3 ms·

Crazy take that the Times is insufficiently left wing, but apparently shared by others here.

by mhb 7mo ago

CamperBob2 7mo ago
You're not paying attention.
- mhb 7mo 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.
  - CamperBob2 7mo ago
    You only need to apply Occam's Razor when there is no actual evidence to go by. The Pied Piper strategy was revealed in the dump of John Podesta's emails that was released by Wikileaks before the election in 2016. In any case it's not about the Pied Piper thing. That's just to point out that the NYT and other media outlets has an agenda that is not necessarily driven by stereotypical left/right politics. In that situation, they were cooperating with leftist interests to "elevate" Trump and other candidates who were deemed likely to sink the Republicans in the general election, making him look like a more viable candidate than he was and thereby creating a self-fulfilling story. As I said, I watched this unfold in real time, with no idea of what was actually happening behind the scenes. Today, the same supposedly left-leaning outlets continue to report on Trump with exquisite, obsequious generosity. Why? "It sells papers" is my Occam's Razor solution, but I agree that this may not be sufficient or conclusive. Once you see it you can't stop seeing it. Biden had "gaffes," Trump has "a unique way of speaking." Criminals have "bad genes," but the NYT tells us that "In remarks about migrants, Donald Trump invoked his long-held fascination with genes and genetics." Trump spews conspiracy theories about vaccines and autism, but the NYT describes a generic policy proposal on chronic health issues. Trump claims that schools are performing gender-reassignment surgeries on kids without parental consent, and the media says "Trump focuses his appeal on conservative moms." Trump goes off on tangents about sharks and Hannibal Lecter, CNN reports a speech focused on local labor issues. Trump responds to a question about child care costs with a rambling off-topic rant about tariffs and the Federal deficit, which is then duly reported as "Trump suggests tariffs could help with child care costs." The BS never ends. (BTW, I didn't flag your post and in fact tried to vouch for it, but that never seems to work.)
    - mhb 7mo ago
      I'm going to have to defer to you on these specific examples of bias for Trump since I've significantly decreased how often I read it because of its left bias?!? But isn't its willingness to corrupt its reputation to execute the Pied Piper strategy evidence that they are biased against Trump? They want to capture eyeballs, but they know their audience and NY liberals are the eyes they are targeting. Just read the readers' comments. Maybe there's a difference that we are discussing between the NYT not calling out Trump's prodigious issues enough and their bias on every other topic. N.b., though, the NYT followed all the other MSM sheep in excusing Biden's dementia until they couldn't. > (BTW, I didn't flag your post and in fact tried to vouch for it, but that never seems to work.) Much appreciated.
      - CamperBob2 7mo ago
        But isn't its willingness to corrupt its reputation to execute the Pied Piper strategy evidence that they are biased against Trump? They want to capture eyeballs, but they know their audience and NY liberals are the eyes they are targeting. Just read the readers' comments. What they want is access to whoever is in power, so it's natural enough to suspect that favors and bias will flow in that direction. In early-to-mid 2016, I'm sure they expected HRC to win the election, just as many/most other observers did. There would have been a lot of pre-existing points of contact with her campaign, given that she was one of New York's senators at the time. So the NYT had the motive and means to do her campaign a favor by amplifying the less-viable Republican candidates. It would have seemed harmless enough. Then, when Trump ended up winning, maintaining access meant taking a more Trump-sympathetic stance. With Maggie Haberman in charge of maintaining the relationship, all it cost was their soul. I think it was as simple as that. Classifying individual news outlets as "left-biased" or "right-biased" tends to obscure what (and who) really motivates them. A newspaper or news network without access to power is dead in the water, and political alignment will always come second to that. Otherwise, for example, you'd need another explanation for why the NYT was such a faithful cheerleader for the Iraq war. They couldn't get enough of the neocon Kool-Aid.
fakedang 7mo ago
The Times has never been left-wing. It has always played enlightened moderate centrist, choosing to vibe with whatever flavour was in vogue in the political climate. When Obama was President, they swung sufficiently left in terms of policy endorsement. When Trump or Biden were/is President, they swung back to centrist paralysis.
array_key_first 7mo ago
Trump is a very far-right politician, so if you go a little bit left of him then you're still on the right. It's just relativity. The NYT is obviously very left of Trump, and that leaves them still being overly uncritical of Trump. And it's not just them, it's virtually all "left-wing" media. They do this in a few ways: 1. Sane-washing, as talked about. They will take legitimately incoherent ramblings that sound straight out of an insane aslyum and rewrite them to be understandable. This gives the impression that Trump is reasonable, when he is not. 2. Attributing reason to action. Trump often does erratic things without providing reasoning. The NYT and other media like MSNBC will then fabricate potential reasoning behind it. Often this reasoning is as good as it can be, even though that usually means it's still bad. 3. Benefit of the doubt. Trump is at a point where he lies more than he tells the truth, however, all his statements are still taken as truthful, or at least as being something he believes to be true. Nobody believes Trump is malicious on anything, even if he has shown he is malicious.

