After 2016 they admitted being culpable for giving rise to Trumpism and promised to be better. 2020 was better and January 21 was taken seriously and has not been completely forgotten . Today we see shows that refuse to air his live events or even show video clips, again a welcomed move.
While Biden's coverage is improving, there needs to…
After 2016 they admitted being culpable for giving rise to Trumpism and promised to be better. 2020 was better and January 21 was taken seriously and has not been completely forgotten . Today we see shows that refuse to air his live events or even show video clips, again a welcomed move.
While Biden's coverage is improving, there needs to be much more. The problem now is not too much Trump but rather not enough Biden. The balance of news should tip in favor of the incumbent , not the challenger(s). HCR gets it right .
I accept your assertion that Trump coverage has declined a little although I haven’t made that observation myself. Regardless, I think Trump gets way too much coverage. I agree that Biden doesn’t get enough coverage. What’s worse is that the headline writers misconstrue the content of the limited coverage of Biden. Often, the headline suggests something negative about Biden, and the article is almost entirely positive. My take is that WaPo’s headline writers are especially bad in this regard and that NYT editors are even worse than WaPo headline writers. The result is that Biden doesn’t get his due, even in the newspapers of record.
I agree and even though I subscribe to both, I've had to learn to ignore the headlines which are probably aimed at more conservative readers and just dive into the story. Still despite all their good content I look to other sources like Substack to find authoritative writers I can trust for the news that matters and why I come here first thing every morning to get my head on straight before I dive into the M$M cesspool.
I've dumped both papers more than once and dropped cable or a streaming service because the content on MSNBC or CNN was either over the top or way below the belt. It's been this way since the days of the pamphleteers. Heather and Joanne have talked about the media on the podcast pointing out despite changes in technology, there's a common thread running through journalism through the ages both bad and good. Bottomline, the 4th Estate has bailed up out when we really needed it and we'd be goners without it.
It appoears that we’ve been down same road. I dropped NYT for 20 years for a headline that said W would have won if Florida had counted correctly on a story that showed he would have lost. Dropped them again, a year or two, for something less egregious, but only for a few months. Pretty hard to beat their investigative reporting, or WaPo’s for that matter. Unfortunately, headlines matter when in comes to a story’s effect on public opinion, probably more than, say, the opinions written by the editorial staff, so doing them for the money is pretty close to unforgivable in my book. But I’m kind of a hard ass in that department. Might have made a good fire-and-brimstone preacher if notion of a sentient entity with supernatural power that takes an interest in individual Homo sapiens weren’t such obvious bullshit.
After 2016 they admitted being culpable for giving rise to Trumpism and promised to be better. 2020 was better and January 21 was taken seriously and has not been completely forgotten . Today we see shows that refuse to air his live events or even show video clips, again a welcomed move.
While Biden's coverage is improving, there needs to be much more. The problem now is not too much Trump but rather not enough Biden. The balance of news should tip in favor of the incumbent , not the challenger(s). HCR gets it right .
I accept your assertion that Trump coverage has declined a little although I haven’t made that observation myself. Regardless, I think Trump gets way too much coverage. I agree that Biden doesn’t get enough coverage. What’s worse is that the headline writers misconstrue the content of the limited coverage of Biden. Often, the headline suggests something negative about Biden, and the article is almost entirely positive. My take is that WaPo’s headline writers are especially bad in this regard and that NYT editors are even worse than WaPo headline writers. The result is that Biden doesn’t get his due, even in the newspapers of record.
I agree and even though I subscribe to both, I've had to learn to ignore the headlines which are probably aimed at more conservative readers and just dive into the story. Still despite all their good content I look to other sources like Substack to find authoritative writers I can trust for the news that matters and why I come here first thing every morning to get my head on straight before I dive into the M$M cesspool.
I've dumped both papers more than once and dropped cable or a streaming service because the content on MSNBC or CNN was either over the top or way below the belt. It's been this way since the days of the pamphleteers. Heather and Joanne have talked about the media on the podcast pointing out despite changes in technology, there's a common thread running through journalism through the ages both bad and good. Bottomline, the 4th Estate has bailed up out when we really needed it and we'd be goners without it.
It appoears that we’ve been down same road. I dropped NYT for 20 years for a headline that said W would have won if Florida had counted correctly on a story that showed he would have lost. Dropped them again, a year or two, for something less egregious, but only for a few months. Pretty hard to beat their investigative reporting, or WaPo’s for that matter. Unfortunately, headlines matter when in comes to a story’s effect on public opinion, probably more than, say, the opinions written by the editorial staff, so doing them for the money is pretty close to unforgivable in my book. But I’m kind of a hard ass in that department. Might have made a good fire-and-brimstone preacher if notion of a sentient entity with supernatural power that takes an interest in individual Homo sapiens weren’t such obvious bullshit.
Speak of the devil....
The Pro-Corporate New York Times
Today on TAP: Its coverage is often biased and sloppy.
Sometimes the news and “interpretative” coverage of the supposedly liberal New York Times is astonishingly shabby and friendly to the corporate view.
https://prospect.org/blogs-and-newsletters/tap/2023-07-14-pro-corporate-new-york-times/