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…
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 NY Times spent 31 paragraphs today dissecting the Harris plan to lower prices.
It spent 0 paragraphs dissecting Trump's "plan."
Trump spent almost two hours yesterday, with props behind him, supposedly trying to explain how prices would drop if he's elected. The Times spent Zero Point Zero percent of the story examining how he would do it and if it would work.
It then asked multiple Ivy League economists to critique the Harris plan.
Here is an example from the HCR piece we all just read: "And the New York Times reported that in a speech in North Carolina, “Harris Is Set to Lay Out an Economic Message Light on Details,” adding that she is expected to tweak Biden administration themes “in a bid to turn the Democratic economic agenda into an asset.”
HCR goes on to note that the US has the strongest economy in the world right now and inflation has been successfully managed.
As far as I'm concerned, a statement by the NYT that the Biden/Harris admin needs to 'turn their economic agenda into an asset' strongly suggests that they currently see it as a liability -- which is not only not true but also a major right-wing talking point.
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.
Here is something shared by emoltzen on Threads:
The NY Times spent 31 paragraphs today dissecting the Harris plan to lower prices.
It spent 0 paragraphs dissecting Trump's "plan."
Trump spent almost two hours yesterday, with props behind him, supposedly trying to explain how prices would drop if he's elected. The Times spent Zero Point Zero percent of the story examining how he would do it and if it would work.
It then asked multiple Ivy League economists to critique the Harris plan.
Here is an example from the HCR piece we all just read: "And the New York Times reported that in a speech in North Carolina, “Harris Is Set to Lay Out an Economic Message Light on Details,” adding that she is expected to tweak Biden administration themes “in a bid to turn the Democratic economic agenda into an asset.”
HCR goes on to note that the US has the strongest economy in the world right now and inflation has been successfully managed.
As far as I'm concerned, a statement by the NYT that the Biden/Harris admin needs to 'turn their economic agenda into an asset' strongly suggests that they currently see it as a liability -- which is not only not true but also a major right-wing talking point.
P.S. by 'interpret in the wrong way', I suppose that means you believe that the way YOU interpret things is the only right way.