[weberc2]

> the animosity the Trump administration has directed at the news media has injected new vigor into a beleaguered industry.

I'm no fan of Trump, but leave it to the NYT to frame its industry as a victim. As though decades of increasingly partisan coverage had nothing to do with the industry's problems.

[tps5]

From Hunter S. Thompson's obituary for Nixon:

"Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism -- which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful."

I don't necessarily disagree with you (or agree with Thompson), but I always liked that quote.

I do think "Objective Journalism" is a hard line to toe, and I don't think the NY Times does the worst job with it. Sure, the paper is clearly anti-Trump. My perspective is that this is only really a problem if they fabricate evidence. As long as they're presenting the world as they see it, it's hard to complain.

I'd apply that equally to right wing publications.

[Niten]

> Sure, the paper is clearly anti-Trump. My perspective is that this is only really a problem if they fabricate evidence. As long as they're presenting the world as they see it, it's hard to complain.

I mostly agree with that, but it does rub me the wrong way that the New York Times tends to smuggle its views into its reporting, all the while maintaining the false pretense that it is being entirely Objective outside of its opinion pages.

In contrast, The Economist is absolutely anti-Trump, but it makes no pretense to the contrary. It owns the fact that the paper as a whole has a free-market, classically liberal point of view, and as a result it's much easier for me to read The Economist's criticisms of Trump with a straight face. (Not that I have any trouble generating my own criticisms of Trump, mind you.)

[weberc2]

That's a good quote indeed! My issue isn't that the media isn't sufficiently objective or that NYT in particular dislikes Trump; the issue is that the media generally is abandoning objectivity as a virtue to strive after, and they're beginning to see it increasingly as an impediment to their (mostly leftist) political activism. One could argue that this new political bias is motivated by an increasingly powerful leftist market, and I would agree to an extent, but given the political composition of journalists (90% are registered Democrats IIRC), I can't imagine they fought too hard to oppose the changing tide. There's a lot more to this of course, and there's fault to be shared on the right, but I haven't the time to opine on the entire landscape.

[tps5]

I think you're right that the "modern" perspective seems to be: "bias is unavoidable, so be clear about your bias." This is why it's not considered wrong for newspapers to endorse candidates, or for the NY Times editorial board to write a weekly admonition to the new administration.

I tend to agree with you on some level. I don't necessarily think it's possible to be completely unbiased, but I'd still like it to be the goal.

Reuters is pretty good for that sort of thing (for instance they don't use the term terrorism because they see it as a value judgement).

[alphapapa]

> Reuters is pretty good for that sort of thing (for instance they don't use the term terrorism because they see it as a value judgement).

I would hope that even journalistic objectivity has some limit, to the point that one could call the slaughter of innocent people wrong. That's a value judgment that should be made. If not, then it would seem that they could not complain if their offices were attacked by evil people, because that would be making a "value judgment" on their actions. It seems like some kind of hypocritical cop-out.

Besides that, Reuters is no longer a bastion of objectivity. Their coverage is definitely left-leaning. And since they are a wire agency and their stories are reprinted around the world, it makes their bias even worse, because it seeps into other publications.

[tps5]

The perspective is simply that it isn't the job of the media to say what's right or wrong, just to report what happened. They're not saying "these aren't terrorist attacks" only that the word "terrorist" is editorializing, which isn't their job.

My perspective is that it's unclear to me what you gain by describing something as a "terrorist attack" as opposed to just an "attack." I'll make up my own mind whether it's a terrorist attack or not.

I find Reuters fairly unbiased, although at the end of the day individual editors and reporters all have individual biases. If you have a recommendation for a less biased news source than Reuters please share.

[alphapapa]

I think you have a good point. On the other hand, it seems like a reasonable definition of "terrorist attack" would be something like, "an attack which causes or intends to cause terror," and by that definition, it seems obvious that it fits many attacks in the news. For example, a mugging resulting in murder is not a terrorist attack, but driving a truck through a crowd of people during an event while shouting a religious phrase is.

So by the same token, what is gained by describing it as "an attack" instead of "a terrorist attack"? I'm not sure it matters so much either way.

What I think may be more interesting is what the choice of description may imply about underlying bias.

