***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

cherry pick a bunch of polls and decide that Harris has this locked up? people really want to re run 2016.

He definitely undermined a decent idea by making “Harris is Winning” so foundational when he didn’t need it.

I think the broader point that the Times may have sanwashed and false-equivalences itself into political irrelevance is the bigger idea here. If the Harris campaign wins, and does so without capitulating to mainstream media demands for access, I think it erodes at the traditional position of the Times as the paper of record.

Before you come for me, I absolutely agree with you that Harris needs more media engagement. But I’m not sure she should be allocating much to the Times as opposed to meeting her skeptics where they are at. Does she play sax? And I also think that it’s not a great thing long-term if the lesson from this campaign becomes “don’t engage with the Times’

 

[IATT]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

He definitely undermined a decent idea by making “Harris is Winning” so foundational when he didn’t need it.

I think the broader point that the Times may have sanwashed and false-equivalences itself into political irrelevance is the bigger idea here. If the Harris campaign wins, and does so without capitulating to mainstream media demands for access, I think it erodes at the traditional position of the Times as the paper of record.

Before you come for me, I absolutely agree with you that Harris needs more media engagement. But I’m not sure she should be allocating much to the Times as opposed to meeting her skeptics where they are at. Does she play sax? And I also think that it’s not a great thing long-term if the lesson from this campaign becomes “don’t engage with the Times’

There are good criticism to make of the NY Times and the media in general, he doesn't make any of them.
Most of his criticisms imo are of the braindead variety.

Go through the links here.

His article on Maggie Haberman is vapid nonesene, again there are criticism to be made of "access journalism", he doesn't make any of them.
it's the usual curse word filled im a cool blogger act margery has been running with since 09.

The idea that an op-ed section shouldn't run an article by a sitting senator is goofy. The controversy was insane then, it's insane now.
The trans panic thing is extra stupid, his article again makes no attempt to grapple with the arguments, just the usual "look at these losers im so much smarter and say more blogger curse words"

and there is definitely a cottage industry of obsessive left wing attacks of NYTimes, you need only look at the Biden age coverage.
The NYtimes was 100% right to cover it, and all the left wing critics slink away and pretend it never happened.

I think the broader point that the Times may have sanwashed and false-equivalences itself into political irrelevance is the bigger idea here

I think this idea is dumb,
the media landscape has changed where traditional media doesn't have as much power over candidates, it has ZERO to do with the times not being left enough for Drew Margery.
and the obsession people have with NY Times headlines suggest their influence is still pretty strong.



Drew Margery is bully, he was a bully back in the day when it was cool to be "edgy"
and then he realized if you brand yourself as left wing, and go after the right targets, you can bully to your hearts content and be celebrated for it.

it's a faux radicalism I find totally detestable.

 

[aepps20]

If Kam truly did a sit down on All the Smoke that will be Amazing

 

[Blake P]

If Kam truly did a sit down on All the Smoke that will be Amazing

Wanna see her eat spicy wings on Hot Ones, take shrooms with Tyson on Hotboxin, and get drunk with Nore on Drink Champs while she's at it...

 

[aepps20]

Wanna see her eat spicy wings on Hot Ones, take shrooms with Tyson on Hotboxin, and get drunk with Nore on Drink Champs while she's at it...

I want her to join NT and post in the NBA Thread and tell WASHED KING that his dossier has nothing on the CIA file she has in him and RustyShackleford

 

[Mark Antony]

Rusty taking the month off? Salute.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

If Kam truly did a sit down on All the Smoke that will be Amazing

Exactly the type of media she should be doing.

Her and Stephen Jackson can compare concealed carry permits.

 

[niketalker23]

Apparently she may go on Theo Vons podcast

 

[Blake P]

Apparently she may go on Theo Vons podcast

Watching Mark Cuban on there right now...
That Bernie Sanders episode was surprisingly great.

 

[pmatic]

 

[niketalker23]

Watching Mark Cuban on there right now...
That Bernie Sanders episode was surprisingly great.

Yeah he told Cuban her team reached out to Theo, and Cuban said he was going to put in a word for him.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The good thing about podcasts is no one is going to debate you. They'll let you say whatever.


Kamala is charming and telegenic.
when non political people are exposed to her, they will like her.

non traditional media is the best way to reach those people.

 

[pmatic]

What lie does Kamala make up when Taylor Rooks interviews her?

