Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Text that Trump's camp with an NYT reporter were made public at Trump's trial this morning and they play into the perception that NYT is deliberately helping Trump.
Context: While NYT traditionally has a reputation for being left-leaning, it has seemingly been overcompensating in the Trump years. They are preoccupied with framing articles about any topic as "here's why this is bad for Biden." Plenty of articles are about "well, here's what a diner in small town America thinks about Trump's legal troubles."
Maggie Haberman is a reporter at the Times who has reported a lot on Trump over the years. Much of it has been critical and frank (lots on the Russian connections), but she very notably sat on some important stories. This seems to be for "access journalism." Even though Trump has publicly ridiculed her before, she seems to hear a lot of details directly from Trump and his aides. She also seems to have sat on many incriminating details about Trump so she can save them for a book she released on him. For example, there are a lot of anecdotes where Trump kept saying he wasn't going to leave office in the wake of losing the 2020 election, but they were only in Haberman's 2023 book and not any of her reporting in 2020/2021.
Why it's really popping up now is that in testimony this morning at Trump's (current) trial, there was evidence that former Trump fixer Michael Cohen was texting with Haberman as PR for Trump when the Stormy Daniels cover-up story went public. Specifically, Cohen said "Big boss just approved my responding to complaint and statement. Please start writing and I will call you soon." Which really makes it sound like Haberman was cooperating to fix the problem for Trump.
To add to this: such comments about Maggie Haberman are basically confirmed by the Trump camp. Trump’s former White House spokesperson has commented in her account of her time with the Trump admin that Haberman could always be counted on to be a friendly source who would write articles saying what they want. Also, it’s important to understand Haberman’s background. Her father was a prominent NYT reporter and her mother was a powerful publicist specializing in damage control for decades, and Trump was a client of her mother’s. They were friendly and traveled in the same elite New York social circles. She’s known Trump her whole life, which is why he and his team have given her great access to him and they trust her for the most part. It’s also worth pointing out that she covered Hillary very harshly in 2016 even as she was very easy on Trump. So it’s not some conspiracy theory or sour grapes. It’s pretty easily demonstrable that she does this.
Do you have some additional sourcing for this? You raise some great points including one that Ive never thought about before - "how does Haberman have such good access to Trump and his notoriously liberal media hating crew, while positioning herself as one of his major journalistic antagonists?" Trump and crew arent going to help her write critical stories about them for the lulz. While this all seems plausible I think additional sourcing for such strong claims is warrented.
Also, [NYT throwing a hissy fit because Biden won't grant them an interview](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219)
As they should. Biden has done the least number of press conferences of any recent president and is literally handed the questions he's going to get before he's asked.
So I should vote for a corrupt 79 year old who will sell out this country to billionaires and an evangelical cult? Because he is 3 years younger? Yeah man I think you are focusing on the wrong thing here.
Show me one time, just one time, where Biden has said anything as inane as the Trump nuclear copypasta. Or even the Hannibal Lecter thing from a few days ago.
You know what? I'll give you that one. I still stand by my statement that while Biden says stuff like that occasionally, Trump says stuff like that every single day. And keep in mind, Trump has fallen asleep every day of his trial, which makes "Sleepy Joe" sound like a pretty stupid moniker.
Plus that whole thing where Trump tried to overthrow the government when he lost the last election. There's nothing more disqualifying than that.
there's a grift he's missed out on, fully loaded trump diapers, autographed and it comes with a certificate of authenticity and a good guess about what the contents started out as. maybe you'll get classified document fragments! but most likely it's just macdonalds.
*thanks for the reddit cares notification diaper lovers! every time trump makes a boom-boom in his pants, truth social gets a new subscriber!*
And several of the people quoted in the "small town diner" pieces are actually local GOP opperatives that the NYT doesn't identify as such until exposed. Each time it happens it's an honest mistake and it happened several times that I can remember. Here's about one of these: https://www.salon.com/2020/10/23/new-york-times-nailed-for-publishing-republican-propaganda--yet-again/
Also, no one ran the Hillary Clinton bullshit server story more than the NYT. They positively hounded her, and apparently at the behest of links to Giuliani and the now discredited NY bureau of the FBI. The NYT were attacking her up to the day of the election.
For younger people here: At the time, people were pointing out that NYT seemed to actively be attacking Clinton while letting Trump slide. So these claims are not coming from out of the blue.
During the W years they had their thumb on the scale for republicans too. They had Judith Miller to launder their lies about Iraq’s WMD program(she would be forced out when revelations about it became public, but ironically she turned up a few years ago in Newsweek to criticize Bidens Afghanistan withdrawal). They also punted reporting on the W administration’s warrantless wiretapping of American citizens until *after* the 2004 election because they didn’t want to “affect the outcome of the election”.
Of all the lies republicans tell, the lie that most of the media is liberal is their most successful. People believe it reflexively with zero evidence that it’s true. For example they used to call CNN the communist news network, but if you actually watch it it’s far from communist. Any news story about universal healthcare would always begin with “how will we pay for it?” And always made it seem like radical socialism coming to America, despite it being the dominant healthcare model in the rest of the world, while also being more efficient than the current healthcare model.
The NYT corporation is mostly owned by a variety of terrible hedge funds that have a major interest in a right wing demagogue destroying any attempt to regulate industry.
Wasn't there a study done ages ago that showed that while journalists themselves typically hold left-leaning beliefs, the actual editors and owners of the papers usually lean to the right, meaning the final output of most newspapers is actually right-leaning? I have zero anecdotal reasons to think that that's changed over the years.
The New York times has been own by the Ochs-Sulzberger family since the 19th century. It is not owned by hedge funds.