I feel Reuters is biased toward the left, but that's just my interpretation. I wish I could recommend a less biased source, but it seems that they're either one way or the other. Maybe we (as a people) should just recognize that and read accordingly. The real danger is that we don't recognize bias and think that certain sources are impartial when they are not, because that leaves us vulnerable to manipulation.

[pjc50]

> call the slaughter of innocent people wrong. That's a value judgment that should be made.

That implies they'd have to start calling US drone strikes "terrorism" when they kill people who've not been identified as combatants in countries with which the US is not at war.

Then you'd probably call them even more left-leaning.

[alphapapa]

I haven't said anything about drone strikes, and I don't know why you have assumed what I think of them.

[Trundle]

>I would hope that even journalistic objectivity has some limit, to the point that one could call the slaughter of innocent people wrong. That's a value judgment that should be made.

Why? What value does it add? As long as they provide the information that innocents were slaughtered, what's stopping you from adding the condemning language in your own head?

[alphapapa]

Aspiring to journalistic objectivity, I think you have a point.

My impression is that objective journalism is effectively dead, and that the choice of words used to describe things like this likely gives insight into journalists' political bias.

Besides that, what is objectivity? Is it pretending to be a hypothetical, non-human, universally objective observer that views the loss of human life no more important than a meteor smashing into a random asteroid? Is it required that one not condemn the slaughter of innocents to be considered objective? From that perspective, is murder even wrong?

Interesting questions to think about.

[triplesec]

Unfortunately, you're only opining, and falling for the oldest data error in the media book, in that you think they're biased against your side. Equl numbers of moderates and left-leaning people think that the media are biased to the Right, from their coporate advertising masters. You'll have therefore to bring some data to the table to persuade anyone here.

[ColanR]

> given the political composition of journalists (90% are registered Democrats IIRC)

Guess you missed that?

[weberc2]

I'm definitely opining, and I'm not a conservative. I'm a moderate liberal. I'm also skeptical of your claim about liberal and moderate perceptions of the media. I'm of the impression that claims of liberal bias in the media isn't controversial even among the far left.

[alphapapa]

> You'll have therefore to bring some data to the table to persuade anyone here.

www.newsbusters.org Help yourself.

[eeeeeeeeeeeee]

I can't stand this false equivalency.

You are conflating the entire media landscape with the New York Times. NYT has its bias, but you are effectively saying that NY Times is just as a responsible for the destruction of journalism as the likes of Fox News and Breitbart.

[rfrank]

During the election cycle they openly defended their bias, and have continued to produce extremely biased coverage since then. They are just as responsible as anyone else. If their bias is acceptable, why is bias from Fox or Breitbart unacceptable? How is NYT meaningfully better, if they present an equally biased perspective, just from a side you agree with?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/business/balance-fairness...

[eeeeeeeeeeeee]

What made you think I agree with all of their bias? I specifically said they have a bias, just like everyone does. But there is also a huge difference between individual reporter bias, the entire bias of the paper, the bias of the editorial board, etc. Just like WSJ op-ed pages are not the same as the rest of the paper.

I am fully aware NYT screwed up stories, they generally back a globalist tilt, they screwed up the Iraq/WMD story, etc. But I also know they are, overall, committed to the truth. And Fox News and Breitbart are committed to propaganda. To compare the two is an absolute joke.

[rfrank]

> What made you think I agree with all of their bias?

Your defense of it.

Their entire organization is biased, just like Fox or Breitbart. Why are they "committed to the truth" when conservative outlets are "propaganda"? Do you think conservatives view NYT/CNN bias as "truth telling" or "propaganda"?

[brazzledazzle]

Personally I view Fox and Breitbart as being on a scale of propaganda with Brietbart near the extreme end and Fox somewhere in the middle. But while I don't always agree with The Wall Street Journal or The Economist I don't think they're anything like Fox/Breitbart. There's a difference between bias and propaganda.

[rfrank]

> There's a difference between bias and propaganda.

Then actually define it, and provide examples of them being literal propaganda. Otherwise the discussion is just a political version of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

[alphapapa]

You're arguing with an example of the blindness that resulted in the public's trust of the media hitting an all-time low and Trump getting elected. One kind of person reasons forward from principles; another kind of person reasons backward from desired results, i.e. that the ends justify the means. It seems that they are simply unable to recognize their own bias, a kind of willful self-deception.

