5 ms·

More Trump sanewashing from NYT. Yay. When the history of this era is written, possibly on a cave wall, the media will bear a heavy portion of responsibility.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
What does this mean?
- mhb 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - CamperBob2 8mo ago
    The NYT has been biased in favor of Trump since the day he appeared at the 2016 Republican convention. Trump sells papers, you see. Using normalizing language in a headline such as this is a longstanding practice of theirs. (Laughable? Your homework assignment for tonight is to Google the term Pied piper strategy. The NYT played ball with the Democrats at their request, and never stopped carrying it.)
    - mhb 8mo ago
      That's laughable. The Pied Piper Strategy was interesting to read about, but that doesn't agree with my experience of reading the Times. It seems more than happy to pander to its subscribers' biases.
      - CamperBob2 8mo ago
        I wish I could agree with you there, but I remember all too well what it was like in 2016, eating breakfast every morning with the NYT open on my iPad. Day after day, I'd scream at them under my breath: You idiots are going to get him elected. You know that, right? Right? Turns out that yes, they did.
    - mindslight 8mo ago
      Why you would ever think a paper run by out of touch New York elites who think they can solve everything would support an out of touch New York elite who claims he can solve everything? That's just crazy talk! Don't you know they often wear different color ties? And one uses big words while the other uses small words.
      - mhb 8mo ago
        I would think it because I actually read the words.
        mindslight 8mo ago
        Sure, it can comforting to buy into the kayfabe of how the elites distinguish themselves from each other rather than focusing on their overriding commonalities.
        mhb 8mo ago
        Buy into it? I'm sure you think I'm part of the great conspiracy oppressing you.
        mindslight 8mo ago
        Wat? Not a conspiracy, just seemingly one of Lenin's "useful idiots", or "blue pill" in the modern parlance. As I said, it's comforting to believe the kayfabe.
        mhb 8mo ago
        Kayfabe. Pro tip: When you just learn a new word, it's a tell to use it all the time. At least try to only include it in replies to different threads.
        mindslight 8mo ago
        I assume this means you don't have a substantive response for what I said. That's okay, just let it hang there. Maybe something will trickle in. (I used the word because it's appropriate here in multiple aspects, and repeated it as you didn't understand the point. Trump has been long involved in the WWE. And the word started making the rounds in tech circles when a Thiel-adjacent boosted the concept. But of course like every fake "red pill" that becomes pop culture, the goal was merely to shout down one version while marketing another of his own making)
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > NYT has been biased in favor of Trump since the day he appeared In the sense that it sells papers and ads? Sure, I guess. That’s the price of an attention economy. Someone who commands attention gains economies. Or do you mean the Times is ideologically aligned with Trump?
      - fakedang 8mo ago
        By painting Trump's actions as rational developments. By putting his words on equal standing as any prior president's. Look at the headline here for instance - US and Iran send conflicting signals, as though both parties are sending incorrect messaging regarding a potential peace deal. What's really happening though is Trump unilaterally lying through his teeth (established), perhaps so that entities tied to him, likely his erstwhile bankrupt family, can manipulate the stock market (speculative). Of course, you won't see the NY Times or any American paper of record narrate the news that way. That's what GP means by the NYT's sanewashing. Because for them, any news sells, and you don't cut off the source.
        mhb 8mo ago
        Crazy take that the Times is insufficiently left wing, but apparently shared by others here.
        CamperBob2 8mo ago
        You're not paying attention.
        mhb 8mo ago
        So what? Your claim is that, at the behest of the Clintons, in 2016, the Times adopted the "Pied Piper Strategy" in order to get its preferred candidate elected? And they've steadfastly adhered to that strategy through the present even though it didn't even work? Occam's razor would suggest that they're just another biased news outlet which can only push its agenda so far and that calling Trump out any more than they do would cost them the marginal centrist left segment of their readership if there are even still any of those.
  - torlok 8mo ago
    NYT is in favor of Israel. They'll whitewash any president who bombs middle-eastern countries. You do that by sanely discussing what's obviously horrendous war crimes, and by making "both sides" arguments.
    - CamperBob2 8mo ago
      It would almost make more sense if it were about supporting Israel. The reality is that the NYT and other outlets frequently behave this way across a wide spectrum of issues, foreign and domestic. They cut Trump an utterly astonishing amount of slack, much more than they would ever grant to any other politician. There are a couple of references below to start with, but if you do a search on Trump sanewashing you'll be overwhelmed with them. 1: https://margaretsullivan.substack.com/p/about-those-new-york-times-headlines https://margaretsullivan.substack.com/p/about-those-new-york... 2: https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu/blog/sanewashing-in-the-media-the-coverage-that-normalizes-trump-s/ https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu/blog/sanewashing-in...