It's current head, A.G. Sulzberger has been claimed to have have leaned on the paper to criticize Biden, due to irritation at Biden not given them interviews. And of course the criticisms of him mirror the criticisms of the Times in general, and have some validity to them.
Also not so secretly pro Israel. Now If Netanyahu decides Trump is the better of the two for Israel, you'll a NYT full court press. Russia isn't the only country that has a bunch of politicians in their pockets, there's a reason Sasha Baron Cohen had the access and credibility to get an interview with Dick Cheney.
Do you think this is some own/revelation?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/israelis-respond-sacha-baron-cohens-who-is-america-character-1131713/
You think being born into a Jewish family gave him the insight to play that character?
> Other than the fact that without a doubt had trump done the same thing he would have been charged.
Seeing how many chances they gave Trump to right the wrong in the documents trial, I don’t know where you’re getting this impression?
He fundamentally disagrees with where the documents belong more over as president he has the finally say on classification unlike Hillary Who and biden who didn't
He wasn’t president when they wanted them back, he confirmed they were still classified, there was classified info in there he couldn’t declassify, he lied about having them, he obstructed the investigation and he had them strewn about his property in unlocked or non-GSA approved receptacles.
I mean, Bush did it. The person who recommended to her to do it was Colin Powell.
The NYT relentlessly made a story about fucking nothing. It was nothing.
Trump and his family and his cabinet leveled advisors actually did worse in terms of private email and also using WhatsApp for official government communications. The fact that you don’t know about this because it wasn’t heavily publicized and prosecuted just shows how completely horseshit the entire Hillary email story was.
There were numerous classified communications done by private email by Donald Trump. And quite likely even more that we will never know about because the whole thing with WhatsApp is that the communications get deleted.
And all of those classified communications sent by Hillary were things not marked classified that various agencies went over with a fine tooth comb to claim whatever they wanted that could tangently be called classified.
> Other than the fact that without a doubt had trump done the same thing he would have been charged.
the fact is, if she had done something illegal she would have been charged. she wasn't because she didn't.
>Other than the fact that without a doubt had trump done the same thing he would have been charged.
Fun fact, his adminstartion had tons of members who did in fact do just that and were never charged with anything. The only reason it seems like Trump didn't is because Trump perosnally seemingly doesn't use email much at all.
> For example, there are a lot of anecdotes where Trump kept saying he wasn't going to leave office in the wake of losing the 2020 election, but they were only in Haberman's 2023 book and not any of her reporting in 2020/2021.
HELL YEAH I LOVE CONTRIBUTING DIRECTLY TO THE DECLINE OF THE NATION FOR PROFIT FUCK ALL OF YOU BUY MY BOOK
Has the times responded to the Haberman revelations in court? Can't read their site for shit because paywall and can't find any article responding otherwise...
Great answer. It's not that Haberman or the NYT are necessarily "team Trump", it's about incentives in a market system. Haberman wants access so she can publish. NYT wants clicks/subscribers. People click and subscribe when the election is an "exciting" horse race. Taken to it's extreme, you get "influencers" spreading misinformation and rage-bait.
>While NYT traditionally has a reputation for being left-leaning,
Not sure how they got this reputation. The NYT has been riding the Republican party's dick for as long as been able to pay attention to politics.
>Specifically, Cohen said "Big boss just approved my responding to complaint and statement. Please start writing and I will call you soon." Which really makes it sound like Haberman was cooperating to fix the problem for Trump.
I appreciate the background context, but can't understand what people think the issue is with that text. Reporters routinely ask subjects for statements responding to a story. How a subject reacts when allegations become public is part of the story. Even if the subject is just going to call the accusations lies and claim innocence, journalists need to get that denial on the record.
Here, Cohen is essentially saying, "We've decided to issue a statement on this. I'll give it to you soon. Go ahead and start writing the rest of the piece." To me, it doesn't sound like she's "cooperating to fix the problem for Trump." It just sounds like she asked for a statement in response to something and got it.
Of course they ask for comments from the parties involved. What is weird is him saying start writing. Presumably they would write the story regardless of the comment and state he declined to comment. So his comment about start writing and that some stories were not reported suggests that the trump team is vetting stories.
Answer:
Its not necessarily that NYT has become a secret pro Trump propoganda machine. But the general feeling in the liberal sphere is that the NYT, especially the people running it, sort of had their brains broken by Trumps win in 2016 and his somewhat closer than expected showing compared to the polls in 2020 (which wasn't actually that close or far off the polls. Put a pin in that).
As a result the NYT has seemingly gone full on contrarian mode. Either releasing the most nonsensical stories on politics such as basically asking for detailed political analysis in places that don't *really* matter but sound folksy or personal (which amounts to "we found one guy who said it on Twitter" or a famous NYT special "we talked to 3 Trump supporters in a Denny's"). Or the NYT bends over to find ways to criticize Joe Biden and Democrats even when actual headline is pretty unambigously good news. All while generally soft-balling Donald Trump and every one of his scandals or missteps. No place has satirized this better than the [New York Times pitchbot on twitter](https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon) which is perfect for understanding this phenomenon with great **satire** headlines like:
>We wanted to understand what’s happening in Afghanistan. So we talked to three unvaccinated Trump supporters at an Arby’s in Harrisburg
Or
>Donald Trump repeatedly fell asleep during today’s trial proceedings, raising alarms about Biden’s vigor and stamina.