[tracker1]

Fox is committed to maximizing advertising profits... as for Breitbart, well, that's a little different.

[lettergram]

Pretty sure the NYT is also committed to maximizing profit. Otherwise, they wouldn't paywall every article.

[tracker1]

My comment is mainly in that "conservative news" makes money... a large portion of the population is conservative, and was under-served by the commentary from other news outlets. Now I think it's too far the other way, but businesses are, and should be allowed to adapt or die.

I would presume that a lot of people in the media may or may not believe what they are spewing... as for the management/administration of Fox News, I would say it's likely more about money than political views.

[BigJono]

> if they present an equally biased perspective

Where has it been said that they're both equally biased?

I don't know anything about American news, this is all from an Australian perspective, but if a right-wing paper runs fairly standard stories and occasionally has an opinion piece on stricter border controls; and a left-wing paper runs page after page after page of manipulative appeals to emotion full of terrible anecdotal "evidence", nobody would suggest that they were equally biased. The same works in reverse. You don't get to declare a Facist state and openly call for the execution of all Muslims because your rival paper ran an investigative story into refugee camp abuse and then go on to claim an equal bias.

[jbooth]

Look at the numbers: Something like 50% of Fox News viewers believe ridiculous falsehoods, like Obama wasn't born in the country or Saddam really had WMD. There are studies showing that Fox News viewers are less informed than no-news viewers.

There are no such studies for the NYT, editorial page bias notwithstanding.

[jrs95]

Those demographics aren't necessarily a reflection of the degree of bias in the media coverage. More educated/well-informed people could just have a preference for one form of bias over another.

[ThomPete]

How is that different from the liberal left to believe trump is a sexoffender for saying "grab them by the p"?

There are just as many angled stories in the mainstream media and they are actually worse because they claim to be objective.

[x0x0]

Because he's literally describing committing assault. Also, this is what happened:

Trump, unprompted: I like to grab women by the pussy!

Women: So yeah, Trump grabbed me by the pussy.

Trump & conservatives: Bitches be lyin'

[ThomPete]

no he isnt he is describing what you can do if you are a celebrity, but thanks for proving my point.

[MaysonL]

How much coverage did they do of Trump's scandals as opposed to Clinton's emails?

[rfrank]

Is that supposed to be a point? Look it up.

[MaysonL]

See https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-ele...

Overall the media gave Clinton a bit more (by percentage) positive coverage in the general, while Trump got more if you include the primaries. However, Trump got much more coverage overall. The negative coverage of Clinton spiked during the last two weeks of the campaign.

[weberc2]

You misread my post. I made no such equivalency. The industry as a whole created its problems (the NYT included); the NYT is just well-known for framing those problems as the effect of conservative rhetoric.

[nebabyte]

You should read more carefully. He said they're framing their industry as the victim.

The NYT could be saints and that wouldn't change the fact that the industry they're in is what it is now. And if they can't identify that and instead just say that industry's the victim, weberc is 100% correct.

[jamez1]

The very fact it is held to a better standard means it is more responsible when it mucks up.

If NY Times is the vanguard of journalism, would you not find it atrocious the precedent they set in partisanship and misrepresentation of the people they are supposedly reporting to?

[wry_discontent]

Trump's interactions with the media, and NYT in particular, is far worse than previous administrations.

Newspapers have been having (some self inflicted) trouble for a long time, but what Trump is doing is something new and very dangerous.

[ConfuciusSay02]

More dangerous than lying us into foreign wars that kill millions of people and bankrupt the country?

That's quite a high bar.

[dave_sullivan]

That's a cheap and lazy argument, trying to deflect attention from the crimes of one party by discussing the crimes of another. They're both dangerous enough to kill you; both should be discussed as separate issues, not as a comparison.

[brazzledazzle]

I think it's technically the same party but you wouldn't know it by looking at them.

[ConfuciusSay02]

It was the OP who made the comparison - I was simply replying.

