dense. Maybe itтАЩs because he is dense.
Hopefully minus 1.
And we all benefitted from their endless, baseless attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016, "But her emails," /s. And here we are the old playbook being recycled.
If you really believe that ALL the attacks on Hillary Clinton were baseless, you need to read some real history. Hillary was so vulnerable from many of her positions as both Senator and Secretary of State. She was a terribly weak candidate (I was so stunned when Biden decided to step aside for her, even though voting for a woman was something I was really anxious to do, I just wasn't convinced she was the right one).
John, so you were looking for perfect, huh. Clinton was a very qualified candidate, knew her stuff, and was far superior in every way to "the monster" as you call Trump. I did not see the NYT pushing nearly as hard to point out Trump's total inappropriateness for any office let alone president, then he proved it. There are plenty of folks saying your exact criticisms of Harris right now. Could it be, dare I say it, Misogyny or a fear of women in power? Nah, couldn't be that!
Ah you mentioned Tom Friedman. That ainтАЩt fair. Yes there are some roses among the thorns
I also cancelled years ago. I think the NYTimes helped Trump in 201-. What a shame.
2016
There is a problem with the NYT and reporting on the Israeli genocide in Gaza. Israeli relies on the "Israel Lobby" to control reactions. The head of the NYT is of a Jewish family that owned the paper for many years. I checked to see who the major shareholders are. It is Vanguard and Black Rock with controlling interest. They want profit, not controversy. V and BR have controlling interest in many important companies. One is Boeing. Boeing has put profit and share price ahead of engineering and safety. This country has a problem of profit over best practice.
"This country has a problem of profit over best practice." For far longer and wider than you even suspect Patrick.
If you don't like the New York Times, try CONSORTIUM NEWS. There you won't get a defense of US foreign policy, in Gaza, Ukraine, or anywhere else. It's full of former Peabody winners who've soured on the mainstream media and gone alternative. Scolding inevitably, and little appreciative of the difficulties of being the world's hegemonic power, - but throwing our many failures and atrocities into sharp relief. Give it a try.
I think I will cancel mine now even though I only pay $4 per month. I always refuse the full rate.
I finally canceled at my son's urging. I, too, only paid $4 and enjoyed the games and recipes.
But we must speak with our pocketbooks and not give them another penny. I've had it with them, just as I've had it with Xitter. No more.
Good luck with that. Be ignorant by choice. The Times is by far the best, most objective news source going these days. If you choose to get your "news" from MSNBC or CNN or some blog (like this one) then you are closing yourself off to actual facts and you will suffer for it, as will our entire country, if enough people turn out to be like you.
Wow, what a world we live in today. "I'd rather trust some unknown person writing a blog and their fans than an actual newspaper that has standards." Amazing.
Maybe I'm fortunate to read in several languages. But, for starters, someone here mentioned both The Guardian and the English language version of Haaretz...
Some big problems with NYT since 2016...
"Letters from an American" is not "some unknown person writing a blog." Neither are the offerings from Timothy Snyder, Dan Rather, Joyce Vance, Simon Rosenberg, George Lakoff, Robert Reich, Bill Kristol, and The Intercept.
I trust their integrity a lot more than I trust the NYTimes or WSJ at present.
Agree ml.
Except NONE of those report news objectively, they provide opinions. People need to differentiate, opinions and news are NOT the same thing. Sigh...
And I never put the WSJ in the same class as the Times. WSJ was purchased by the Murdochs and it has never been the same since. The Times is still owned by the Ochs/Salzburger family (as it has been for almost 120 years) and has steadfastly REFUSED to become fodder for the sell-out crowd.
And if you can't trust the Times, you (and the rest of us) are in a world of hurt, my friend, that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Trump.
But..... I still subscribe because out of their political reportage (which I agree is in need of a make-over), you do get pretty good coverage of world news, sports, and business. And, of course, Metropolitan Diary.
Which is why I will likely keep it for now. But I wouldnтАЩt pay full rate. Every time my annual special ends, I threaten to terminate and they extend it another year. Hope your not paying full rates.