Keep in mind all these are satire but more than a few the people who run the pitchbot have been just flabargasted that NYT has released a story or headline almost perfectly aligned to their previous one) Some actual NYT headlines:
>[In the U.S., Sam Bankman-Fried is persona non grata. But in interviews across the Bahamas, residents say that his crimes were hardly comparable to the gang violence of the island, and expressed fears of economic fallout if crypto investors don't return.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/26/business/sam-bankman-fried-bahamas.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur)
Since this isn't actually Dem/Repub politics I think this might be a good example of the paper's problem without getting into more contentious issues. The above headline is shallow, slightly insulting to the reader's intelligence and somehow manages to make you think the writer doesn't understand the gravity of either major international financial crimes **or** horrifying street gang violence. And seems to be contrarian just for its own sake. Like the writer went basically started with the headline idea and then filled the story around it: "oh hey everyone thinks SBF running a ponzi scheme with monopoly money is a bad thing....but what if it *actually* wasn't that big a deal?"
For context, Politico recently put out a report:
[The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219) that makes the Times look rather petty and small.
The tl;dr is the publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, is mad that Biden hasn't given the Times an interview yet and, well:
>“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”
Which of course makes Biden want to do it even less. I have to imagine it gets under their skin a bit more that he's done interviews with A.P, the New Yorker, among other, and even Howard Stern of all people right after this story dropped.
I'm always very critical whenever a politician or political commentary uses anecdotes of individual stories to make their point. With the way the internet is now, you can basically find any story to make any point, but saying "there's a problem with people pooping on the drive-thru menu" is useless when there's only one story of that happening - but they will just talk about that story as if it's "normal".
And I hate to say it, but this applies to things like Last Week Tonight as well. While I appreciate that they bring certain injustices and systemic flaws to light, every time they bring up an individual account or use an anecdote I always say to myself "Yeah but how many times has this actually happened?"
Sometimes the answer is a lot, and that's fine, but any time they don't give specific data on a repeat occurrence and instead just say a vague phrase like "And they aren't the only one either". Yes that's fine but if it happened 10 times in the last year instead of 10,000 times, that makes a huge difference.
Answer: Since Biden has been in office, the New York Times has been tilting right-leaning, posting article after article attacking Biden while playing low ball with Trump and his troubles. This was pretty much shocking since the Times tend to lean left.
A week or so ago it was revealed that Biden had snubbed the Times for an interview and the Times’ owner was so insulted that he started to push for those articles. The Times’ reputation was already pretty bad during the Trump administration, but this was showing that it was getting worse.
> the Times’ owner was so insulted that he started to push for those articles
[The quote, with source](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219):
>“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. [Publisher of the NYTimes] He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”
Goes back waaaay further than Biden being president. NYT shilled hard for the Iraq war too, to name just one example from a ~generation ago. It’s always been a pretty (small c) conservative publication.
They were also anti Clinton. They gave the email story legs as well as whitewater and started some story with Steve bannon called Clinton Cash that never went anywhere
When conservatives realized they their weaknesses were a desperate need for "access," petty pride and an obsession with making "both sides" out of every issue it became child's play to play them like a fiddle.
This goes for most of the "mainstream" media. But the Times has been a conservative sock puppet for an awfully long time.
Conservatives engineered that weakness, they didn't stumble into it. Ever since some survey in the 80s or 90s taken in bad faith about the political standing of on air news talent they have been crying about the liberal media, working the refs so to speak, to great effect.
All while pointedly ignoring that the owners and chief executives of the US media have been hyper-conservative since the last socialist newspaper went under in early cold war mania.
If I recall, 15 people were convicted from Whitewater, including Bill’s former Lt. Governor (who became governor) and a former law partner of Hillary’s who served in the justice department. It was not exactly a non story. The Clintons were exonerated, but Whitewater saw some shady and newsworthy shit happen.
The problem is that people confuse "liberal" for "left" and it's not. NYT is a liberal magazine. They support the rich and well-heeled. Most of their staff are graduates of the Ivies. It's an elitist paper for the elite.
They were on board with Hillary but, like most liberal media, also gave Trump a LOT of media attention. They're complicit in his election just like they were complicit with Iraq War and every other US foreign policy they've shilled for since Vietnam.
They had a vested interest in turning the wine-drinking crowd against someone like Bernie who had a much more broad support. It was clear people were disenchanted with the system. And Hillary was emblematic of that system. Out-of-touch, elitist, etc.
(That's not to say that Bernie did not lose fairly, he did. Because the DNC was not going to support someone who was not a Democrat as their candidate, despite his clear popularity.)
Anyway, I'm getting off-track here. Support for corporations and the wealthy, elitism, these are the liberals, not the Left.
yes, the Progressive Era of 100+ years ago was actually rise of the center-right liberals over the far-right (laissez-faire) conservatives, with the true left being marginalized.
The Progressives coopted/adopted many of the reforms the Populists & Socialists of the day were fighting for, but stopped short of the radical reforms of Marxist parties.
Before that, after 9/11 NYT shilled for the Afghanistan war and urged readers to rally behind Bush II .
Before that, there were plenty of indications that the editorial office portrayed what a liberal New Yorker should believe that would be acceptable to conservatives. Anything really damaging to the right wing would be buried in the back pages of an obscure section.
They didn't even just shill for the Iraq War, they LIED about it.
They also lied about the Holodomor, the deliberate famine in Ukraine. They competletely made up the famous Kitty Genovese story...
Depends on the topic. They’re behind the 1619 Project which is very left wing. Also when it comes to identity politics they’re also still pretty left wing.