 

[Mark Antony]

She don't respond to that little knee touch that sends men spiraling.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

Drew Margery is bully, he was a bully back in the day when it was cool to be "edgy"
and then he realized if you brand yourself as left wing, and go after the right targets, you can bully to your hearts content and be celebrated for it.

Man, I have no idea who Drew Margery is. You certainly seem to be more well versed in the context he’s writing in, and I may be projecting my own sentiment about the Times in him, that said,

I think this idea is dumb,
the media landscape has changed where traditional media doesn't have as much power over candidates, it has ZERO to do with the times not being left enough for Drew Margery.
and the obsession people have with NY Times headlines suggest their influence is still pretty strong.

I think you’re glossing over too much here.

I’m less concerned by whether the Times is left or progressive in its overall editorial stance. My criticism, and those of others, is that they choose to reframe news coverage in a way that is not consistent or predictable.

Is the press ‘sanewashing’ Trump?

There’s a hot new term doing the rounds among media critics: “sanewashing.” The term itself actually isn’t new, and it wasn’t born in media-criticism circles, per se; according to Urban Dictionary, it was coined in 2020 on a Reddit page for neoliberals (which Linda Kinstler wrote about recently...

www.cjr.org

Yes, Biden’s debate performance was newsworthy, but we were treated to something like a half dozen *news* articles in the few days post debate on the topic. And the amount of ink spilled on Trump’s incoherence then and post isn’t nearly of the same magnitude.

The Times here is kind of synechdoche for the broader traditional *news* media landscape. This is, I think, a broader issue.

Howard Dean will tell you there’s nothing new about news media framing and amplifying to produce distortion and bias. What does appear to be new is that a major candidate might be freezing them out as a result.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[biggie62]

**** Adams.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Man, I have no idea who Drew Margery is. You certainly seem to be more well versed in the context he’s writing in, and I may be projecting my own sentiment about the Times in him, that said,


I think you’re glossing over too much here.

I’m less concerned by whether the Times is left or progressive in its overall editorial stance. My criticism, and those of others, is that they choose to reframe news coverage in a way that is not consistent or predictable.

Is the press ‘sanewashing’ Trump?

There’s a hot new term doing the rounds among media critics: “sanewashing.” The term itself actually isn’t new, and it wasn’t born in media-criticism circles, per se; according to Urban Dictionary, it was coined in 2020 on a Reddit page for neoliberals (which Linda Kinstler wrote about recently...

www.cjr.org

Yes, Biden’s debate performance was newsworthy, but we were treated to something like a half dozen *news* articles in the few days post debate on the topic. And the amount of ink spilled on Trump’s incoherence then and post isn’t nearly of the same magnitude.

The Times here is kind of synechdoche for the broader traditional *news* media landscape. This is, I think, a broader issue.

Howard Dean will tell you there’s nothing new about news media framing and amplifying to produce distortion and bias. What does appear to be new is that a major candidate might be freezing them out as a result.

see tho if you had posted the sane washing article I can agree to that. the problem is the drew Margery article cites dumb stuff mostly.

Trump is just fundamentally difficult figure to cover, and he plays into a lot of fundamental weaknesses in media news coverage, bias towards coherence cited in that article and negativity bias, don't really think this is a NYtimes problem.

The NY Times has done tons of "Trump is bad" coverage.

I think a much more valid criticism is the way the NY Times handled the trump campaign hacking,
or the way they handled the afghanistan pull out, or the way they covered hillary's emails.

but beyond that

i don't think there are a lot of obvious easy answers if you want to be a center left news organization., thats why trump is a successful demagogue.

 

[atlsfinest]

I agree with some parts of the article and not others. The idea that Kamala is dominating Trump and the NYT is just making it seem like it's a close race is false. Make no mistake, it is an incredibly close race. If anything Kamala is a slight favorite a month and a half before the election but it's well within the margin of error.

Keep in mind that this author wrote "Donald Trump is going to get his a** kicked on Tuesday" The week before the 2016 election, you would think that they would know better than to get overconfident.

That being said, I agree that the NYT is sanewashing (trying to normalize and explain away the absolutely insane things he says on a normal basis) Trump and "both sidesing" this election. This election cycle the NYT has been hypercritical of Harris and Biden and seem to gloss over Trump's verbal miscues and word salads.

 

[aepps20]

I agree with some parts of the article and not others. The idea that Kamala is dominating Trump and the NYT is just making it seem like it's a close race is false. Make no mistake, it is an incredibly close race. If anything Kamala is a slight favorite a month and a half before the election but it's well within the margin of error.