I was begged by the NYT to only pay $4 to get me back. I couldnтАЩt pay for deliberate misinformation. Felt unpatriotic
Can you please provide even ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of "deliberate misinformation"??? Maybe you can, I am sure it has happened, but you will need to do a VERY diligent search because from where I sit (and I read the paper religiously every single day, cover to cover) because the number of times that has happened over many years has got to be single digits if that.
And I am talking about NEWS, not columns or editorials. Those are always subject to points of view and can clearly contain infomation that is not vetted adequately. That should NOT be the case with actual hard news, which the Times has extremely rigorous policies on checking and double-checking. And when they are wrong, they own up pretty much instantly.
I cancelled my long term subscription with a note why a few years ago and just picked it back up for 4$ a month. I will cancel after trial. I like to read all the reporting during election season.
At the end of trial, if you threaten to end they will extend the special another year with no strings. So I give them $50 a year and I do receive good international and national news.
Hmmm so you DO admit that you receive good national news. Politics is national news. So how do you distinguish the "good" national reporting from the "awful" political reporting? Its all pretty much the same, and from where I sit, I can't even tell the difference.
Me too. They sicken me along with WaPo. Each journalist staying with them sickens me too. I am looking at the Tech Bros and the money they can throw at this election and it is frightening. How did we let them get so powerful? I see them as an evil that we need to revolt against. Not that the other super wealthy throwing money at this election are any more tasteful. It is just so wrong that we have all of the billionaires who are heading onto trillionairehood at some point.
I did the same. WhatтАЩs interesting, though, is how many of these so-called journalists lie in the paper but write books denigrating Trump.
Again as I have asked repeatedly, could you present even a SINGLE ARTICLE in which you claim a reporter (not a columnist but an actual reporter, like Maggie Haberman or Peter Baken) has lied in the Times? I challenge this because it is a vile accusation and if true would mean my entire belief system is screwed up. But sorry, I don't think it is. I think you are screwed up here, charging things that simply aren't true and if that is it, you should be ashamed of yourself.
IтАЩm close to canceling my WaPo subscription next.
I cancelled it when they banned me for commenting what I would do when Trump was laid in state at the capital and said I would crap in front of cameras on the steps of the Capital. (An assume statement to make for the world to view, isnтАЩt it.) And they refused to lift the ban. So they lost big time with my special sale rate ya ya.
Hahaha!! Bill Katz
But I will definitely urinate at his chosen grave site or toss cat shit from a distance if necessary. And I have 7 cats to choose from having a ready supply.
So typical of people who obscure the truth and throw "stones". As they say, you shouldn't live in a glass house, then. The use of foul language is just one clear example of your bias, so you can hardly accuse others of bias yourself.
Bill, perhaps the chosen site will be next to Ivana at BedminsterтАж.a fitting location, no?
Same here. It runs out in November -- nice coincidence. I've been subscribing to the Guardian, both UK and US digital editions, for several years, and just picked up Haaretz to follow Israel-Palestine news.
Haaretz is such an opinionated paper LOL! To give up the times and choose that left-wing rag is nonsensical. Don't get me wrong, I am FAR left wing especially when it comes to Israel (can't stand Netanyahu and believe they need to withdraw from Gaza and give that land to the Palestinians, oh yes and I am Jewish too) but to quote Haaretz while denigrating the NY Times is the height of absurdity.
Same--I switched to "puzzles only," and my resting heart rate has improved!
Well, maybe (and I am happy for your heart) but you have also dumbed down your brain, because you are ignoring the best source of unbiased news available in this country. Wow, what a move forward that must be. Now you can rely on blogs and podcasts by people who have NOTHING but their own axes to grind and aren't held to ANY standards at all! Bravo!
I too cancelled my subscription and told them I was tired of their biased reporting.
Please provide a SINGLE EXAMPLE of their "biased reporting". IE, this means NEWS articles, not editorials or columnists, please. Those are going to have biases (and they should).
My guess is that you couldn't pick a biased article out if you fell over it. Because in fact there simply aren't many, probably not more than a few a month if that. THE NY TIMES is one of the most objective papers in the world and thats why it is also the BIGGEST paper in the world because people who count use it consistently.
I did mine last weekend.
Gigi , Me too.
I am not happy with a lot of their reporting but I keep my subscription to support their investigative work.
