16 ms·

The article starts off stating that Hillary Clinton was the choice of nearly every newspaper editorial review board, and that despite those endorsements it didn

• flippyhead 10y ago
  I'd very much appreciate a few representative examples of sloppy journalism from either the LA or NY Times. Can you recommend a couple?
  • treehau5 10y ago
    How about every article written about the candidates or election by the Hillary Shills noted in the Podesta emails? Wait, I guess that wasn't journalism in the first place, it was propaganda.
  • Inconel 10y ago
    I don't mean to evade your request but I'm typing this on my phone while on a break at work so I don't have specific articles I can link to at the moment. Off the top of my head I can give you some general topics I have found lacking in detail and nuance. The LA Times specifically has done a poor job imo on accurately representing some of the opposition to high density developments here in LA. They also ran this piece [1] on Elon Musk's empire of subsidies which I thought was lacking in context. Disclaimer: I work at SpaceX so I'm obviously biased. There can certainly be criticism of subsidies given to Tesla/SpaceX, but when an article such as this makes no mention of the auto bailouts, or the similar subsidies given to the defense and oil industry I don't find it particularly balanced. I've also found much of the NY Times reporting on Snowden to push a very national security establishment agenda. My apologies for not being able to give more concrete examples at this time, I hope you understand my statement was made in good faith. [1] www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story,amp.html
  • 75j 10y ago
    Look up just about anything NYT has written about US wars in the past 15 years. Up until very recently, NYT even had an editorial policy against using the word "torture" in reference to any act committed by the US government / military. Not too mention that Maggie Haberman and Mark Liebovich (and probably a few others too that I'm not aware of) can be found in the Podesta emails sending over their articles to the Clinton campaign for review, prior to publication.
    • mtbcoder 10y ago
      > Not too mention that Maggie Haberman and Mark Liebovich (and probably a few others too that I'm not aware of) can be found in the Podesta emails sending over their articles to the Clinton campaign for review, prior to publication. Can you reference the source for this? I ask because much of what I've seen between what WikiLeaks tweets and what's actually contained within the email messages is severely taken out of context. (e.g. not understanding what news embargos are [1]) The New York Times were also the ones who originally broke the story of the private email server. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_embargo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_embargo
      • throwaway98764 10y ago
        Cryptographically verified, by the way: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213
        • mtbcoder 10y ago
          Thank you, here is also the response by Leibovich: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-media-conspiracy.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/magazine/anatomy-of-a-medi...
      • 75j 10y ago
        One example from Leibovich: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4213 And one of Haberman's stories being sent to Podesta: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/51561 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/51561 Here's a Clinton campaign strategy document that mentions Haberman and how she has "teed up many stories for us before and [we] have never been disappointed": https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3125945-Story-Memo.html https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3125945-Story-Memo.h... Doing an advanced search on Wikileaks filtering by "nytdirect@nytimes.com" in the sender field, you'll see that the first drafts of nearly 50 different articles were sent to John Podesta: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=&mfrom=nytdirect%40nytimes.com&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=6#searchresult https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=&mfrom=nytdirect%40n...
• seren 10y ago
  Because newspaper endorsement used to have more weight. I am not sure it has ever been measured scientifically but it was at least perceived as having some weight. Now today, we realize that it has no effect on the average voter. This is a shocking realization if your are a journalist working for a newspaper. It is a "Emperor's New Clothes" moment. For the rest of us, I would say this has less an impact.
  • gregpilling 10y ago
    The average voter does not read newspapers. This is obvious from the decline in circulation, not necessarily the election result.
    • DamnYuppie 10y ago
      Declining circulation doesn't mean they aren't reading them online.
      • hga 10y ago
        Or that the people who read them don't have an above average influence on others who look to them for a more informed take on current events and the like.
      • TAForObvReasons 10y ago
        I'd point to the uptick in online sources like InfoWars and Breitbart and Drudge as a sign of where people are getting their news. It's rare to see any of them link to more traditional outlets.
        • hga 10y ago
          It's rare to see any of them link to more traditional outlets. Which suggests you don't read either of the latter, for they do that all the time. Just go to Drudge right now and see the links at the top left to the NYT, LA Times, the U.K. Metro which I just learned about yesterday as an example of the MSM over there (haven't looked at it yet), The Hill (founded 1994 and pretty "traditional" nowadays), CNET (founded in 1994 as well), the Daily Mail, and ABC and CBS News. This is Drudge's daily bread and butter. And for now, just take my word for it that Breitbart not only publishes a lot of AP, AFP etc. new wire stories straight, a lot of their items are short sections of traditional outlets with some commentary, links to them and encouragement to read the whole thing.