      - akimbostrawman 8mo ago
        >They cut Trump an utterly astonishing amount of slack, much more than they would ever grant to any other politician Wasn't expecting this kind of political comedy on HN but thanks for the laugh. We talking about the same guy who got politically slandered straight faced for years for a sleazy joke while playing a character on a fictional TV show where actors playing parody and mythical character fake jump on each other from cages and ladders.
        cherry_tree 8mo ago
        He was ruled by a court of law to have raped E Jean carol. You’re here complaining that a rapist isn’t being treated as well as you’d like.
        akimbostrawman 7mo ago
        Those accusation where in 2019, the ruling in 2023, my example was well before that in and around 2016
  - ohhman11 8mo ago
    How is the NYT not totally biased in favor of Trump? Trump says insane thing, instead of repeating insane thing NYT rewrites it in a format that sounds like something a sane person says. Here's an example where NYT totally disregards the gravity of what Trump is saying (blowing up NATO) and instead portrays him as a successful real estate mogul intent on protecting the West. NYT adds a bunch of flourish to make Trump sound more coherent than he did in the actual interview: NYT article version: >“Ownership is very important,” Mr. Trump said as he discussed, with a real estate mogul’s eye, the landmass of Greenland — three times the size of Texas but with a population of less than 60,000. He seemed to dismiss the value of having Greenland under the control of a close NATO ally. >When asked why he needed to possess the territory, he said: “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.” >The conversation made clear that in Mr. Trump’s view, sovereignty and national borders are less important than the singular role the United States plays as the protector of the West. Interview transcript: David E. Sanger: Why is ownership important here? President Trump: Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base. David E. Sanger: So you’re going to ask them to buy it? Katie Rogers: Psychologically important to you or to the United States? President Trump: Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.
    - 1718627440 8mo ago
      The transcript is shorter than the description, what use does describing like that even have?
      - ohhman11 8mo ago
        It allows NYT to add a bunch of words for the sole purpose of making Trump sound more convincing.
  - watwut 8mo ago
    Frankly, yes it is. It is consistently making him look more saner and thought out then he is. They will rewrite his statements into more coherent, attribute him reasonable motivations he did not expressed and skip malevolent motivation he repeated multiple times. They do NOT have such consideration for democratic populist politicians.
- CamperBob2 8mo ago
  The headline reads "US and Iran Send Conflicting Signals on Peace Prospects." But that's not an accurate description of what happened, is it? "Iran Denies Existence of Talks with Trump Administration" might serve better. I mean, it's not as if they're actually going to come out with the correct headline: "Trump Continues Lying About War, Makes Up Unlikely-Sounding Excuse for Chickening Out," is it? But they can do better than "Conflicting Signals."
- ohhman11 8mo ago
  They did not write the more accurate headline: "Trump backs down on Iran threat, Claims of Negotitations Denied by Tehran" NYT tends to be excessively charitable with what Trump does and says. This is because it's more important for the NYT to use language which sounds neutral, rather than language which reflects reality. Also, for whatever reason, the usual obligation of journalists to decry falsehoods does not apply to things Trump says off the cuff. It's not necessarily a bad business decision though, a paper which applied the same standards on Donald Trump as it does on everyone else would presumably be even more painful reading.
- thrance 8mo ago
  They mean that when the NYT says: > President Trump told reporters that the United States and Iran were engaging in “very strong talks” toward resolving the war that began on Feb. 28, which had produced “many, like 15 points,” of agreement. He said he was postponing until Friday his threat to attack Iranian power plants while talks take place. They're hiding the president's actual words on the subjects (yes, he wrote in all-caps): > I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WHICH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP [1] And the NYT doesn't feel the need to comment on how unhinged the president is acting, or how this whole story is a complete, transparent lie. This is either extreme journalistic imcompetence or straight up malice. The NYT and the rest of the media share a large part of the blame in Trump's success story and the slow fall of the American Republic. [1] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116278232362967212 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1162782323629...
- deeg 8mo ago
  I don't think people understand how incoherent Trump is and some of that is because news agencies like the NYT translate some of his statements into something that makes sense. When I listen to his speeches or read the transcripts he is often off the rails. His posts on Truth Social are insane. Compare this headline to recent statements he's made about the war. Have we won the war? Or will be sending troops to Kharg? Is Iran's military 100% obliterated? Or do we need NATO to help patrol Hormuz? Is this a war or an "excursion"? He has said the war is winding down but also intensifying. He's made all of these conflicting statements and more, sometimes one right after the other.