[kristianc]

GWB's first term average approval rating was 62% and at one point was as high as 90%. A lot of Americans have since found their opposition to these illegal foreign wars.

[rfrank]

The antiwar left basically disappeared when Obama took office.

[TheRealDunkirk]

A commenter above says that it's a proven fact that Fox News is interested in nothing but propaganda, and the NYT is dedicated to truth, though they occasionally fail. When I look back on the Bush administration, and I think about how Code Pink was pushed front-and-center for 8 years by ABC/NBC/CBS, protesting the war(s), and how they absolutely disappeared once Obama took over, even though he materially continued the same policy in the middle east, I can't help but feel that every organization that is NOT Fox News was joined together in PRECISELY the same sort of propaganda that Fox is accused of. But, hey, I guess it's just me.

[rfrank]

Hah, I'm the one arguing with those people too. People don't like to admit to themselves they consume the same thing they hate. But I'm rate limited because moderation of political discussion on this website is a joke unless you want to agree with everyone, so no more comments from me there.

[parthdesai]

Hmm, where was the opposition when libya happened?

[jayess]

Which, of course, the NYT played its part in fanning the flames of war.

[dmix]

NYT is still very war hawkish. Which wasn't so bad before when they were feigning neutrality. They were just a mainstream US paper pushing the 'company' line of their various connections in the gov. It was easy to look past.

But now that they've become more blatantly partisan (maybe as they infer here because it clearly sells more to be hyper partisan) it leaves me with an odd feeling that they are pushing back hard towards the Clinton-esque center left war-friendly surveillance-state Russian-boogiemen establishment politics that so many people (not just on the right) seem to be trying evolve beyond. At least the younger generations. And they say Trump is harking back to the old days...

After reading NYT daily for nearly a decade I'v moved to WSJ. It is much more expensive but I've been much happier reading it - as someone who doesn't care for either US party. I don't have to sift through vague connections to Russia or questionable accusations of secret white nationalism every time I read a political story about someone related to the current administration.

For example, I was just reading a profile of Donald Trump Jr. in NYT. Half way through the article they say he's been accused of making 'white nationalist' statements. Upon further reading it turns out to be because he made an off hand reference to 'gas chamber' in a random speech. So instead of making the obvious assumption he was referring to the form of capital punishment used in the US until the 1990s (and still used as a back up to lethal injection in some states), which is exactly what he claims to have been referring to, they decide to infer he was making some anti-semitic reference to the holocaust.

I am far from a Trump supporter but this type of weak partisan character assassination doesn't belong in a reputable paper like NYT.

So I'm not surprised to see a random swipe at Trump within the first few paragraphs of a non-political story... it's their shtick now.

[specialist]

NYT's opposition to Trump et al is not partisan, its self-interest (survival).

[goldenkey]

Its partisan hackery any way you slice it. They made their cake by stacking the deck for Clinton. Search NYT on wikileaks podesta emails. NYT had time to be fair after they lost the election. Instead they doubled down. Who cares what their reasons are - like Trump said, their intent is to deceive and spread misinformation for nefarious and anti-proletariat motives. Fuck em

[TheCoelacanth]

Give him time.

If there is no media around to complain when he starts wars, then yes that is more dangerous.

[tracker1]

Really? I mean, it's not like the last Democrat president did anything to stop any wars. Or curb surveillance... or actually bring much transparency into government. All things he promised in his first campaign... I mean, constitutionally Obama was plainly against it, but I at least had some hope when he was elected he might actually do some of the things he'd promised. But no, more war, more bombs, more spying and surveillance.

It's not like any of this started with Trump, and isn't like any of it would really be stopped by a president for the other party, that served in the last administration over the department most directly covering spying and warfare.

[smt88]

Who did that? What was the last war that killed millions?

[bulletsvshumans]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Estimates appear to vary widely, with most in the hundreds of thousands range, but there's one estimate as high as a million deaths in the Iraq War (from the linked page):

"Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12–19, 2007, estimated 1,033,000 violent deaths due to the Iraq War. The range given was 946,000 to 1,120,000 deaths. A nationally representative sample of approximately 2,000 Iraqi adults answered whether any members of their household (living under their roof) were killed due to the Iraq War. 22% of the respondents had lost one or more household members. ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance."

