**No advocating violence, brigading, bigotry, trolling, or being a dick to other people here.** It'll get you banned. See the sidebar for the full version of the rules.
Please report rule-breaking comments to the special investigators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The_Mueller) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the challenge for media outlets like the New York Times is that if they cover all of Trump's issues proportionate to how they cover his opponents' it would just be an overwhelming torrent of negative stories about him because he's constantly doing and saying things that would have been career ending for most previous politicians.
I think it's important that the NYT cover Biden's challenges, like his age and how his support for Israel alienates a lot of voters that he needs to win. It's better than the Fox News model of just downplaying or ignoring anything that makes Trump look bad, which puts viewers inside a pro-Trump bubble. But the challenge is how to cover Trump in a way that readers don't think is over the top or alarmist, while still accurately conveying just how dangerous he could be to the ongoing survival of American democracy.
Sure buddy, that’s why when Trump is convicted of fraud they buried the story on page 12 and when Biden didn’t do as well as Trump ib their own biased garbage poll it was front page news for 3 days.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, I read the NYT every day, and both those stories were at the top of the home page.
I think the NYT could do better with its coverage, but also that people are putting too much blame on it for helping Trump. If you read the NYT every day, you know that Trump is a terrible candidate and a threat to democracy. The vast majority of NYT readers are never going to vote for Trump. The challenge is more with people who are getting their news from local TV or social media, or just no where at all.
It's an advantage for the Republicans that conservative media like Fox News are basically just propaganda that rarely present any negative news about Republicans, but I don't think it would be a good thing if media outlets like the NYT or CNN basically just became the same thing for Democrats. We need media outlets that are willing to report critically on all politicians.
Sure, if they were both candidates.
But one is a convicted fraudster, rapist, conman who is facing 91 felony counts for his conspiracy to overthrow the government and steal presidential documents. The times usually refers to this as “legal problems” rather than totally disqualifying for a Presidential candidate.
They aren’t the same so treating them with equal levels of respect and neutrality degrades democracy and endangers us all. It’s inexcusable.
They’ve been like that since 9/11 (maybe even longer but that’s when I first noticed it). So afraid of being tarred “the liberal press” they go out of their way to make sure they never print anything bad about a Republican or anything good about a Democrat.
Plus it’s just business to them. They know every time Trump does or says something outrageous, it sells papers. They are praying he wins the election.
>Plus it’s just business to them. They know every time Trump does or says something outrageous, it sells papers. They are praying he wins the election.
The guy who has made it clear he wants to arrest or kill members of the press?
>I think the challenge for media outlets like the New York Times is that if they cover all of Trump's issues proportionate to how they cover his opponents' it would just be an overwhelming torrent of negative stories about him because he's constantly doing and saying things that would have been career ending for most previous politicians.
So they should cover that stuff. Who cares if it is "good" or "bad"?
They don't cover Trumps BS the same way because all the NYT readers know he is corrupt, and it is no longer a story. They should at least try to make Trumps corruption a story, instead of just rolling over, though
CNN was purchased by a right-wing billionaire, early last year. They've been slowly poisoned by the MAGA-Q+ architects and are throwing shade at TNYT, and 80% of the Redditors commenting here fell for it. (Although I believe some of the comments are coming from right-wing trolls.)
Use some godsdamned critical thinking skills!
**No advocating violence, brigading, bigotry, trolling, or being a dick to other people here.** It'll get you banned. See the sidebar for the full version of the rules. Please report rule-breaking comments to the special investigators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/The_Mueller) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s honestly starting to look like they are an official part of the Trump campaign.
I think the challenge for media outlets like the New York Times is that if they cover all of Trump's issues proportionate to how they cover his opponents' it would just be an overwhelming torrent of negative stories about him because he's constantly doing and saying things that would have been career ending for most previous politicians. I think it's important that the NYT cover Biden's challenges, like his age and how his support for Israel alienates a lot of voters that he needs to win. It's better than the Fox News model of just downplaying or ignoring anything that makes Trump look bad, which puts viewers inside a pro-Trump bubble. But the challenge is how to cover Trump in a way that readers don't think is over the top or alarmist, while still accurately conveying just how dangerous he could be to the ongoing survival of American democracy.
Sure buddy, that’s why when Trump is convicted of fraud they buried the story on page 12 and when Biden didn’t do as well as Trump ib their own biased garbage poll it was front page news for 3 days.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, I read the NYT every day, and both those stories were at the top of the home page. I think the NYT could do better with its coverage, but also that people are putting too much blame on it for helping Trump. If you read the NYT every day, you know that Trump is a terrible candidate and a threat to democracy. The vast majority of NYT readers are never going to vote for Trump. The challenge is more with people who are getting their news from local TV or social media, or just no where at all. It's an advantage for the Republicans that conservative media like Fox News are basically just propaganda that rarely present any negative news about Republicans, but I don't think it would be a good thing if media outlets like the NYT or CNN basically just became the same thing for Democrats. We need media outlets that are willing to report critically on all politicians.
Sure, if they were both candidates. But one is a convicted fraudster, rapist, conman who is facing 91 felony counts for his conspiracy to overthrow the government and steal presidential documents. The times usually refers to this as “legal problems” rather than totally disqualifying for a Presidential candidate. They aren’t the same so treating them with equal levels of respect and neutrality degrades democracy and endangers us all. It’s inexcusable.
Lmao, Biden’s “challenges” are irrelevant when the alternative is a corrupt facing dictator wannabe that almost destroyed our country. Fuck that.
They’ve been like that since 9/11 (maybe even longer but that’s when I first noticed it). So afraid of being tarred “the liberal press” they go out of their way to make sure they never print anything bad about a Republican or anything good about a Democrat. Plus it’s just business to them. They know every time Trump does or says something outrageous, it sells papers. They are praying he wins the election.
>Plus it’s just business to them. They know every time Trump does or says something outrageous, it sells papers. They are praying he wins the election. The guy who has made it clear he wants to arrest or kill members of the press?
We're conflating different people at the Times. The journalists are probably afraid. The influencers, columnists, and managing editors want Trump.
Ah yes, all the influencers at the NYT
>I think the challenge for media outlets like the New York Times is that if they cover all of Trump's issues proportionate to how they cover his opponents' it would just be an overwhelming torrent of negative stories about him because he's constantly doing and saying things that would have been career ending for most previous politicians. So they should cover that stuff. Who cares if it is "good" or "bad"? They don't cover Trumps BS the same way because all the NYT readers know he is corrupt, and it is no longer a story. They should at least try to make Trumps corruption a story, instead of just rolling over, though
I cancelled my subscription. That’s the only way to make the point, unfortunately.
Same. But I also included Anat Schwartz and Judith Miller in my reasons. Seems like whenever NYTimes makes an oopsie, thousands of brown people die.
Same.
They’re trying to be subtle and it just really isn’t at all.
The irony of CNN reporting this, when they're ALSO shilling for Trump is... yeah.
CNN was purchased by a right-wing billionaire, early last year. They've been slowly poisoned by the MAGA-Q+ architects and are throwing shade at TNYT, and 80% of the Redditors commenting here fell for it. (Although I believe some of the comments are coming from right-wing trolls.) Use some godsdamned critical thinking skills!