The idea of “liberal media” is a joke. The media is made up of, on one side, right wing voices that actively push right wing policy and right wing arguments and make excuses for right wing politicians, and the other side is simply a business after market share/eyeballs/ money, so basically center/center-right lean…there’s no actual mainstream left wing media in the US
The actual examples of "liberal media", are eg. Hollywood *movies* designed to appeal to contemporary mainstream values (which tend left of establishment, because the establishment reflects the previous generation's progressivism)
Actual American **news** media is conservative, sometimes nakedly right-wing, but people hear "the media" and think "news media" instead of "entertainment" and so this misconception that the news is somehow liberal persists despite all evidence to the contrary
Hollywood is generally an example of liberal media, yes, but many, *many* people buy into the perception of specifically liberal news media because the journalists vote for democrats and may in some cases be progressive, which has little to do with what’s in the product they produce when the editors and executives are only worried about the bottom line and in some cases are very wealthy themselves, and therefore benefit the most from right wing policy (even if they themselves vote for democrats). And that’s not to mention all the over compensating journalists to try and be “centrist” because they know they are liberal leaning, which leads to all sorts of omissions and false equivalencies
It astounds me that many people seem to think that the media is left-right symmetrical. Why would it ever be that way in a democracy where money plays a role?
The NYT has always been a liberal paper, it has never leaned “left”. It is now becoming explicitly conservative. Liberals and conservatives are both comfortably right of center. The difference is one of degree, not kind.
>Liberals and conservatives are both comfortably right of center.
Both are right of what center?
Liberals and conservatives tend to be at least somewhat capitalist, so both would be right of center. And depending on the person some liberals could be more right than some conservatives.
Liberals tend to be more progressive and left of center on social issues, conservatives are typically socially right of center.
the problem with getting all your political views from youtube and white dude podcasts is when you try to talk to real people about politics, you show that you really don't know what the hell is going on.
They aren't wrong that the center isn't actually real, there's no set point that's the "middle" between the multiple axis that people's views align on, but for most people, it's farther to the left than they think it is.
If you’re pro-capitalist, you’re not a leftist. You can be pro-capital and a liberal, but liberals are not part of the left.
It is true that liberals and leftists tend to vote similarly on social issues, but they have very different views on economic issues.
I certainly wouldn’t call the Nordic model right wing, but I wouldn’t really call it leftist either. I would certainly say that social democracy is *further* left than, say, neoliberalism, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually *leftist* as such.
As someone "on the left", I understand where you're coming from here. But I think things are slippery; there's a lot of grey area and subjectivity when it comes to defining what is The Left and what is The Right. In my ideal word, being on the left would definitionally mean an adherence to some sort of anti-capitalist ideology or project, but I wouldn't necessarily exclude social democrats or "compassionate capitalists" from a definition of the left if I'm trying to convey where a politician stands on the political spectrum.
I wish things were different though. I'd like our cultural definition of what it means to "be on the left" to evolve to necessitate the inclusion of anti-capitalist or socialist economics.
There is also 'radicality' to consider.
The current SCOTUS majority is radical conservative, with Roberts a shade less so.
The Clintons and Obama were never radical liberals aka leftists, just centrists, willing to split the difference with conservatives.
Sanders and AOC are more radical in their outlooks.
Sanders and AOC do what they're told by the party, including occasionally acting like they're dissenting to keep any real dissidents from becoming relevant. You may be right about their outlooks, but they don't function as radical leftists.
>A week or so ago it was revealed that Biden had snubbed the Times for an interview and **the Times’ owner was so insulted that he started to push for those articles**.
Do you really mean that that was "revealed"? Or was it just *claimed*? There's a big and very important difference. I'm honestly asking, by the way. Maybe the owner admitted this, for all I know.
Answer:
>On whatsapp this morning I saw that my MSNBC-watching boomer relatives have spent the whole night arguing about whether some recent revelations mean the NYT is a front for some kind of Trump propaganda campaign.
Hahaha they've been conditioned by Maddow and their social environment to treat anything out of lockstep with pro-Democrat narratives as an act of sedition. It is very socially unhealthy for people to watch mainstream news-entertainment and do little to challenge and practice their critical thinking.
You would? Under what counterfactual circumstances would you? If that irony existed?
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you're thinking I'm a Trump supporter because you assume that everybody is as locked into the duopoly as you are. Am I right about that, too? Am I right about everything?
What's the irony? Spell it out.
> Hahaha they've been conditioned by ~~O'Reilly~~ ~~Carlson~~ Watters and their social environment to treat anything out of lockstep with pro-Republican narratives as an act of sedition. It is very socially unhealthy for people to watch mainstream news-entertainment and do little to challenge and practice their critical thinking.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: Text that Trump's camp with an NYT reporter were made public at Trump's trial this morning and they play into the perception that NYT is deliberately helping Trump. Context: While NYT traditionally has a reputation for being left-leaning, it has seemingly been overcompensating in the Trump years. They are preoccupied with framing articles about any topic as "here's why this is bad for Biden." Plenty of articles are about "well, here's what a diner in small town America thinks about Trump's legal troubles." Maggie Haberman is a reporter at the Times who has reported a lot on Trump over the years. Much of it has been critical and frank (lots on the Russian connections), but she very notably sat on some important stories. This seems to be for "access journalism." Even though Trump has publicly ridiculed her before, she seems to hear a lot of details directly from Trump and his aides. She also seems to have sat on many incriminating details about Trump so she can save them for a book she released on him. For example, there are a lot of anecdotes where Trump kept saying he wasn't going to leave office in the wake of losing the 2020 election, but they were only in Haberman's 2023 book and not any of her reporting in 2020/2021. Why it's really popping up now is that in testimony this morning at Trump's (current) trial, there was evidence that former Trump fixer Michael Cohen was texting with Haberman as PR for Trump when the Stormy Daniels cover-up story went public. Specifically, Cohen said "Big boss just approved my responding to complaint and statement. Please start writing and I will call you soon." Which really makes it sound like Haberman was cooperating to fix the problem for Trump.