Crazy take that the Times is insufficiently left wing, but apparently shared by others here.

by mhb 7mo ago

Crazy take that the Times is insufficiently left wing, but apparently shared by others here.

CamperBob2 7mo ago

You're not paying attention.

mhb 7mo 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.
- CamperBob2 7mo ago
  You only need to apply Occam's Razor when there is no actual evidence to go by. The Pied Piper strategy was revealed in the dump of John Podesta's emails that was released by Wikileaks before the election in 2016. In any case it's not about the Pied Piper thing. That's just to point out that the NYT and other media outlets has an agenda that is not necessarily driven by stereotypical left/right politics. In that situation, they were cooperating with leftist interests to "elevate" Trump and other candidates who were deemed likely to sink the Republicans in the general election, making him look like a more viable candidate than he was and thereby creating a self-fulfilling story. As I said, I watched this unfold in real time, with no idea of what was actually happening behind the scenes. Today, the same supposedly left-leaning outlets continue to report on Trump with exquisite, obsequious generosity. Why? "It sells papers" is my Occam's Razor solution, but I agree that this may not be sufficient or conclusive. Once you see it you can't stop seeing it. Biden had "gaffes," Trump has "a unique way of speaking." Criminals have "bad genes," but the NYT tells us that "In remarks about migrants, Donald Trump invoked his long-held fascination with genes and genetics." Trump spews conspiracy theories about vaccines and autism, but the NYT describes a generic policy proposal on chronic health issues. Trump claims that schools are performing gender-reassignment surgeries on kids without parental consent, and the media says "Trump focuses his appeal on conservative moms." Trump goes off on tangents about sharks and Hannibal Lecter, CNN reports a speech focused on local labor issues. Trump responds to a question about child care costs with a rambling off-topic rant about tariffs and the Federal deficit, which is then duly reported as "Trump suggests tariffs could help with child care costs." The BS never ends. (BTW, I didn't flag your post and in fact tried to vouch for it, but that never seems to work.)
  - mhb 7mo ago
    I'm going to have to defer to you on these specific examples of bias for Trump since I've significantly decreased how often I read it because of its left bias?!? But isn't its willingness to corrupt its reputation to execute the Pied Piper strategy evidence that they are biased against Trump? They want to capture eyeballs, but they know their audience and NY liberals are the eyes they are targeting. Just read the readers' comments. Maybe there's a difference that we are discussing between the NYT not calling out Trump's prodigious issues enough and their bias on every other topic. N.b., though, the NYT followed all the other MSM sheep in excusing Biden's dementia until they couldn't. > (BTW, I didn't flag your post and in fact tried to vouch for it, but that never seems to work.) Much appreciated.
    - CamperBob2 7mo ago
      But isn't its willingness to corrupt its reputation to execute the Pied Piper strategy evidence that they are biased against Trump? They want to capture eyeballs, but they know their audience and NY liberals are the eyes they are targeting. Just read the readers' comments. What they want is access to whoever is in power, so it's natural enough to suspect that favors and bias will flow in that direction. In early-to-mid 2016, I'm sure they expected HRC to win the election, just as many/most other observers did. There would have been a lot of pre-existing points of contact with her campaign, given that she was one of New York's senators at the time. So the NYT had the motive and means to do her campaign a favor by amplifying the less-viable Republican candidates. It would have seemed harmless enough. Then, when Trump ended up winning, maintaining access meant taking a more Trump-sympathetic stance. With Maggie Haberman in charge of maintaining the relationship, all it cost was their soul. I think it was as simple as that. Classifying individual news outlets as "left-biased" or "right-biased" tends to obscure what (and who) really motivates them. A newspaper or news network without access to power is dead in the water, and political alignment will always come second to that. Otherwise, for example, you'd need another explanation for why the NYT was such a faithful cheerleader for the Iraq war. They couldn't get enough of the neocon Kool-Aid.

fakedang 7mo ago

The Times has never been left-wing. It has always played enlightened moderate centrist, choosing to vibe with whatever flavour was in vogue in the political climate. When Obama was President, they swung sufficiently left in terms of policy endorsement. When Trump or Biden were/is President, they swung back to centrist paralysis.

array_key_first 7mo ago

Trump is a very far-right politician, so if you go a little bit left of him then you're still on the right. It's just relativity. The NYT is obviously very left of Trump, and that leaves them still being overly uncritical of Trump. And it's not just them, it's virtually all "left-wing" media. They do this in a few ways: 1. Sane-washing, as talked about. They will take legitimately incoherent ramblings that sound straight out of an insane aslyum and rewrite them to be understandable. This gives the impression that Trump is reasonable, when he is not. 2. Attributing reason to action. Trump often does erratic things without providing reasoning. The NYT and other media like MSNBC will then fabricate potential reasoning behind it. Often this reasoning is as good as it can be, even though that usually means it's still bad. 3. Benefit of the doubt. Trump is at a point where he lies more than he tells the truth, however, all his statements are still taken as truthful, or at least as being something he believes to be true. Nobody believes Trump is malicious on anything, even if he has shown he is malicious.