(full Wikipedia page on this survey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualt...)

[Filligree]

The Iraq war killed over half a million, and led to conditions that were a direct cause of ISIS' rise, for Eris knows how many more.

I don't know how much you want to attribute to it overall, but the war was based on fake evidence.

[smt88]

I agree that the war was based on lies. I agree it was a travesty. I honestly just wanted to know if I was correct in assuming that 1) they were indeed talking about Iraq, and 2) that they were accusing NYT of causing that war.

[rapsey]

I guess you don't remember the lead up to the Iraq war.

[komali2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

Estimates range from ~100,000 to 700,000.

The Iraq War was a mistake that sixty years from now we will be mocked and judged for, but be careful with words like "millions."

[ConfuciusSay02]

Ahh yes, just an honest mistake, and so long as only one million people are killed, not two, then we can promptly dismiss any concerns. Is that how it works?

I wonder if you think the NYT had a hand in pushing for the first Iraq war? How about in Yugoslavia? Panama? Libya? Syria? Or were all of those moral and noble humanitarian wars where the death and destruction was worth it?

Although the Iraq war is the best and most blatant example of the NYT's warmongering, it is far from the only one. All of these wars combined easily resulted in millions of deaths.

[zerocrates]

I believe the quibble there is that millions didn't die in the Iraq War.

[tracker1]

s/millions/over a million/g

[ddingus]

Yes. Sadly, he's getting a lot of traction with it too.

Mainstream media reports from a big business point of view and it almost never reports on itself or its parents critically.

People get this. Trust is low and Trump is exploiting that reality to great effect.

Today, we have people growing lost, confused, seeking more and maybe better information. What they are finding from indie efforts ranges all over the map.

It's reasonable to say that isn't a good thing either. Though I will also say it is at least a mild check on an ugly press machine in play today.

I am very rapidly becoming a fan of people funded news and Media.

In the USA there is almost no reporting and commentary from the economic left point of view, for example. I lean strong left, but I also don't see that as a blanket answer.

I do see it as the basis for a more complete discussion, and we really need that right now. I know I need to understand others better and they me so the conversation can get somewhere good.

This isn't happening.

Not all of our problems are going to be resolved with boardroom and or bumper sticker politics.

For perspective, our conservative peers could say the same thing about social issue reporting, and they would be right.

The product of this is a very dangerous polarization. Ideologies are being championed as means to ends, when the better role for them is as a basis for policy ideas we can use, combine and apply toward common goals. There are a few big needs, like health care, where we have solid majority support for doing good things, necessary things, yet no real ability to accomplish them.

Our press does not address this at all too. It's all process and horse race type drama, not a meaningful look at both the state of things and clear desire to make progress on them.

A more inclusive discussion, sans so damn many triggers and set pieces would bring those goals to front and center. All political sides need this.

We need it as ordinary people too. Badly.

Some 20 percent of us have few worries about money. Another slice, maybe a third tops, must be super careful, but are OK. The rest are in big and growing trouble! Super expensive, long term trouble. Decline of a great nation type trouble.

As a nation of people, that growing unrest is not good. We will pay really hard for allowing so much to get stalled, bogged down, ignored. Even those of us who are economically secure will share in that cost. It won't hurt in dollar terms like it will most Americans. It will hurt in terms of our future, environment, social laws, many norms.

These kinds of things take lifetimes to come back from, if we even can

It began somewhere late 70s maybe 80s too. A look at government and politics prior to that time saw the process working. Governance happened and it was net progress. Our history is littered with ugly politics. The better times seem to be associated with a more functional press.

Those better periods were not the best possible, but were livable.

Today?

Cluster fuck. And the press has a lot to do with that as does the Internet and social media presenting different views to everyone based on some ideas of what we think people want to see. It's hard to get a sense of where people are really at outside our circles and rough class and demographic.

This should be front and center journalism. Yet, it isn't.

Remember earlier, simpler Internet? For a while we all saw most of the same things. People exploiting that and the need or value in curated content brought us a better information view in some ways, but a worse one in others.

This idea of a weekly paper, if done in a reasonable, equitable way may just hold the potential for establishing that "we are all people and just want better for us and ours" conversation. It could unify people and foster cross class, cross gender, etc... type conversations.