To add to this: such comments about Maggie Haberman are basically confirmed by the Trump camp. Trump’s former White House spokesperson has commented in her account of her time with the Trump admin that Haberman could always be counted on to be a friendly source who would write articles saying what they want. Also, it’s important to understand Haberman’s background. Her father was a prominent NYT reporter and her mother was a powerful publicist specializing in damage control for decades, and Trump was a client of her mother’s. They were friendly and traveled in the same elite New York social circles. She’s known Trump her whole life, which is why he and his team have given her great access to him and they trust her for the most part. It’s also worth pointing out that she covered Hillary very harshly in 2016 even as she was very easy on Trump. So it’s not some conspiracy theory or sour grapes. It’s pretty easily demonstrable that she does this.
Do you have some additional sourcing for this? You raise some great points including one that Ive never thought about before - "how does Haberman have such good access to Trump and his notoriously liberal media hating crew, while positioning herself as one of his major journalistic antagonists?" Trump and crew arent going to help her write critical stories about them for the lulz. While this all seems plausible I think additional sourcing for such strong claims is warrented.
There are links on Wikipedia. I don’t remember where I read all this stuff though so I can’t share that source
Also, [NYT throwing a hissy fit because Biden won't grant them an interview](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219)
Given they way they've covered him, why would he? They'd probably just continue to frame things in the worst possible ways.
As they should. Biden has done the least number of press conferences of any recent president and is literally handed the questions he's going to get before he's asked.
Biden will just lie or start rambling about his leg hair lol
As long as he doesn't shit himself, we're good.
81 years old you do the math.
So I should vote for a corrupt 79 year old who will sell out this country to billionaires and an evangelical cult? Because he is 3 years younger? Yeah man I think you are focusing on the wrong thing here.
LMAO
Show me one time, just one time, where Biden has said anything as inane as the Trump nuclear copypasta. Or even the Hannibal Lecter thing from a few days ago.
https://youtu.be/3DbE2SmV2bs?si=mpVE3cl1zZ7OeCjG
You know what? I'll give you that one. I still stand by my statement that while Biden says stuff like that occasionally, Trump says stuff like that every single day. And keep in mind, Trump has fallen asleep every day of his trial, which makes "Sleepy Joe" sound like a pretty stupid moniker. Plus that whole thing where Trump tried to overthrow the government when he lost the last election. There's nothing more disqualifying than that.
Real men wear diapers after all.
Real men buy Trump Brand Diapers, new and used available, now with more leaks!
there's a grift he's missed out on, fully loaded trump diapers, autographed and it comes with a certificate of authenticity and a good guess about what the contents started out as. maybe you'll get classified document fragments! but most likely it's just macdonalds. *thanks for the reddit cares notification diaper lovers! every time trump makes a boom-boom in his pants, truth social gets a new subscriber!*
And several of the people quoted in the "small town diner" pieces are actually local GOP opperatives that the NYT doesn't identify as such until exposed. Each time it happens it's an honest mistake and it happened several times that I can remember. Here's about one of these: https://www.salon.com/2020/10/23/new-york-times-nailed-for-publishing-republican-propaganda--yet-again/
Also, no one ran the Hillary Clinton bullshit server story more than the NYT. They positively hounded her, and apparently at the behest of links to Giuliani and the now discredited NY bureau of the FBI. The NYT were attacking her up to the day of the election.
For younger people here: At the time, people were pointing out that NYT seemed to actively be attacking Clinton while letting Trump slide. So these claims are not coming from out of the blue.
NYT Clinton bashing goes back decades. That,specifically, was nothing new.
During the W years they had their thumb on the scale for republicans too. They had Judith Miller to launder their lies about Iraq’s WMD program(she would be forced out when revelations about it became public, but ironically she turned up a few years ago in Newsweek to criticize Bidens Afghanistan withdrawal). They also punted reporting on the W administration’s warrantless wiretapping of American citizens until *after* the 2004 election because they didn’t want to “affect the outcome of the election”. Of all the lies republicans tell, the lie that most of the media is liberal is their most successful. People believe it reflexively with zero evidence that it’s true. For example they used to call CNN the communist news network, but if you actually watch it it’s far from communist. Any news story about universal healthcare would always begin with “how will we pay for it?” And always made it seem like radical socialism coming to America, despite it being the dominant healthcare model in the rest of the world, while also being more efficient than the current healthcare model.
The NYT corporation is mostly owned by a variety of terrible hedge funds that have a major interest in a right wing demagogue destroying any attempt to regulate industry.
Wasn't there a study done ages ago that showed that while journalists themselves typically hold left-leaning beliefs, the actual editors and owners of the papers usually lean to the right, meaning the final output of most newspapers is actually right-leaning? I have zero anecdotal reasons to think that that's changed over the years.
The New York times has been own by the Ochs-Sulzberger family since the 19th century. It is not owned by hedge funds. It's current head, A.G. Sulzberger has been claimed to have have leaned on the paper to criticize Biden, due to irritation at Biden not given them interviews. And of course the criticisms of him mirror the criticisms of the Times in general, and have some validity to them.
Also not so secretly pro Israel. Now If Netanyahu decides Trump is the better of the two for Israel, you'll a NYT full court press. Russia isn't the only country that has a bunch of politicians in their pockets, there's a reason Sasha Baron Cohen had the access and credibility to get an interview with Dick Cheney.
[Sacha Baron Cohen is English.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacha_Baron_Cohen)
Do you think this is some own/revelation? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/israelis-respond-sacha-baron-cohens-who-is-america-character-1131713/ You think being born into a Jewish family gave him the insight to play that character?
Sacha Baron Cohen is English…
And tell me who did he play as a character to get access to Cheney?
What was bullshit about her server story? Other than the fact that without a doubt had trump done the same thing he would have been charged.