Please distinguish... all of their reporting is in some sense investigative work. And if you feel that there is a bias in their reporting, I would LOVE for YOU to be the one to point out an actual article where this can be shown. I am sure there are some, but you and everyone else here seems to suggest that occurs in virtually every story and that simply is such nonsense. Sigh...
Bless you.
And they wonder why HarrisтАЩ strategists donтАЩt have her doing press conferences. ЁЯджтАНтЩАя╕П
I have been saying she needs to stick to her winning formula of going directly to the people and then rebutting Trump's and others' lies on social media.
Our donations are funding her rallies and I am absolutely ok with that.
Next the media will chime in with, "Harris refuses to do press conferences. WHAT IS SHE HIDING???"
They have been doing that, and Harris and Walz have wisely ignored them. I am saying that if the MSM is not supporting democracy, which they clearly are not, then what use are they? I feel none. I go to better sources for information. If we stop 1) subscribing for money, 2) stop consuming, they will have contributed to their own demise. Harris and Walz are going to the voters, and clearly that is the best use of their time.
They answer questions every day. "not doing press conferences" is bullshit spread as fact.
When Trump refuses to answer when questioned should be headline news. What about Egyptgate?
They do answer questions and lay out their policies and if the press is too lazy to figure it out without a one-on-one that they can brag about and market for days, and then totally bomb as they have been doing, and then blame it on Harris, and start gathering reasons to not believe in a capable woman than what have they, then too bad for them. And, while many may not notice, it seems the readership here is noticing that MSM does not have the same standards for Donald Trump. I don't care if their families are threatened if they ask him things he does not want to hear, then either their publications should back them, or they should find another line of work.
Maybe the outcome of something that has gone wrong in America -- living to work, not working to live.
And doing everything "aggressively", so that work becomes like war (except that everyone would be dead under this kind of management in a real war) and workers end up with combat fatigue because of management behaving like the enemy...
One consequence: people work till they drop... and those who can retire at 60 get the hell out despite, in many cases, being fit in mind and body for years to come...
In a hard-working but workaholism-free society, people might be willing to stay on for longer and help train young recruits...
Thank you Linda; after MSM's 2016 presidential reporting debacle I follow individual reporters (even books) on specific topics & digital authors only.
With Dems in Chicago shortly, MSM will distort history itself, searing 1968 political history. This coming week, I look forward to HCR's real time reports in her full historical context method.
Bryan, I totally agree with you. I am reading Project 2025 in a Democrats Abroad bookclub. I have read the Forward and 10 chapters, am starting on an 11th one. We are skipping around. I have to balance this bad prose and nastiness with some books too. I really appreciated Prof Ruth Ben-Ghiat's book Strongmen which I recently read, for its insights and history of fascism.
As a PAID subscriber, I have reading weekly preview chapters of Dr. Bandy X. Lee's new book, "The Psychology of Trump Contagion: An Existential Threat .... I just received and will read her "Epilogue" in the book later this morning.
Dr. Lee's forensic psychiatrist group has been directly involved in a campaign regarding DJT's 9/18/24 sentencing on the 34 jury determined felonies & the Defendant's ten (10) contempt convictions already decided by the Court as violations of the Court's Protective Order (PTO) to protect jurors & witnesses.
I'm reading STRONGMEN right now and am a paid subscriber to Prof. Ben-Ghiat's LUCID Substack. Highly recommended, both of them.
And Timothy Snyder has a new book coming out in Sept. Also read Autocracy, Inc by Anne Applebaum.
Me too!
HCR is a gift that keeps on giving! I am so very grateful to this tireless lady. What a sparking gem!
What "better sources"? Please provide citations for that. There are none that I can find, certainly not local (US) sources. There are some fine journalism examples elsewhere, but in the US, the NY Times is top of the list. And you, like virtually everyone else on this blog, mimics the nonsensical accusations without providing any hard evidence (or any evidence at all). Just because you SAY IT IS SO doesn't make it so.
Have a great day if you can get your head into fresh air.