  - deeg 8mo ago
    Here's an article that puts it better than I can. I don't think the NYT does it out of malice but they are trying to appear balanced. If a journalist accurately reported on Trump they could come across as horribly biased. They assume some good faith and are unequipped to deal with trump. https://www.publicnotice.co/p/mark-jacob-interview-trump-coverage https://www.publicnotice.co/p/mark-jacob-interview-trump-cov...
    - aja12 8mo ago
      From an exterior viewpoint, all this portrayal of Trump as either insane or an idiot is as useless and dangerous as the sanewashing. I believed Trump was insane/an idiot during his 1st mandate. I no longer believe so. I firmly believe he is an ingenious antagonist with ulterior motives using advanced manipulation and destabilization techniques. He moved the Overton window so far and fast that the world doesn't know how to react, and any reaction will be too little too late. Trump is taking the USA's economical/social structure apart at a frightening pace, and unfortunately a lot hinge on the USA elsewhere. He should not be seen as incompetent/unfit for office, he should be seen as a hostile entity to get rid of yesterday. And I fear it's too late, the USA won't react until he's made the "necessary constitution changes" and been elected for his 3rd mandate. Getting rid of Europe's ties with the USA will be arduous but I don't see any alternative
- UncleMeat 8mo ago
  A regular problem with national media is that Trump will say some completely ridiculous thing and then the media will report it by extracting the most possibly coherent idea from it and then paraphrase his words to express that coherent idea. Trump will go on TV and say "somali immigrants are running mass fraud rings to fund terrorism and democrats are covering this up" and the media will run a headline like "Trump expresses concern about childcare fraud." There was an interesting example recently where national media printed an AOC quote that left in the "uhs" and "ums", making her seem less competent and clear. But you'll regularly see this stuff removed from any direct quotes from Trump.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

What does this mean?

mhb 8mo ago
[flagged]
- CamperBob2 8mo ago
  The NYT has been biased in favor of Trump since the day he appeared at the 2016 Republican convention. Trump sells papers, you see. Using normalizing language in a headline such as this is a longstanding practice of theirs. (Laughable? Your homework assignment for tonight is to Google the term Pied piper strategy. The NYT played ball with the Democrats at their request, and never stopped carrying it.)
  - mhb 8mo ago
    That's laughable. The Pied Piper Strategy was interesting to read about, but that doesn't agree with my experience of reading the Times. It seems more than happy to pander to its subscribers' biases.
    - CamperBob2 8mo ago
      I wish I could agree with you there, but I remember all too well what it was like in 2016, eating breakfast every morning with the NYT open on my iPad. Day after day, I'd scream at them under my breath: You idiots are going to get him elected. You know that, right? Right? Turns out that yes, they did.
  - mindslight 8mo ago
    Why you would ever think a paper run by out of touch New York elites who think they can solve everything would support an out of touch New York elite who claims he can solve everything? That's just crazy talk! Don't you know they often wear different color ties? And one uses big words while the other uses small words.
    - mhb 8mo ago
      I would think it because I actually read the words.
      - mindslight 8mo ago
        Sure, it can comforting to buy into the kayfabe of how the elites distinguish themselves from each other rather than focusing on their overriding commonalities.
        mhb 8mo ago
        Buy into it? I'm sure you think I'm part of the great conspiracy oppressing you.
        mindslight 8mo ago
        Wat? Not a conspiracy, just seemingly one of Lenin's "useful idiots", or "blue pill" in the modern parlance. As I said, it's comforting to believe the kayfabe.
        mhb 8mo ago
        Kayfabe. Pro tip: When you just learn a new word, it's a tell to use it all the time. At least try to only include it in replies to different threads.
        mindslight 8mo ago
        I assume this means you don't have a substantive response for what I said. That's okay, just let it hang there. Maybe something will trickle in. (I used the word because it's appropriate here in multiple aspects, and repeated it as you didn't understand the point. Trump has been long involved in the WWE. And the word started making the rounds in tech circles when a Thiel-adjacent boosted the concept. But of course like every fake "red pill" that becomes pop culture, the goal was merely to shout down one version while marketing another of his own making)
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > NYT has been biased in favor of Trump since the day he appeared In the sense that it sells papers and ads? Sure, I guess. That’s the price of an attention economy. Someone who commands attention gains economies. Or do you mean the Times is ideologically aligned with Trump?