Keep in mind that this author wrote "Donald Trump is going to get his a** kicked on Tuesday" The week before the 2016 election, you would think that they would know better than to get overconfident.

That being said, I agree that the NYT is sanewashing (trying to normalize and explain away the absolutely insane things he says on a normal basis) Trump and "both sidesing" this election. This election cycle the NYT has been hypercritical of Harris and Biden and seem to gloss over Trump's verbal miscues and word salads.

Have you checked your voter registration? Bad guys are doing disgusting things on that front. We have to focus on GOTV and making sure our families and friends are registered to vote

 

[stuntman mike]

 

[gry60]

He definitely undermined a decent idea by making “Harris is Winning” so foundational when he didn’t need it.

I think the broader point that the Times may have sanwashed and false-equivalences itself into political irrelevance is the bigger idea here. If the Harris campaign wins, and does so without capitulating to mainstream media demands for access, I think it erodes at the traditional position of the Times as the paper of record.

Before you come for me, I absolutely agree with you that Harris needs more media engagement. But I’m not sure she should be allocating much to the Times as opposed to meeting her skeptics where they are at. Does she play sax? And I also think that it’s not a great thing long-term if the lesson from this campaign becomes “don’t engage with the Times’

The way I see it, she's following the Republican playbook of engaging with the media on her terms.

It's a position I wouldn't normally support, but these are not normal political times, and as someone who has seen how the so-called "liberal media" has misrepresented, amplified, and downplayed stories for the sake of creating an electoral horse race instead of letting the facts speak for themselves, election after election, I find it very difficult to disagree with her position.

That being said, I agree that the NYT is sanewashing (trying to normalize and explain away the absolutely insane things he says on a normal basis) Trump and "both sidesing" this election. This election cycle the NYT has been hypercritical of Harris and Biden and seem to gloss over Trump's verbal miscues and word salads.

The problem with Trump is deeper than his verbal miscues and word salads.

If Trump's competency has been treated with the same fervor as Biden's, the picture above would be on every first page of every one of those papers until he dropped out.

As a candidate, I wouldn't take these papers seriously if they tried to draw equivalencies between my record and Trump's after the story above came out.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

see tho if you had posted the sane washing article I can agree to that. the problem is the drew Margery article cites dumb stuff mostly.

You’re a more thorough reader than I. I almost never click through into the links and generally am only scanning over to get the gist. And for me the interesting thing here isn’t the specific criticism of the NYT, but more the idea that the Harris campaign’s reaction to the sane washing, etc, is to freeze them out.

And they’ve definitely noticed, right? Like, I can’t count the number of times I’ve now heard a news reporter ask why she isn’t doing interviews with mainstream press.

And more to the point, it’s unclear to me that if she did engage that she would get a better out one than her current tactic.

While gry60 is right that this has long been the practice in the right, I think it’s significant that it’s coming from a Democratic candidate for president.

Trump is just fundamentally difficult figure to cover, and he plays into a lot of fundamental weaknesses in media news coverage, bias towards coherence cited in that article and negativity bias, don't really think this is a NYtimes problem.

Agreed, that was my synecdoche point above. I think it’s fair to give them more attention given their “first among peers” standing.

I’m not sure it’s as difficult as you imagine. You can straight report the incoherence. There’s no need to try to digest it for your readers.

I think what is difficult is trying to cover him while also not sounding alarmist about the widespread institutional weakness that he’s revealed.

The NY Times has done tons of "Trump is bad" coverage.

Does he do anything that isn’t bad?

It's a position I wouldn't normally support, but these are not normal political times, and as someone who has seen how the so-called "liberal media" has misrepresented, amplified, and downplayed stories for the sake of creating an electoral horse race instead of letting the facts speak for themselves, election after election, I find it very difficult to disagree with her position.

This is 100% how I feel. I think it’s not a particularly good omen that she can’t trust the media to report in good faith. I very much believe that journalists play an important role in a healthy Democracy, and not a few of our institutional problems are exacerbated by the collapse of well-funded traditional reporting.

Hopefully the broader media responds to her approach with some introspection and course correction. But that might be more hope than I have.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Obama would be perfect. Joe loves Obama,

Obama can schill for Kamala, and Obama can deflect any weird conspiracy rabbit holes more smoothly than Harris.