Jon, you can have your opinion, but I don't agree. I think the NYT has covered this election so poorly, and continues to do so, that it outweighs anything else. One example is that the NYT called for Biden to drop out of the race based on one debate where he was under the weather and barraged with fascist propaganda, with the station doing no live fact checking nor did they shut Trump's mike off when he ranted as they had promised to do. Trump has given numerous lying ranting speeches and have we hear the same response.*****
I have had correspondence with editors from the Times that is so off base and stupid it could be like talking to a MAGA or Russian Bot. Not something I am willing to spend my time doing. I am also not White and male and so might take more offense to it then you do. I live a multinational life and since I spend more time outside of the US right now than in it I want sources that do what I need them to do, when I consume US news which because of the election I am doing more so. The NYT does not fit the bill. In fact, since I stopped subscribing to them my quality of life has gone up. ******
I get the AP each day. While I do not always like their slant, I don't pay them money for their opinions. I get the Guardian. I donate to them, they are independent news. I read both the US and the European editions. I also get Foreign Affairs, the Carnegie Foundation for Peace, Substacks from people like Heather Cox Richardson, Timothy Snyder, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, and other people who also write books. I still get news from my US city, and neighborhood, which give me information that is useful. I would not say that about NYT.*****
As for fresh air, while my US city does not offer much of that, my city in the EU tends to have air quality in the green zone. Also, the walls of my house are made with loam, an ancient material that insulates for temperature and sound and also absorbs toxins from the air. it is having a big revival here. My drinking water is clean from the tap too, but it is night here and I am not going out. As it is still day in the US I hope you can get to fresh air too.
Brava Linda ! So well stated. You must be so much more patient than I am though.
Yes, and Kamala ought to answer journalistsтАЩ gotcha and click-bait questions (that are so shallow and meaningless) with substantive policy answers. Let her insist on her own agenda at any pressers.
And shut it down & tell them why & walk away IF they treat her disrespectfullyтАФrecently Lawrence OтАЩDonnell (MSNBC) had an excellent segment going ballistic over (many of) the pressтАЩs outburst-hostile-clambering style of lobbing (not asking) questions at, for example, Biden & his press secretary (as opposed to the softball manner TFFFG is questioned): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD-oTJ49nls
Yes he did, and it was awesome !
TodayтАЩs. L.A. Times top story is very disgustingly similar. Disappointing.
She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. At the moment, "she's not doing enough pressers, not talking about policy." You can bet that the minute she does, she will be ciriticized further. Why bother? Especially when the other side isn't? As Reed Galen on The Daily Beast today said, Trump is like those 90's mix tapes that just play over and over.
Remember how Trump refused to do presets in his only term? Then his press Secretary refused to also.
At that time Max, he was "training the press corp" to his liking. Yes, Kamala, Tim, and Biden need do 'somewhat' likewise... but nicer if possible.
Instead of follow the money, I would say: follow the click-bait.
Yes, but money and influence is at the bottom of it.
Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the U.S. media.
Noam Chomsky
I thought click-bait was for the money.
Bingo.
Follow the click-bait? No, Kamala should take over the pressers by providing substance of giving policy responses and ignore gotcha and click-bait questions.
Does anyone know if Harris/Walz has a nice, comprehensive website of their own where they've made all of their policy/issue positions available for public view? Whenever I go to a candidate's website, all they seem to offer are opportunities to donate money. I've long thought it odd that politicians whine about bias in the press, then ignore the most common way to bypass the press and get information directly to the public -- a well-designed website that fronts for a good database of material, including supporting links for fact-checking.
Great question Dirk; That's been on my mind also. Kudo's
I know exactly how you feel. They have sold out to whatever bidder has bought them and thatтАЩs too bad
Same family, but I think the law of diminishing returns has set in and "Dash," as he is called, has't got the acumen or the brains God gave a goose.
One begins to understand Gertrude Stein's comment, "There's no there there."
Lol Carol ! Those, coincidentally are three of my favorite wise cracks.
Nobody has bought the NY times!!! This is so ridiculous!
I dropped my NY Times subscription after 30(!) headlines in a row in a Google search, about BidenтАЩs age following HurтАЩs report. And following their non-stop attacks on Biden after the debate, I have never looked backтАж
That's about when I dropped it. If they want to fight the Wall Street Journal and the NY Post for subscribers and more importantly advertisers -- go for it.