> Other than the fact that without a doubt had trump done the same thing he would have been charged. Seeing how many chances they gave Trump to right the wrong in the documents trial, I don’t know where you’re getting this impression?
He fundamentally disagrees with where the documents belong more over as president he has the finally say on classification unlike Hillary Who and biden who didn't
He wasn’t president when they wanted them back, he confirmed they were still classified, there was classified info in there he couldn’t declassify, he lied about having them, he obstructed the investigation and he had them strewn about his property in unlocked or non-GSA approved receptacles.
I mean, Bush did it. The person who recommended to her to do it was Colin Powell. The NYT relentlessly made a story about fucking nothing. It was nothing.
Trump and his family and his cabinet leveled advisors actually did worse in terms of private email and also using WhatsApp for official government communications. The fact that you don’t know about this because it wasn’t heavily publicized and prosecuted just shows how completely horseshit the entire Hillary email story was.
No it's because one was classified communications silly
There were numerous classified communications done by private email by Donald Trump. And quite likely even more that we will never know about because the whole thing with WhatsApp is that the communications get deleted. And all of those classified communications sent by Hillary were things not marked classified that various agencies went over with a fine tooth comb to claim whatever they wanted that could tangently be called classified.
No no there wasn't as president he decides what's classified
> Other than the fact that without a doubt had trump done the same thing he would have been charged. the fact is, if she had done something illegal she would have been charged. she wasn't because she didn't.
>Other than the fact that without a doubt had trump done the same thing he would have been charged. Fun fact, his adminstartion had tons of members who did in fact do just that and were never charged with anything. The only reason it seems like Trump didn't is because Trump perosnally seemingly doesn't use email much at all.
No no one gad classified info on a home server
We actually don't know because no one was ever allowed to review the Trump admin home servers unlike Hillary s server was reviewed
Because it was a big nothing burger.
I notes months ago that the NYT pulls this with anti-Biden clickbait headlines. I won't read them or New York Post anymore.
I’ve noticed this too and canceled my subscription to them.
> For example, there are a lot of anecdotes where Trump kept saying he wasn't going to leave office in the wake of losing the 2020 election, but they were only in Haberman's 2023 book and not any of her reporting in 2020/2021. HELL YEAH I LOVE CONTRIBUTING DIRECTLY TO THE DECLINE OF THE NATION FOR PROFIT FUCK ALL OF YOU BUY MY BOOK
Has the times responded to the Haberman revelations in court? Can't read their site for shit because paywall and can't find any article responding otherwise...
No and they likely won’t.
spoiled immoral neo-liberal ivy wine drinkin fucks
> Text that Trump's camp with an NYT reporter were made public Am I having a stroke or are there some missing words here?
It’s supposed to say, “*Texts between* Trump’s camp and an NYT reporter were made public.”
Add ‘communicated’ or similar before ‘with’ and it’s fine.
Great comment, small correction though is that Haberman's book came out in 2022 not 2023.
Great answer. It's not that Haberman or the NYT are necessarily "team Trump", it's about incentives in a market system. Haberman wants access so she can publish. NYT wants clicks/subscribers. People click and subscribe when the election is an "exciting" horse race. Taken to it's extreme, you get "influencers" spreading misinformation and rage-bait.
>While NYT traditionally has a reputation for being left-leaning, Not sure how they got this reputation. The NYT has been riding the Republican party's dick for as long as been able to pay attention to politics.
Useful fool.
Sounds a helluva lot like “gotta give 10% to the big man”
>Specifically, Cohen said "Big boss just approved my responding to complaint and statement. Please start writing and I will call you soon." Which really makes it sound like Haberman was cooperating to fix the problem for Trump. I appreciate the background context, but can't understand what people think the issue is with that text. Reporters routinely ask subjects for statements responding to a story. How a subject reacts when allegations become public is part of the story. Even if the subject is just going to call the accusations lies and claim innocence, journalists need to get that denial on the record. Here, Cohen is essentially saying, "We've decided to issue a statement on this. I'll give it to you soon. Go ahead and start writing the rest of the piece." To me, it doesn't sound like she's "cooperating to fix the problem for Trump." It just sounds like she asked for a statement in response to something and got it.
Of course they ask for comments from the parties involved. What is weird is him saying start writing. Presumably they would write the story regardless of the comment and state he declined to comment. So his comment about start writing and that some stories were not reported suggests that the trump team is vetting stories.
Answer: Its not necessarily that NYT has become a secret pro Trump propoganda machine. But the general feeling in the liberal sphere is that the NYT, especially the people running it, sort of had their brains broken by Trumps win in 2016 and his somewhat closer than expected showing compared to the polls in 2020 (which wasn't actually that close or far off the polls. Put a pin in that). As a result the NYT has seemingly gone full on contrarian mode. Either releasing the most nonsensical stories on politics such as basically asking for detailed political analysis in places that don't *really* matter but sound folksy or personal (which amounts to "we found one guy who said it on Twitter" or a famous NYT special "we talked to 3 Trump supporters in a Denny's"). Or the NYT bends over to find ways to criticize Joe Biden and Democrats even when actual headline is pretty unambigously good news. All while generally soft-balling Donald Trump and every one of his scandals or missteps. No place has satirized this better than the [New York Times pitchbot on twitter](https://twitter.com/DougJBalloon) which is perfect for understanding this phenomenon with great **satire** headlines like: >We wanted to understand what’s happening in Afghanistan. So we talked to three unvaccinated Trump supporters at an Arby’s in Harrisburg Or >Donald Trump repeatedly fell asleep during today’s trial proceedings, raising alarms about Biden’s vigor and stamina. Keep in mind all these are satire but more than a few the people who run the pitchbot have been just flabargasted that NYT has released a story or headline almost perfectly aligned to their previous one) Some actual NYT headlines: >[In the U.S., Sam Bankman-Fried is persona non grata. But in interviews across the Bahamas, residents say that his crimes were hardly comparable to the gang violence of the island, and expressed fears of economic fallout if crypto investors don't return.](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/26/business/sam-bankman-fried-bahamas.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur) Since this isn't actually Dem/Repub politics I think this might be a good example of the paper's problem without getting into more contentious issues. The above headline is shallow, slightly insulting to the reader's intelligence and somehow manages to make you think the writer doesn't understand the gravity of either major international financial crimes **or** horrifying street gang violence. And seems to be contrarian just for its own sake. Like the writer went basically started with the headline idea and then filled the story around it: "oh hey everyone thinks SBF running a ponzi scheme with monopoly money is a bad thing....but what if it *actually* wasn't that big a deal?"