    - fakedang 8mo ago
      By painting Trump's actions as rational developments. By putting his words on equal standing as any prior president's. Look at the headline here for instance - US and Iran send conflicting signals, as though both parties are sending incorrect messaging regarding a potential peace deal. What's really happening though is Trump unilaterally lying through his teeth (established), perhaps so that entities tied to him, likely his erstwhile bankrupt family, can manipulate the stock market (speculative). Of course, you won't see the NY Times or any American paper of record narrate the news that way. That's what GP means by the NYT's sanewashing. Because for them, any news sells, and you don't cut off the source.
      - mhb 8mo ago
        Crazy take that the Times is insufficiently left wing, but apparently shared by others here.
        CamperBob2 8mo ago
        You're not paying attention.
        mhb 8mo ago
        So what? Your claim is that, at the behest of the Clintons, in 2016, the Times adopted the "Pied Piper Strategy" in order to get its preferred candidate elected? And they've steadfastly adhered to that strategy through the present even though it didn't even work? Occam's razor would suggest that they're just another biased news outlet which can only push its agenda so far and that calling Trump out any more than they do would cost them the marginal centrist left segment of their readership if there are even still any of those.
- torlok 8mo ago
  NYT is in favor of Israel. They'll whitewash any president who bombs middle-eastern countries. You do that by sanely discussing what's obviously horrendous war crimes, and by making "both sides" arguments.
  - CamperBob2 8mo ago
    It would almost make more sense if it were about supporting Israel. The reality is that the NYT and other outlets frequently behave this way across a wide spectrum of issues, foreign and domestic. They cut Trump an utterly astonishing amount of slack, much more than they would ever grant to any other politician. There are a couple of references below to start with, but if you do a search on Trump sanewashing you'll be overwhelmed with them. 1: https://margaretsullivan.substack.com/p/about-those-new-york-times-headlines https://margaretsullivan.substack.com/p/about-those-new-york... 2: https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu/blog/sanewashing-in-the-media-the-coverage-that-normalizes-trump-s/ https://mediabiasdetector.seas.upenn.edu/blog/sanewashing-in...
    - akimbostrawman 8mo ago
      >They cut Trump an utterly astonishing amount of slack, much more than they would ever grant to any other politician Wasn't expecting this kind of political comedy on HN but thanks for the laugh. We talking about the same guy who got politically slandered straight faced for years for a sleazy joke while playing a character on a fictional TV show where actors playing parody and mythical character fake jump on each other from cages and ladders.
      - cherry_tree 8mo ago
        He was ruled by a court of law to have raped E Jean carol. You’re here complaining that a rapist isn’t being treated as well as you’d like.
        akimbostrawman 7mo ago
        Those accusation where in 2019, the ruling in 2023, my example was well before that in and around 2016
- ohhman11 8mo ago
  How is the NYT not totally biased in favor of Trump? Trump says insane thing, instead of repeating insane thing NYT rewrites it in a format that sounds like something a sane person says. Here's an example where NYT totally disregards the gravity of what Trump is saying (blowing up NATO) and instead portrays him as a successful real estate mogul intent on protecting the West. NYT adds a bunch of flourish to make Trump sound more coherent than he did in the actual interview: NYT article version: >“Ownership is very important,” Mr. Trump said as he discussed, with a real estate mogul’s eye, the landmass of Greenland — three times the size of Texas but with a population of less than 60,000. He seemed to dismiss the value of having Greenland under the control of a close NATO ally. >When asked why he needed to possess the territory, he said: “Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.” >The conversation made clear that in Mr. Trump’s view, sovereignty and national borders are less important than the singular role the United States plays as the protector of the West. Interview transcript: David E. Sanger: Why is ownership important here? President Trump: Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base. David E. Sanger: So you’re going to ask them to buy it? Katie Rogers: Psychologically important to you or to the United States? President Trump: Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.
  - 1718627440 8mo ago
    The transcript is shorter than the description, what use does describing like that even have?
    - ohhman11 8mo ago
      It allows NYT to add a bunch of words for the sole purpose of making Trump sound more convincing.
- watwut 8mo ago
  Frankly, yes it is. It is consistently making him look more saner and thought out then he is. They will rewrite his statements into more coherent, attribute him reasonable motivations he did not expressed and skip malevolent motivation he repeated multiple times. They do NOT have such consideration for democratic populist politicians.