Natalie Burdick and others -- I'm very grateful for the comments about the NYTimes. I cancelled at the end of 2023. (Because I live in Canada, I subscribe for only digital.) WAPO is another matter, and I pay a very small monthly fee there for digital only.
With Joe Kahn as executive editor of the Tarnished Lady who has made it known that defending democracy is partisan and he won't do it, what can one expect.
To really defend democracy perhaps it is time to torpedo the New York Times and advocate for people canceling their subscriptions. The law of diminishing profits seems to be the only thing Kahn and cohorts understand. Funny the editorial board has no problem cosseting a fascist wannabe and doesn't worry about appearing partisan.
To defend democracy register more Democrats. https://www.fieldteam6.org/
If you mean by defending democracy that the NY times STOPS being a fair and unbiased news source, that is nuts! Their job is to REPORT, accurately, not "defend democracy". If you have actual evidence in dates and pages, please post them because I have their complete index at my disposal (I subscribe) and I have seen no (or at least extremely little) evidence of this bogus claim. All you critics are sounding like Trump, just making up stuff in the hours that no one questions you. You should think about that before making false criticisms or at least be ready to back up your allegations with dates and page numbers. Trust me I will look up every citation and see if you have a valid claim.
I take accusations of journalistic bias seriously having worked for a news paper in a former life and trust me if the NY times is biased in anyway its in FAVOR of democracy and our current president and not in favor of trump. But I suspect what you see is that they don't come down hard enough on trump for your satisfaction but that is just them doing the proper job of a newspaper.
Jon, they are neither reporting fairly and accurately, nor defending democracy, but while that may not be "their job" it is their role in a democracy, and if they cannot do that, then we should not be wasting our time supporting them.
I, too, am a retired journalist. Just yesterday, I posted about their extreme bias in the comments section. They're losing subscribers for a reason AND harming their own reputation. Very disappointing. Read carefully. They use deprecatory language when describing Harris Walz and laudatory language for Trump. Very disappointing, especially the decks, which erroneously used the term "rebuffed" in describing Harris.
We all read enough papers to know that the NYTimes is not reporting fairly. They have printed seven or eight times as many Trump and Republican related stories as Biden stories. I stopped the times went they relentlessly went after Biden to withdraw from the race.
Try to find a NY Times story where they call Trump on his lies. They report them as fact.
Even Maggie Haberman has towed the line when reporting on Trump and she is one of the best journalists they have.
And the WAPO is only marginally better because they have Jennifer Rubin, Catherine Rampell, Max Boot, Alexandra Petri, Dana Milbank to offset the bias of their editors.
I just don't think you're going to get a lot of support on your position here Jon -- sorry.
That's why all of us need to "take up oxygen" and make sure to get this information out there. I always re-post on all the legislators in my state and have started posting on Mike Johnson's page as well.
You just got an example in the article. IтАЩve seen it done by Fox for years. Take a true set of circumstances and, sure, report the facts but write it in ways that make the facts seem questionable. Or at least seem to be indicating something other than what they do. IтАЩve seen articles where the first two or three paragraphs are a basic synopsis, followed by the next three or four that pull in marginally relative facts and quotes that donтАЩt necessarily correlate, but add to the storytelling in a way that makes it seem they do. IтАЩve seen them pick and choose quotes from people who slant the point of view of the entire article without providing equally valid quotes that would balance it out. Writing is an art; not a science. And art can tell you whatever vision of the truth the artist wants you to see. All without ever actually lying or ignoring the facts. NYT has become adept at that kind or article. ItтАЩs a shame. I used to like and respect them for refusing to dip into the fray.
That whole "a neurologist visited the White House umpteen times in the past six months; is Biden on the verge of collapse?" nonsense from just a few months ago is the best example I can think of lately. This is what Mr. Rosen above considers probative and unbiased reporting?
Granted, I'm not interested in or set up for keeping track of published articles in enough detail to get a statistically accurate view of bias and distortions, so I well recognize my vulnerability to my own millieu, biases, and prejudices. Instead, I'm just sitting by the river of information watching stuff float by, wondering if the water really smells funny or is it just me...
