4 ms·

> 'In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues.' You're lifting one sentence out of context. The rest

by pg314 10y ago

> 'In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues.' You're lifting one sentence out of context. The rest of the paragraph reads [1]: "In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway." The president-elect's walking back on so many of his promises since the election seem to be vindicating these comments. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-for-president.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/hillary-cli...

fleitz 10y ago
If they weren't publishing bullshit why are they rededicating themselves to journalism? Shouldn't they instead be saying, 'We got everything right, we reported all the facts, like the polls sampling Dems and women @ 60%, and Hillary lost surprising absolutely no one with a rudimentary understanding that the population of the US is 50/50 male / female' The context always was that this wasn't a normal election year and for some reason what they'd normally do wasn't an option (because the enemy is Hitler.) The reason why they got everything wrong is because they think that people care about things like 'well, so and so didn't exactly say this or that' rather than figure out what the overall gist of the message is. Alt-media is believed because it resonates with the overall feeling people get from the news, which is why the times had to do a mea culpa on the election because they lied so much that after Clinton lost even their base knew that they were just making shit up with no regard to reality which is why Trump won because proper defenses couldn't be put in place because the NYT was blatantly lying to everyone about Trump's chances in hopes that people would just believe Hillary was going to win and stay home.
- pjc50 10y ago
  > Alt-media is believed because it resonates with the overall feeling people get from the news, which is why the times had to do a mea culpa on the election because they lied so much that after Clinton lost even their base knew that they were just making shit up with no regard to reality which is why Trump won because proper defenses couldn't be put in place because the NYT was blatantly lying to everyone about Trump's chances in hopes that people would just believe Hillary was going to win and stay home. I hate to sound like Grammar Clippy, but: consider using more than one comma or breaking all those subclauses into separate sentences.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >Alt-media is believed because it resonates with the overall feeling people get from the news "Alt-media" convinced a man to go shoot up a pizzeria on no factual grounds whatsoever. This is not just dangerous to democracy, it's inciting violence against innocent people.

by pg314 10y ago

fleitz 10y ago

If they weren't publishing bullshit why are they rededicating themselves to journalism? Shouldn't they instead be saying, 'We got everything right, we reported all the facts, like the polls sampling Dems and women @ 60%, and Hillary lost surprising absolutely no one with a rudimentary understanding that the population of the US is 50/50 male / female' The context always was that this wasn't a normal election year and for some reason what they'd normally do wasn't an option (because the enemy is Hitler.) The reason why they got everything wrong is because they think that people care about things like 'well, so and so didn't exactly say this or that' rather than figure out what the overall gist of the message is. Alt-media is believed because it resonates with the overall feeling people get from the news, which is why the times had to do a mea culpa on the election because they lied so much that after Clinton lost even their base knew that they were just making shit up with no regard to reality which is why Trump won because proper defenses couldn't be put in place because the NYT was blatantly lying to everyone about Trump's chances in hopes that people would just believe Hillary was going to win and stay home.

pjc50 10y ago
> Alt-media is believed because it resonates with the overall feeling people get from the news, which is why the times had to do a mea culpa on the election because they lied so much that after Clinton lost even their base knew that they were just making shit up with no regard to reality which is why Trump won because proper defenses couldn't be put in place because the NYT was blatantly lying to everyone about Trump's chances in hopes that people would just believe Hillary was going to win and stay home. I hate to sound like Grammar Clippy, but: consider using more than one comma or breaking all those subclauses into separate sentences.
eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>Alt-media is believed because it resonates with the overall feeling people get from the news "Alt-media" convinced a man to go shoot up a pizzeria on no factual grounds whatsoever. This is not just dangerous to democracy, it's inciting violence against innocent people.