It could also do a lot to help understand one another better and punch through so damn much vilification going on too. When we have an opportunity to talk to one another, sans all the bullshit, we invariably find the others have good intent. Nobody wants so many others to hurt and struggle out of hand.

So many of us do not have those conversations. Lack of venue, opportunity, fear, judgement all play a role here.

I'll be watching efforts like this. We need to keep trying. The growing mess us quickly approaching the unrecoverable and regrettable.

Almost none of us really want that, but it's gonna happen, unless we can somehow have a common conversation that can get us back to the idea of just governance.

Nobody should get all they want, but all of us should be getting the things we really need. There is more than enough for it to happen too.

[pennydreams]

but NYT has seen a massive increase in subs following the election, so there really is no excuse

[justAFan]

How would you recommend Trump respond to the media when they publish things like this "dossier" back in January before the inauguration that alleged things like Trump traveling to Russia to rent an old hotel room Obama stayed in so he could hire Russian prostitutes to perform a "golden showers" show in front of him -- a "dossier" (makes it sound more legitimate right) which has since been debunked as a 4chan prank on the intelligence community:

[1] CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intellig...

[2] BuzzFeed with source of "dossier" https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-t...

[3] 4chan talking about Rick Wilson + dossier back in november https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/95568919/#95571329

Now, NYT themselves did not run this story. But the vast majority of "main stream media" runs stories with a narrative - or as Trump himself put it - a "tone". They insist that Trump must be wrapped in controversy, and every article I come across from NYT, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo all insist on including a negative tone; or at the very least, emphasizing facts that make Trump seem negligent, stupid, arrogant or malevolent. In my opinion, it's them who have forfeited ethics. Tell me, how exactly is Trump doing something "new and very dangerous"? How should he respond to constant negativity? Even he himself is not asking for positive propaganda - he just wants neutral, honest media reporting. He has told CNN in a press conference that he'd be their greatest fan if they would report honestly.

[KZeillmann]

First of all, the dossier was put together by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and wasn't just some 4chan prank.

How do you suggest the NYT, CNN, WaPo react to actions that seem to come from a place of incompetence or malevolence? When Trump rolls out an unconstitutional EO that seemed barely vetted by the Attorney General's office, how should the NYT paint that in such a way that Trump is depicted as competent?

When Trump and Spicer repeat falsehoods that anyone with a pair of eyes can refute (inauguration crowd size) or that has zero evidence behind it whatsoever (3-5 million illegal votes, Obama wiretapping Trump), how should the WaPo react to these lies?

When the president's campaign is under investigation by the FBI for potential collusion with a foreign government, and Rep. Schiff says there is 'more than circumstantial evidence', how should CNN report this?

It's laughable and a little bit sad that people think that Trump is more honest than the MSM.

[goldenkey]

US Code 1182 (f)

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

[KZeillmann]

Sure, the president has the authority to impose restrictions on immigration, but not by imposing a religious test, which would violate the establishment clause.

[goldenkey]

I agree but there is no religious test. The countries on the list are from Obama's State Dept recommendations due to terror threats.

[specialist]

Lee Atwater taught us that if you're explaining, you're losing. Troll juijitsu is to provoke another screed.

Maybe ask what Trump stories NYT should be covering.

[etchalon]

1. The dossier wasn't some prank, and was proceeded by someone who, all things being equal, could be considered a somewhat "reliable" source. It's production and existence warranted investigation.

2. The dossier existed. It was floating around for months. Reputable organizations refused to publish the actual document, because it could not be verified sufficiently to warrant full coverage. CNN approached the potential story by talking around the document. NY Times just didn't publish it.

3. The Press is supposed to be relentlessly aggressive towards the administration, and towards power in general. Every administration has to deal with this, from one section of the media or another. Any time the press has abdicated that balance, bad things happen (see Iraq war).

4. An anonymous comment on 4chan doesn't "debunk" anything.

[komali2]

>NYT themselves didn't run this story

I'm not sure how it's relevant then, unless you're suggesting there's a conspiracy between CNN and NYT to destabilize Trump. Oh, you are. Carry on then.