An accusation can be true or false. Is a criticism more like an opinion, therefore, is тАЬfalse criticismтАЭ a thing?
I cancelled my subscription over a month ago. (I did keep the puzzles, however. Bad me!) Nothing the NYT has published since then has made me regret my decision.
A buddy of mine went to his public library every week and copied The NY Times crossword puzzle. He would read the paper at the library as well, but only the Sunday edition.
Thankfully, I get the Sunday NY Times crossword puzzle in my local newspaper!
How would you know if you canceled your subscription?
I don't get the monthly bill any more
What Jon Rosen means is, How would you know that 'nothing the NYT has published since then has made you regret your decision' if you've canceled your subscription.
How I know is that every Substack I read refers time to time to headlines or things they do, and my life has improved greatly lessening their aggravation to me. I do not miss it at all. In fact, I would say I am better off, because dealing with stupid editors who do not have the life experience to even understand my words as I intend is not a good use of my life. Same for WaPo. Even not doing their crosswords, for which one does not need subscription with my daughter. We are reading books and other things instead. And, reading Project 2025 in my Democrats Abroad bookclub makes me very clear why I am not supporting them. I also know my fascist history to some extent, and am not participating in supporting their propaganda.
I still check the headlines once in awhile and it still favors Trump even though Harris/Walz are far superior representatives of Democracy.
And if the NYTimes is such a great defender of democracy why have there been so few headlines on Project 2025 and it's myriad threats to democracy. Or stories tying Trump and Vance and the rest of the Republicans to Project 2025?
The truth: I don't really care, it's what came before that I objected to. Also the truth: You can still read the headlines, and many articles, even when you do not have a subscription.
I still get their emails with news summaries. I still read their headlines (which, even when they don't match the content of the story, are hideous). I occasionally get a gifted article. I can't understand defending them. The NY Times Pitchbot nails it on the head. And I used to even take the paper version of the Sunday edition, and read it cover it cover--even though I'm in Nebraska.
Just cancel your subscription.
Most of us have TC.
Wow what weird newspaper are you reading LOL? I see nothing in the NY times today that "bashes" Biden! And I see nothing in Heather's article that says this or bashes the.ny run news either! If anything for almost two weeks now their articles have been extremely favorable to Harris/ Walz.
Please please quote me dates and pages of articles but NOT columnists or editorials though, those are not relevant, I am asking for news articles which you suggest slam Biden or Harris unfairly... I suggest you can't find any. Everything i see in the news section is fact and quite clearly established by good reporting.
It's the headlines and placement of articles. Headlines about the Ashville speech should be, "Trump lies about economy." About the X "conversation, "Trump gibberish."
Exactly. Who writes the headlines?
Lately, I have been thinking about the blurred lines that arise between op-ed and the news sections of newspapers. I grew up in the era of hard copy newspapers, and those had a clear structure to them: Front Page, International, National, State/Local, Opinion, Sports, Social/Special Interest.
Most newspapers retain that structure in their e-editions but if you are clicking through from social media or reading on some newspaper apps, the lines between opinion and news get blurred.
The other trend is the click-bait headline and short summary in a social media post that people see without reading the article. These headlines create perceptions.
I would like to see more in-depth reporting on the lies that Trump states and the true horror of the impact his policies would have. But now is not the time I will be canceling subscriptions.
I agree. You have to hold your nose when seeing the political reportage - and really it's the headline writers who may not be the reporters. But outside of politics, the reportage in the NYT is worth hanging onto. And Metropolitan Diary, Wordle, Spelling Bee, thank goodness. A small price to pay
Mr. Rosen, I see that you aren't getting very many responsive answers to your requests for elaboration. As tempting as it may be to apologize for the group, because you deserve a better answer, I'll decline in favor of a more process-oriented answer. Firstly, a great many people don't distinguish very clearly between op-ed and news, a confusion heartily supported by op-ed writers who, in the best of circumstances, include verifiable facts within their articles that support their opinions/analyses. And secondly, I suspect that I'm not the only one who just doesn't keep track of news articles and trends like I expect a working journalist would. Instead, the things that create a lasting "bump" of memory are likely to tend to the outragreous and to have fuzzy attribution, and having a "sense of a trend" is more a feeling than a judgment.