CamperBob2 8mo ago
The headline reads "US and Iran Send Conflicting Signals on Peace Prospects." But that's not an accurate description of what happened, is it? "Iran Denies Existence of Talks with Trump Administration" might serve better. I mean, it's not as if they're actually going to come out with the correct headline: "Trump Continues Lying About War, Makes Up Unlikely-Sounding Excuse for Chickening Out," is it? But they can do better than "Conflicting Signals."
ohhman11 8mo ago
They did not write the more accurate headline: "Trump backs down on Iran threat, Claims of Negotitations Denied by Tehran" NYT tends to be excessively charitable with what Trump does and says. This is because it's more important for the NYT to use language which sounds neutral, rather than language which reflects reality. Also, for whatever reason, the usual obligation of journalists to decry falsehoods does not apply to things Trump says off the cuff. It's not necessarily a bad business decision though, a paper which applied the same standards on Donald Trump as it does on everyone else would presumably be even more painful reading.
thrance 8mo ago
They mean that when the NYT says: > President Trump told reporters that the United States and Iran were engaging in “very strong talks” toward resolving the war that began on Feb. 28, which had produced “many, like 15 points,” of agreement. He said he was postponing until Friday his threat to attack Iranian power plants while talks take place. They're hiding the president's actual words on the subjects (yes, he wrote in all-caps): > I AM PLEASED TO REPORT THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND THE COUNTRY OF IRAN, HAVE HAD, OVER THE LAST TWO DAYS, VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. BASED ON THE TENOR AND TONE OF THESE IN DEPTH, DETAILED, AND CONSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS, WHICH WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, I HAVE INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR TO POSTPONE ANY AND ALL MILITARY STRIKES AGAINST IRANIAN POWER PLANTS AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A FIVE DAY PERIOD, SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP [1] And the NYT doesn't feel the need to comment on how unhinged the president is acting, or how this whole story is a complete, transparent lie. This is either extreme journalistic imcompetence or straight up malice. The NYT and the rest of the media share a large part of the blame in Trump's success story and the slow fall of the American Republic. [1] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116278232362967212 https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1162782323629...
deeg 8mo ago
I don't think people understand how incoherent Trump is and some of that is because news agencies like the NYT translate some of his statements into something that makes sense. When I listen to his speeches or read the transcripts he is often off the rails. His posts on Truth Social are insane. Compare this headline to recent statements he's made about the war. Have we won the war? Or will be sending troops to Kharg? Is Iran's military 100% obliterated? Or do we need NATO to help patrol Hormuz? Is this a war or an "excursion"? He has said the war is winding down but also intensifying. He's made all of these conflicting statements and more, sometimes one right after the other.
- deeg 8mo ago
  Here's an article that puts it better than I can. I don't think the NYT does it out of malice but they are trying to appear balanced. If a journalist accurately reported on Trump they could come across as horribly biased. They assume some good faith and are unequipped to deal with trump. https://www.publicnotice.co/p/mark-jacob-interview-trump-coverage https://www.publicnotice.co/p/mark-jacob-interview-trump-cov...
  - aja12 8mo ago
    From an exterior viewpoint, all this portrayal of Trump as either insane or an idiot is as useless and dangerous as the sanewashing. I believed Trump was insane/an idiot during his 1st mandate. I no longer believe so. I firmly believe he is an ingenious antagonist with ulterior motives using advanced manipulation and destabilization techniques. He moved the Overton window so far and fast that the world doesn't know how to react, and any reaction will be too little too late. Trump is taking the USA's economical/social structure apart at a frightening pace, and unfortunately a lot hinge on the USA elsewhere. He should not be seen as incompetent/unfit for office, he should be seen as a hostile entity to get rid of yesterday. And I fear it's too late, the USA won't react until he's made the "necessary constitution changes" and been elected for his 3rd mandate. Getting rid of Europe's ties with the USA will be arduous but I don't see any alternative
UncleMeat 8mo ago
A regular problem with national media is that Trump will say some completely ridiculous thing and then the media will report it by extracting the most possibly coherent idea from it and then paraphrase his words to express that coherent idea. Trump will go on TV and say "somali immigrants are running mass fraud rings to fund terrorism and democrats are covering this up" and the media will run a headline like "Trump expresses concern about childcare fraud." There was an interesting example recently where national media printed an AOC quote that left in the "uhs" and "ums", making her seem less competent and clear. But you'll regularly see this stuff removed from any direct quotes from Trump.