4 ms·
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 languag
by 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 agoThat'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 agoI 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 agoWhy 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 agoI would think it because I actually read the words.
- mindslight 8mo agoSure, 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 agoBuy into it? I'm sure you think I'm part of the great conspiracy oppressing you.
- mindslight 8mo agoWat? 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 agoKayfabe. 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 agoI 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)
- mhb 8mo agoDo your lame insults normally result in "substantive response[s] for what I said"? You'll have to temper your expectations.
- 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 agoBy 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 agoCrazy take that the Times is insufficiently left wing, but apparently shared by others here.
- CamperBob2 8mo agoYou're not paying attention.
- mhb 8mo agoSo 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.