I understand that my reliance on using such vague "impressions" to form my own opinions makes me more vulnerable to misinformation campaigns that drift by. On the other hand, I've got other things to do, thank God, besides obsess over the news. That's why I use as many sources as I can find to get my sense of the world and hope I'm right enough to get through the day.
I think I saw you mention that you're a professional journalist, right? May I ask, where do you get your news from, and who do you work for?
I didn't expect to get many responses because factually speaking, it will be difficult to actually find real excerpts that uphold the view that the NY Times is biased, simply because those excerpts really don't exist (or if they do, there are extremely few available). Sure, the Times makes mistakes, but it is a scrupulously even-handed piece of journalism, which to agree at least a little with the complainers, is very rare. It is one of the few major papers that provides immediate feedback on errors, in the online version right in the stories themselves and typically within a day or so after publication. They also print these retractions prominently.
I was a professional journalist but that was many lives ago LOL, in the 60s and 70s. I worked for the Tucson Daily Citizen (now defunct) and prior to that the Arizona Daily Star (still in publication). Back then our journalism was stellar. I don't think it is anymore (I still read it occasionally as while I live in San Francisco, I have many friends from high school who still live in Tucson). It was acquired by one of the major accumulators of local papers back in the 90s I believe and now it is a homogenized relic with some AP news and some local fluff pieces but very little that would pass as outstanding journalism. Sadly, that is true of most local papers today.
I get my news from a variety of sources, including obviously the New York Times, with occasional glances at the WaPo (which has gone horrendously downhill since the Bezos acquisition, sigh), the LA Times and (said with nose held between two fingers) the Wall Street Journal. I also watch MSNBC, but as I have said, it is NOT journalism, it is the left-wing version of Fox Snooze. Since the commentators on MSNBC tend to tell the truth much more than those at Fox, I find it more palatable, but again, it is almost 100% opinion, not journalism. Favorite commentators are Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Alex Wagner, Stephanie Rule, Ari Melber and Nicole Wallace. I abhor Joy Reid, Lawrence O'Donnell and "Morning" Joe Scarborough, and refuse to watch them anymore. I can handle puffery, but I can't handle the constant pounding of their attitudes. I also enjoy watching Michael Steele (former RNC Chairperson who has abandoned the GOP at least for now) although the further we get away from his departure from his party, the harder line he gets and it starts to be officious, sigh. I also like Jonathan Capehart when he is on, although he also goes to far at times, IMHO.
I almost never watch Fox Snooze because it just takes too much work to listen to the drivel. I watch CNN at times, but relatively rarely. For news, it is slightly better than MSNBC, but what was once a pretty reputable television news operation has fallen on hard times, IMHO, and now is a lot more like MSNBC than it is like the NY Times. Where are you Ted Turner when we need you? (Did I REALLY say that? LOL)
I read plenty of books, particularly about politics. And of course I have been a daily reader of HCR's newsletter for over two years.
I am surprised by the emphasis on "headlines". Anyone who reads a headline and then goes on a rant about the "content" of news in papers is a freaking idiot, IMHO. Apparently that includes a LOT of people who read this blog, which again is surprising to me. Headlines are written by copy editors or a headline desk, which is designed to attract readers. It conveys a minimal amount of information, and is permitted to do so in an "attractive" (or if you prefer obnoxious LOL) manner, that is part of journalism. I remember writing stories at the Star or Citizen, waking up in the morning and looking at the paper and would be astonished at what the headline writer had done (astonished often in a bad way).
But for me, headlines were just to grab a set of eyes. If you use the headline as a benchmark for what is in the story, you are ignorant and uninformed. Read the ARTICLE, that is what the headline is there for, to draw your attention. But it does NOT have to convey much information, and it can even be somewhat deceptive without violating any real journalistic standards.
If you just stay with the headlines, then you are going to be disappointed and shocked, and you will continue to be ignorant. READ THE FREAKING ARTICLES. Then make up your mind.
As I have challenged, I would love to see ANY actual quotations from a NY Times political article that shows extreme (or even moderate) bias toward Trump. I state that it simply doesn't exist and while I might find that I am wrong on a couple or three occasions, it is NOT by any means a major problem, certainly not at the Times (although it is much more a problem nowadays at the LA Times, WaPO and certainly at the WSJ which is of course owned by the Murdochs).