• gdulli 10y ago
  > Does anyone else find this incredibly tone deaf The tone is that a racist demagogue who made up lies off the top of his head at every speech was found acceptable by (almost) a plurality of voters. The tone is that voters have been proven to be manipulable through fear to blame people of other races and nationalities for whatever economic conditions are unfavorable to them. The tone is that the truth and nuance of these issues are now irrelevant in elections. The tone is that serial bullying and abuse of women is not a disqualifier for what should be the most-respected office in the nation. Newspaper editorial staffs are not to be shamed for being disgusted by it. But yeah, there's no more denying the extent to which that tone exists now.
  • aaron-lebo 10y ago
    > The tone is that a racist demagogue who made up lies off the top of his head at every speech was found acceptable by (almost) a plurality of voters. The alternative was what? A corrupt rich white woman who has been involved in politics since the 1970s, who has been behind the curve of history at almost every step (saying stuff like blacks are superpredators and video games caused Columbine and not getting behind gay marriage until a couple years ago). > The tone is that voters have been proven to be manipulable through fear to blame people of other races and nationalities for whatever economic conditions are unfavorable to them. The tone is that the truth and nuance of these issues are now irrelevant in elections. This has always happened. Why is it that when poor minorities vote for their economic well-being it is seen as progress but when poor white people do it it's seen as racism? > The tone is that serial bullying and abuse of women is not a disqualifier for what should be the most-respected office in the nation. Bill Clinton. Your concerns are heard, but they'd be a lot more believable if the person who didn't get elected was not the face of hypocrisy. I didn't vote for Trump. I just don't think simplifying an election about the economy into something about race or bigotry is acceptable. It's dishonest. The working class has been gutted for years because of neoconservative and neoliberal views. Surprise - the class of people most rejected who receive poor educations and don't have a window into the modern economy have some unfavorable views on some issues.
    • gdulli 10y ago
• akerro 10y ago
  Why do you feel you should tell us you didn't vote for Trump?
  • Inconel 10y ago
    I felt it would add context to the fact that while my vote aligned with the broader opinion of the LA Times editorial board, insofar as not voting for Trump, this was in no way based on their endorsement and I found it somewhat off-putting that the author would assume that their endorsement would make much of a difference to me.
  • sbuttgereit 10y ago
    [EDIT: I'm not the poster, but this is a real enough consideration these days I thought I'd provide an answer.] Because in today's "cheerleader" style of politics... where it's more important what team you're on than anything else of substance... there is an assumption that if you say something that could be considered favorable to one "team" that you must be a member of that "team". The assumption that you're just being thoughtful, reflective and just considering the deeper questions seems to be off the table these days.
  • pessimizer 10y ago
    Clearly to attempt to limit the aggressive ad hominem that passes for discourse on the internet amongst the marketing-sensitive. If you want to criticize Apple, say you're an Apple fan even if you're not, if you want to criticize the Cubs, say you're a Cub fan even if you're not, same if you want to criticize a Christopher Nolan movie or a policy of the current government of Spain. Some people get so steeped in a particular marketing environment that any hint of a contradiction of one of its axioms gets treated like a blasphemy that is sinful to acknowledge or listen to, and is responded to by marketing-dictated rote, not with thought. Trump person: "I think it's good that Trump wants to get us out of TPP - why do people call them "free" trade agreements anyway when they add so many protectionist regulations on consumers, and only free capital and finance?" Clinton person: "Why are you a racist?"
  • xenihn 10y ago
    We currently live in a political climate where having the "wrong" opinion means that you are a bad person.
• iaskwhy 10y ago
  I guess that's because in the UK "It's The Sun Wot Won It".[0] Summary: It is believed some media, like The Sun, have a big effect on elections' results, like with the recent Brexit referendum. This led some people to believe it's pretty much impossible to win against sensationalist media in the UK. (But please correct me if I'm wrong, that's my take after living in London for around 6 years.) And so Trump can be thought of as a surprise given his victory against the overall media landscape. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It
• ben010783 10y ago
  I don't think it is tone deaf. It is a very valid point. People that working politics and research it as their job heavily recommended one candidate over the other. It is getting easier to ignore the opinion of an expert and instead find a source that agrees with how you feel. People are looking for reasons to discredit sources that they don't agree with. Sloppiness and bias will always happen, but at some point you have to realize that a source like The Wall Street Journal is better than Brietbart and that blog posts and opinion pieces should not be given the same weight as investigative journalism.