>Every article... include a negative tone.

He is a bad president. Of course the media is negative about him.

>a dossier... which has since been debunked as a 4chan prank

Nope, wrong.

[tracker1]

> He is a bad president.

I'm not saying he isn't a bad choice for President... He's only been President for a couple of months. In the course of 4 years, that's a bit premature of a statement.

What seems to be happening with education, and the pitiful healthcare bill... not fond of a lot of what's happening. Not to mention, there is zero need to expand military spending. I'm all for cutting spending, but expanding one of the biggest areas of the budget when we already outspend the rest of the world combined is asinine.

[komali2]

You can tank your entire presidency on a single decision. Bush JR did, relatively early into his career as well.

When the sum total of your bad decisions are as great as Bush JR or Trump, there's little you can do to negate that in the next 3 years.

Furthermore, my statement is that he is a bad president, which he is. Personal attacks on Twitter, regular vacations at taxpayer expense, deregulating climate change, pushing to remove healthcare from Americans, bad appointments. These actions are happening now and have not been rectified. Present tense, he is a bad president.

If he undoes all these things and does a couple good things, I will say "he was a bad president, then he became a good president." Currently, though, bad president.

[dbmikus]

You can criticize the editorialization of news sources without falling to outright blanketing them as "fake news" sources.

Trump has repeatedly claimed facts as true without evidence or just based on a claim by a singular news source sans evidence. It is worrying that Trump has repeatedly done this and then sought to discredit critical news sources by labeling them "fake". I'd wish the president to be above hypocrisy in the realm of "fake news". You shouldn't spew falsehoods and then criticize others for doing the same. Both sides are guilty of this, but I believe the president has a higher burden of responsibility than a newspaper or TV program.

I also believe that Trump has been guilty of generating BS moreso than the "legitimate liberal-leaning" news, but that's just me editorializing, so please leave it out of my argument :)

[lordCarbonFiber]

/pol/ thread != debunking. You should stop spreading propaganda and consider maybe not hitching your horse to a pathological liar.

[rhizome]

emphasizing facts that make Trump seem negligent, stupid, arrogant or malevolent

An absolutely perfect role of journalism, because he is.

[specialist]

Trump could turn state's witness, rat out all his friends, before he get indicted.

Then he could sell his story for a big fat advance.

Personally, I hope Trump chooses to fight. Pass the popcorn.

[dkarl]

As though decades of increasingly partisan coverage had nothing to do with the industry's problems.

When someone gains an advantage for their point of view by consistently associating it with professional, reliable journalism, I consider it an advantage well-earned. A point of view that isn't compatible with that advantage doesn't deserve it.

Much worse than having a point of view is trying to avoid the perception of having a point of view, which leads to vapid, passive, easily exploitable schlock journalism.

[braveo]

I seriously dislike it when people use this sort of false dichotomy.

Look, you can be biased and have an opinion and still treat dissenting opinions, and the people who hold them, with fairness and understanding.

It doesn't happen, but it CAN. It's the 3rd option between "has no point of view" and "crafts a narrative around their point of view".

[dkarl]

I'm not sure how you expect people not to construct narratives around their point of view. If you read the Wall Street Journal and New York Times stories about the same event (or the Financial Times and Guardian stories about the same event) you'll see slightly different stories told with slightly different subsets of the available facts. That's what having a point of view is all about.

I'd rather get the Times point of view from the Times stories and the WSJ point of view from the WSJ stories than ask them to converge on exactly the same dry list of uninterpreted facts (if that were even possible.) They can try to do justice to other points of view, and it certainly helps their credibility when they're able to, but I wouldn't depend on it. Not even if they had the purest motivations. It's better to have a diversity of voices than to have one dominant voice doing a ventriloquist act.

Also, I think people ask for "fairness and understanding" but want a great deal more; they want to feel that their ideas are held in equal esteem, when in reality ideas can't all have an equal share of social approval. If I went to a singles bar with Ryan Gosling, I could justifiably ask to be treated with equal civility, but not with equal enthusiasm. No amount of civility or journalistic detachment can enable us to forget that different ideas prevail among different groups of people with different levels of wealth, power, social prestige, and cultural cachet.