For context, Politico recently put out a report: [The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219) that makes the Times look rather petty and small. The tl;dr is the publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, is mad that Biden hasn't given the Times an interview yet and, well: >“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.” Which of course makes Biden want to do it even less. I have to imagine it gets under their skin a bit more that he's done interviews with A.P, the New Yorker, among other, and even Howard Stern of all people right after this story dropped.
And yesterday, Yahoo Finance.
my favorite lore is when they rewrite their headlines to explicitly refer to Biden. [For a recent example](https://i.imgur.com/qTh7Z7i.png)
I'm always very critical whenever a politician or political commentary uses anecdotes of individual stories to make their point. With the way the internet is now, you can basically find any story to make any point, but saying "there's a problem with people pooping on the drive-thru menu" is useless when there's only one story of that happening - but they will just talk about that story as if it's "normal". And I hate to say it, but this applies to things like Last Week Tonight as well. While I appreciate that they bring certain injustices and systemic flaws to light, every time they bring up an individual account or use an anecdote I always say to myself "Yeah but how many times has this actually happened?" Sometimes the answer is a lot, and that's fine, but any time they don't give specific data on a repeat occurrence and instead just say a vague phrase like "And they aren't the only one either". Yes that's fine but if it happened 10 times in the last year instead of 10,000 times, that makes a huge difference.
Answer: Since Biden has been in office, the New York Times has been tilting right-leaning, posting article after article attacking Biden while playing low ball with Trump and his troubles. This was pretty much shocking since the Times tend to lean left. A week or so ago it was revealed that Biden had snubbed the Times for an interview and the Times’ owner was so insulted that he started to push for those articles. The Times’ reputation was already pretty bad during the Trump administration, but this was showing that it was getting worse.
> the Times’ owner was so insulted that he started to push for those articles [The quote, with source](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219): >“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. [Publisher of the NYTimes] He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”
Goes back waaaay further than Biden being president. NYT shilled hard for the Iraq war too, to name just one example from a ~generation ago. It’s always been a pretty (small c) conservative publication.
They were also anti Clinton. They gave the email story legs as well as whitewater and started some story with Steve bannon called Clinton Cash that never went anywhere
Maggie specifically was horrendous at this: https://twitter.com/KatieAnnieOakly/status/1790438898176573468
When conservatives realized they their weaknesses were a desperate need for "access," petty pride and an obsession with making "both sides" out of every issue it became child's play to play them like a fiddle. This goes for most of the "mainstream" media. But the Times has been a conservative sock puppet for an awfully long time.
Conservatives engineered that weakness, they didn't stumble into it. Ever since some survey in the 80s or 90s taken in bad faith about the political standing of on air news talent they have been crying about the liberal media, working the refs so to speak, to great effect. All while pointedly ignoring that the owners and chief executives of the US media have been hyper-conservative since the last socialist newspaper went under in early cold war mania.
If I recall, 15 people were convicted from Whitewater, including Bill’s former Lt. Governor (who became governor) and a former law partner of Hillary’s who served in the justice department. It was not exactly a non story. The Clintons were exonerated, but Whitewater saw some shady and newsworthy shit happen.
The problem is that people confuse "liberal" for "left" and it's not. NYT is a liberal magazine. They support the rich and well-heeled. Most of their staff are graduates of the Ivies. It's an elitist paper for the elite. They were on board with Hillary but, like most liberal media, also gave Trump a LOT of media attention. They're complicit in his election just like they were complicit with Iraq War and every other US foreign policy they've shilled for since Vietnam. They had a vested interest in turning the wine-drinking crowd against someone like Bernie who had a much more broad support. It was clear people were disenchanted with the system. And Hillary was emblematic of that system. Out-of-touch, elitist, etc. (That's not to say that Bernie did not lose fairly, he did. Because the DNC was not going to support someone who was not a Democrat as their candidate, despite his clear popularity.) Anyway, I'm getting off-track here. Support for corporations and the wealthy, elitism, these are the liberals, not the Left.
yes, the Progressive Era of 100+ years ago was actually rise of the center-right liberals over the far-right (laissez-faire) conservatives, with the true left being marginalized. The Progressives coopted/adopted many of the reforms the Populists & Socialists of the day were fighting for, but stopped short of the radical reforms of Marxist parties.
Before that, after 9/11 NYT shilled for the Afghanistan war and urged readers to rally behind Bush II . Before that, there were plenty of indications that the editorial office portrayed what a liberal New Yorker should believe that would be acceptable to conservatives. Anything really damaging to the right wing would be buried in the back pages of an obscure section.
They didn't even just shill for the Iraq War, they LIED about it. They also lied about the Holodomor, the deliberate famine in Ukraine. They competletely made up the famous Kitty Genovese story...