I think (don't know for a fact, but it is suspicion) that people are just too lazy to actually READ things and so they figure they can get an idea by reading the headlines. Sorry folks, it is hard work to be diligent about what you want to criticize and you owe it to yourself AND to those who might listen to you to DO the work and then make u p your mind.
And anyone who STILL will say "the NY Times is biased towards Trump", at least IMHO, is just expressing their OWN bias against having to read things and finding them NOT "critical enough" because they have already taken a position and won't be open-minded enough to read and learn. That is a sorry state to be in. It is of course EXACTLY what we complain about with respect to the right-wing media and their minions, that "those people don't read anything". Sadly we have the same problem and it is, at least from my perspective, worse, because WE should know better.
With that, I am outa here. There is too much blather with very little actual content from the various talking heads on this blog and it just bores me. The number of people who "commented" on my challenge with (as you noted) nothing but vague comments and hand waving rather than actual citations is a joke and I can't waste my time anymore. If Heather wants to let this blog become just ANOTHER source of disinformation, with a hive mind that ignores facts and amplifies nonsensical opinions, that's her choice, it is after all her blog. But I pay a fee to read it and sadly I am now disillusioned that she doesn't weigh in here. Maybe she is worried about her source of income, I could understand that, but to me, this is now nothing but click-bait, just as bad (and maybe worse given how much smarter I think most of these people OUGHT to be) as the right-wing Maga propeller heads.
Have a nice day, week, month and election season. I hope there is still enough sanity in this country to elect Kamala, but judging from the idiots on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, I am not sure any of THEM deserve it.
Sigh... sigh... (double sigh!)
The headline mentioned by HCR literally insults Kamala HarrisтАЩ speech before she even gives it. How do they know it will be тАЬ light on details?тАЭ IтАЩve been reading the Times for years, and believe me, they have shown editorial bias repeatedly during that time. We can go all the way back to the run-up to the Iraq war if you like, but more recent examples include their focus on ClintonтАЩs emails and BidenтАЩs age while never exploring the truly insane, fascistic ranting of the Republican nominee. I havenтАЩt cancelled yet, but I no longer read the paper and I feel quite well informed without it.
Maybe they are finally getting the message.
https://open.substack.com/pub/roberthubbell/p/republicans-say-its-the-economy-stupid?r=34x82&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Cancel the Times and support ProPublica instead!
If you subscribe to the NYT and WaPo, you are supporting propagandists. Their models are no longer based on reporting the news, but rather on creating controversy. They have lost all credibility.
Try writing to them and saying you are cancelling your subscription, as many of HCR's readers have done
Would someone who is tech savvy please make this exchange available to the publisher and editor of the NYT.
Most people won't drop the NYTimes until after the election. But like others here, story after story for the past 18 months by Ezra Klein and others dwelling ONLY on Biden's age and NEVER on Trump's was unforgivable.
They only care about the numbers. -- advertising dollars and total subscribers. Once either number hits their "tipping point" then maybe they will care. That's when to send the exchange.
So far, I've kept my subscription but regularly comment when they go off the rails, which is pretty much daily.
If I wanted to read propaganda and lies, IтАЩd read Russian news. ItтАЩs really too bad there isnтАЩt an independent group to review media and report their biases.
Actually there is a podcast my wife listens to -- "On the media."
Check it out.
Thanks!
Read that article. ItтАЩs not bashing Biden at all.
The headline is what really counts. Most folks don't read the article.
And they know it.
It's the headline writers I most object too. In terms of being useful and inciteful, it's hard to beat Maggie Haberman.
Unadulterated bs. If anyone does that (only reads the headlines,) that is just their own fault. But obviously YOU don't read the articles or don't care because if you went past the headlines you would see how wrong you are.
Jon --- I said most folks don't read past the headlines. That's a fact.
You have no idea if I read past the headline or not. That's because I never said anything about the contents.
So just admit you were wrong.
And try the decaf.
Nothing WILL stop it. Their business model depends upon outrage and dissension