[braveo]

> ... told with slightly different subsets of the available facts.

What makes me worry about humanity is the fact that you said that with a straight face as if we, as a society, can't (or shouldn't) demand that they tell the story with the same set of facts.

Treating the other side with fairness and understanding MEANS acknowledging all the facts.

> ... than ask them to converge on exactly the same dry list of uninterpreted facts

This is a false dichotomy.

> Also, I think people ask for "fairness and understanding" but want a great deal more;

And you just twisted my words, which doesn't need to happen in order for us to have a conversation. But you chose to do it anyway because you're not interested in a conversation, you're not interested in fairness, you're interested in pushing a narrative.

And it sucks that people like you exist.

[luord]

> avoid the perception of having a point of view, which leads to vapid, passive, easily exploitable schlock journalism.

AKA merely reporting the facts and events without introducing someone's uncalled for opinion, which shows respect for the audience by trusting them to draw their own conclusions.

Funny how "easily exploitable" journalism is somehow worse than "directly and blatantly exploited" journalism.

[Fricken]

The internet has arrived. Institutional media outlets no longer direct the public discourse. Has this improved our ability to sort fact from fiction? Quite the opposite. When the 5th estate is in crisis, democracy is in crisis. You don't know what you got 'til it's gone.

[ConfuciusSay02]

Despite what we like to think, with every declassified document released we learn that what we thought were facts in the past were really just fictional stories being pushed upon us by the media.

Our ability to see this deception admittedly means that finding the truth will be a bit more messy than the "truths" we've been presented with in the past. But far from this diminishing our ability to discern truth, it is helping us by forcing us to return to critical thinking.

If this means democracy is in crisis, then democracy requires deception to operate.

[Fricken]

I've got facts you can spin into whatever dumb shit you feel like believing. How we choose to direct civilization is less contingent on facts than beliefs. When our belief systems are as badly fractured as they are we can't do much of anything, we're a clusterfuck nation. Even our best people, armed with the best facts available can't predict the future, but a bad plan is better than no plan at all. Nobody is even on the same page anymore.

Our world is officially too complex for anyone to understand, and you expect the average voter to to engage critical thinking to positive effect? We just failed at that catastrophically. It's completely unrealistic, there's no evidence for it.

[ConfuciusSay02]

I agree with you. I think I'm just more optimistic is all.

[xxpor]

I believe a large part of the issue is that newspapers' neutrality has been part of their downfall, not their partisanship. Now it's easy to read something you always agree with. Local newspapers no longer have the captive audience of "this is the only paper that will deliver to your front door daily"

[weberc2]

I think it's slightly more nuanced; as the mainstream media moves to the left, the swath of views they fail to accurately represent grows larger (moderate conservatives and centrists, for example). Those whose views aren't being represented fairly are more likely to give up on MSM entirely and choose to support their own partisan media. This is all conjecture of course.

[criddell]

I thought the loss of classified ad revenue due to sites like Craigslist was the big problem combined with taking on too much debt in the 80's?

I think most newspapers do a pretty good job.

[gist]

> I'm no fan of Trump

Noting that it appears to be SOP to always make everyone aware that someone doesn't support Trump if the statement that they are making seems to make it appear that they might support Trump or are not part of 'the resistance' to Trump.

[weberc2]

I don't like making these disclaimers, but if I don't put them, people seem to think I'm making a partisan statement. With the disclaimer, the number of knee-jerk vitriolic comments goes down and people seem more likely to debate my post on its merits.

[rhizome]

I don't think it's partisan so much as incurious and sycophantic as access journalism has evolved. Celebrity culture includes way too many people, including in politics, and the NYT has not defended itself against this trend as much as it should have. The media is much less oppositional these days (see: Broderism).

[sidlls]

Their coverage hasn't been increasingly partisan. It has been increasingly infotainment directed. Regardless, the major news media in this country is laughably neglect in serving in any capacity like they should.

[oh_sigh]

So....your argument is that the media wasn't really doing it's job for the past 5-10+ years? Does the media only do their job when they get someone in the white house they don't like?

[sidlls]

I see no evidence of the latter. They simply haven't been doing their job, period, regardless of who is in the White House.