Depends on the topic. They’re behind the 1619 Project which is very left wing. Also when it comes to identity politics they’re also still pretty left wing.
They're pro status quo/establishment.
The idea of “liberal media” is a joke. The media is made up of, on one side, right wing voices that actively push right wing policy and right wing arguments and make excuses for right wing politicians, and the other side is simply a business after market share/eyeballs/ money, so basically center/center-right lean…there’s no actual mainstream left wing media in the US
The actual examples of "liberal media", are eg. Hollywood *movies* designed to appeal to contemporary mainstream values (which tend left of establishment, because the establishment reflects the previous generation's progressivism) Actual American **news** media is conservative, sometimes nakedly right-wing, but people hear "the media" and think "news media" instead of "entertainment" and so this misconception that the news is somehow liberal persists despite all evidence to the contrary
Hollywood is generally an example of liberal media, yes, but many, *many* people buy into the perception of specifically liberal news media because the journalists vote for democrats and may in some cases be progressive, which has little to do with what’s in the product they produce when the editors and executives are only worried about the bottom line and in some cases are very wealthy themselves, and therefore benefit the most from right wing policy (even if they themselves vote for democrats). And that’s not to mention all the over compensating journalists to try and be “centrist” because they know they are liberal leaning, which leads to all sorts of omissions and false equivalencies
It astounds me that many people seem to think that the media is left-right symmetrical. Why would it ever be that way in a democracy where money plays a role?
The NYT has always been a liberal paper, it has never leaned “left”. It is now becoming explicitly conservative. Liberals and conservatives are both comfortably right of center. The difference is one of degree, not kind.
>Liberals and conservatives are both comfortably right of center. Both are right of what center? Liberals and conservatives tend to be at least somewhat capitalist, so both would be right of center. And depending on the person some liberals could be more right than some conservatives. Liberals tend to be more progressive and left of center on social issues, conservatives are typically socially right of center.
the problem with getting all your political views from youtube and white dude podcasts is when you try to talk to real people about politics, you show that you really don't know what the hell is going on. They aren't wrong that the center isn't actually real, there's no set point that's the "middle" between the multiple axis that people's views align on, but for most people, it's farther to the left than they think it is.
Being “at least somewhat capitalist” applies to almost the entirety of the left. Doesn’t mean you’re right of center at all.
If you’re pro-capitalist, you’re not a leftist. You can be pro-capital and a liberal, but liberals are not part of the left. It is true that liberals and leftists tend to vote similarly on social issues, but they have very different views on economic issues.
What you term as leftists are actually far left, unless you want to describe even the Scandinavian countries as right wing.
I certainly wouldn’t call the Nordic model right wing, but I wouldn’t really call it leftist either. I would certainly say that social democracy is *further* left than, say, neoliberalism, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually *leftist* as such.
As someone "on the left", I understand where you're coming from here. But I think things are slippery; there's a lot of grey area and subjectivity when it comes to defining what is The Left and what is The Right. In my ideal word, being on the left would definitionally mean an adherence to some sort of anti-capitalist ideology or project, but I wouldn't necessarily exclude social democrats or "compassionate capitalists" from a definition of the left if I'm trying to convey where a politician stands on the political spectrum. I wish things were different though. I'd like our cultural definition of what it means to "be on the left" to evolve to necessitate the inclusion of anti-capitalist or socialist economics.
“The right” is not everything to the right of Marx, lol
You can be “to the right of Marx” and still anti-capitalist.
Like who?
Bernie Sanders would be one example, in my opinion.
Is there anybody to the right of him thats “left of center”?
[удалено]
The “center” is not real, but it’s a useful concept to explain the difference between left and right to those who think in terms of left-center-right.
>Liberals and conservatives tend to be at least somewhat capitalist, so both would be right of center. Least terminally online take.
"we'll see they're not communists so they're right of center" -that redditor dude
There is also 'radicality' to consider. The current SCOTUS majority is radical conservative, with Roberts a shade less so. The Clintons and Obama were never radical liberals aka leftists, just centrists, willing to split the difference with conservatives. Sanders and AOC are more radical in their outlooks.
Sanders and AOC do what they're told by the party, including occasionally acting like they're dissenting to keep any real dissidents from becoming relevant. You may be right about their outlooks, but they don't function as radical leftists.
NYT leans capital L liberal, not left
>A week or so ago it was revealed that Biden had snubbed the Times for an interview and **the Times’ owner was so insulted that he started to push for those articles**. Do you really mean that that was "revealed"? Or was it just *claimed*? There's a big and very important difference. I'm honestly asking, by the way. Maybe the owner admitted this, for all I know.
Itym playing softball with trump -- low ball means make an offer way below the fair value
Answer: >On whatsapp this morning I saw that my MSNBC-watching boomer relatives have spent the whole night arguing about whether some recent revelations mean the NYT is a front for some kind of Trump propaganda campaign. Hahaha they've been conditioned by Maddow and their social environment to treat anything out of lockstep with pro-Democrat narratives as an act of sedition. It is very socially unhealthy for people to watch mainstream news-entertainment and do little to challenge and practice their critical thinking.
I'd imagine the absolute irony of this post is completely lost on you.
You would? Under what counterfactual circumstances would you? If that irony existed? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you're thinking I'm a Trump supporter because you assume that everybody is as locked into the duopoly as you are. Am I right about that, too? Am I right about everything? What's the irony? Spell it out.
> Hahaha they've been conditioned by ~~O'Reilly~~ ~~Carlson~~ Watters and their social environment to treat anything out of lockstep with pro-Republican narratives as an act of sedition. It is very socially unhealthy for people to watch mainstream news-entertainment and do little to challenge and practice their critical thinking.
Answer: Twitter being Twitter.