  • 1_2__3 10y ago
    As an aside, while the WSJ may have some credibility it's not that far away ideologically from Bretibart. In particular I was reading an article there recently about the Wells Fargo scandal and despite it not being an editorial the entire article was essentially a defense piece for the executives. By no measure was it even an attempt at even-handed journalism, it was straight-up advocacy masquerading as news.
    • hga 10y ago
      Like, oh, this? "Wells Fargo Receives Laughable ‘Punishment’ for Massive Criminal Fraud": http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09/29/29-sep-16-world-view-wells-fargo-receives-laughable-punishment-massive-criminal-fraud/ http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/09/29/29-sep... Breitbart is most certainly not part of the Establishment that The Wall Street Journal is.
  • CaptSpify 10y ago
    > heavily recommended one candidate over the other. I think a big question about that is why they recommended one over the other. There's a lot of distrust of those recommendations, and speculation that they are recommending the candidate that helps their own demographic, rather than the US at large.
  • crdoconnor 10y ago
    To be honest I think the wailing and caterwauling by establishment mouthpieces (NYTimes, WSJ firmly fall in this camp) probably only cemented the resolve of the average Trump voter. They're very well aware that their interests and the interests of the owners of the NYTimes and the WSJ are diametrically opposed.
• pessimizer 10y ago
  I still think that the media had a massive influence on the election - the fact that they all were pushing a particular choice (and attacking any discussion of the negatives of that candidate in an aggressive, illiberal way) tripped the public's Pravda breaker (they went into the uncanny valley of journalism?), and killed all of her support at the margins. As for Trump, he won with fewer votes than McCain or Romney. The suspicion caused by the spirited media advocacy (the media being one of the only groups with a lower approval rating than Congress or Clinton/Trump) made people who suspected that they had been suckered by Obama into voting for the oligarchy were absolutely sure that they were being suckered into voting for Clinton. The US media used to be better at this. It was the advantage that we had over the USSR.
  • hga 10y ago
    As for Trump, he won with fewer votes than McCain or Romney. Do we have any reliable figures for this as of yet? Preliminary ones, sure.... The suspicion caused by the spirited media advocacy (the media being one of the only groups with a lower approval rating than Congress or Clinton/Trump) made people who suspected that they had been suckered by Obama into voting for the oligarchy were absolutely sure that they were being suckered into voting for Clinton. One, if not the key to Trump's victory was the Rust Belt, where the above analysis fits rather nicely with the facts on the ground. Whatever role a "Pravda breaker" played (I love the concept), the voters in those states that put Obama over the top in 2008 then voted for Trump 8 years later (which also does a fair job of killing the "they're racists!" argument).
    • pessimizer 10y ago
      > One, if not the key to Trump's victory was the Rust Belt, where the above analysis fits rather nicely with the facts on the ground. Whatever role a "Pravda breaker" played (I love the concept), the voters in those states that put Obama over the top in 2008 then voted for Trump 8 years later (which also does a fair job of killing the "they're racists!" argument). Obama ran as a changemaker for the working class. Clinton ran on an everything's fine platform. If you didn't think that everything was fine, and you were at least mildly racist or honestly believed that Trump wasn't, you switched from Obama to Trump. If you didn't think that everything was fine and were disappointed in Obama, and you were black, or not racist at all, you stayed home. If you thought that the only problem with Obama was Republicans, liked to think of yourself as a cosmopolitan citizen of the world, worked in professional services, and were educated and eating good, or if you were one of the mass media-credulous, you turned out for Clinton. A thing I've been amused by over the past few days is how clear it was that none of the print/internet media had any stories or analysis prepared for the possibility that Trump won. Like Brexit (or Corbyn), it simply wasn't part of their concept of reality.
• phhlho 10y ago
  The one thing I appreciate from editorial boards are recommendations for the down ballot elections. I don't know who these people are and their goals are usually difficult to describe in a blurb. At least I can get a third-party blurb about why I should vote for them. Online doesn't seem to really have a solution for this, as everyone wants to write about the main event, not the local races.
• pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
  facebook makes each of us our own editorial review boards. we call it, a "wall". you're all idiots.
• tzs 10y ago
  You seem to be focusing on papers that usually endorse Democrats. Of course it is not surprising that their endorsements did not sway many voters. I think that the important point, though, is that there are also a lot of newspapers that usually endorse Republicans, and far more of those went for Clinton this time than Trump. Wikipedia has a nice sortable table here [1], showing endorsement, circulation, and who the paper endorsed in 2012. Sort it by 2012 endorsement, and scroll down to the Romney endorsements [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Endorsements_by_daily_newspapers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_...