-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Many people are upset at the New York Times who don't watch Fox News. Here's why.
- Thread starter Kirblar
- Start date
Those people already vote Democrat.
No. Just don't put it front and center. Do run on "stronger together". Not everyone wants to be "together", but they'll get together for the purposes of fighting against a common goal/enemy. Roosevelt made the bankers his enemy initially (pre WWII). "I welcome their hatred." It was his masterstroke. Dems need to do that now with bankers/large companies. Accomplish the civil rights stuff as a result of appointments/legislative riders. Don't make it the core issue.
Exactly, so don't give them ammunition. Preferably, only mention it when it's a clear winner (Trump calling Africa/Haiti shitholes, for example). Tamir Rice is another. If you try to fight every battle, you're going to lose. Learn when to play defense, go on the retreat, and when to charge. Yes, we're right on social issues, but to make real change that isn't based on the courts takes getting elected. And that means being broadly popular.
Last edited:
Meh. Joe might run. I'm also partial to Kerry who said he's considering it. Not because if his economic policies, but his foreign policy experience.
It is why calling somebody racist is the world's largest insult.
...
To this very specific group of people.
Yeah, I know what his platform was. I just found it shocking that you would mention him as a potential model along with the other three. Whatever issues I have with Bernie or Biden, they're nothing like John Edwards (which is a very good thing).
If I were invested in Bernie or Biden and if Dean was still relevant I would be kind of offended at John Edwards's inclusion.
That you think that economic and social issues are two separate things is part of the problem. Things like gay marriage and abortion are just as much economic issues as they are social ones. I would argue that the ideal candidate would tie both together. Elizabeth Warren has shown that she's capable of that.
And even if economic and social issues were separate, ignoring one to focus on the other is a great way to lose a primary, and there's no point in having a platform that emphasizes economics if the candidates that follow it can never make it to the general election.
I thought we were talking about the plight of the working class and how liberals were out of touch with them.
The "Two Americas" framing was better than anything any Democrat has done on messaging since LBJ. Edwards is critical to understand if only for that.
The problem is you're focusing on what is actually true, and not how people think. Yes that is true. But you have to act around that and play to both sides so you get more votes than the other guy.
Edit: And Elizabeth Warren has done well, I agree. I'm just nervous about running another woman in 2020. We can't afford to lose that one.
See above. It's a tightrope and a balancing act. You cannot approach social issues in politics like you're an activist. There's a reason they're two different things. This is Corey Booker's problem.
The NYT regularly interviews the working class voters who voted for Trump. Those people did not vote for Trump. I think you said working class.
Last edited:
You don't know who the base of the Dems are... it'd be funny if it wasn't so depressing
This is very off-the-topic at hand, so I'll bow out with this one, because I feel bad for helping drag a very important/interesting debate away. All I'll say is this:
If you only mention social issues - race, equality, abortion, sentencing laws - when you feel like you can win and only then, you're going to lose the people for whom these are the most important issues. Women who can't get abortions without driving 400 miles and staying in a motel overnight; POC who don't have fair access to education; blacks who are disproportionately affected by sentencing. These are all economic issues, because they affect the economic wellbeing of the people involved, but they are also social issues (for reasons I shouldn't have to mention).
More on-topic,
Trump and the Holocaust Remembrance: A Second Chance By THE EDITORIAL BOARD JAN. 25, 2018
Yes, it's (Editorial Board) Opinion, but... does this seem right? Really? Are people seriously going to say that the Editorial Board are arguing a Good Thing here? That they're not minimising Trump's anti-semitism for various reasons?
I do know who the base of the Dems are. Minorities and liberal whites. The problem is that they (we) aren't distributed evenly enough across the country to support a national party. It's geography. And how energized people are geographically. That is what you all keep missing. There aren't enough minorities in Indiana to support a coastal type Democrat long term there. You have to get some white people to win in places like that. It's just a fact.
Clickbait titles aren't exclusive to the New York Times. They happen everywhere, all the time. These sites need to get us to click on their shit to make money. We get clickbait titles on this very forum.
This whole OP just seems like a weird defense for all the bad takes in the recent Clinton thread.
This whole OP just seems like a weird defense for all the bad takes in the recent Clinton thread.
59 Percent Of You Will Share This Article Without Even Reading It
Let's not think for one moment that the NYT doesn't know how people work - at this stage of society it's almost journalistic malfeasance to have loaded headlines. And even if it weren't, dismissing the disparity between headline and content is poor - certainly in the UK, you'd be docked marks for it at both school and University in any essay.
You hear that, kirblar? You're "essentially shitposting on a grand scale" with this OP lol
calling out the NYT for a practice that is common in many outlets seems like a weird excuse to smear them and defend Clinton. If this was about wanting higher journalistic standards in our country i could agree with the op, but him aiming for a specific outlet like this ............. couple steps more and we on fake news territory
Noooo... But that shouldn't make a difference. I mean, look at the difference in the NYT and WaPo news alerts about economic growth, and tell me there's not a narrative there. It's fairly obvious (to me) that the NYT doesn't want to raise the issue of Trump failing to hit his target for GDP growth, for... "reasons". Whilst the headline is truthful, it also ignores a basic fact, which many people who don't read the whole article will not know. And just like that, the non-clickbait headline of a story has skewed readers impressions.
Am I reading too much into it? Perhaps. But why should I not read too much into it, when the WaPo imparts truthful information whilst adding that it was "missing Trump's targets"?
It shouldn't have taken the USA Today report to make you realize you got this wrong. The problem here is not the NYT, who did their job: reporting the news. The problem is the desperate, incessant behavior of those who don't like when the news paints their side in a bad light. On the right, the excuse is "well it's fake news." And I suppose on the left, the excuse is...whatever you want to call the paranoid, Glen Beck-esque web on display in the OP. Tribalism has existed in our politics for decades but perhaps no election crystalized it more than 2016. Where on one hand you had a party following a man who is clearly mentally unfit for office, guilty of all types of crimes, a known grifter/swindler, and also a sexual predator. Then on the other hand you had a party following a woman who has changed her position on nearly every major issue, gotten nearly every foreign policy issue of the last 20 years wrong, and has spent decades defending a sexual predator (or two) in order to advance her political career. Each candidate was so odious to the other side that supporters found themselves defending the indefensible because the alternative was worse.
(Now to be fair, I do believe Trump is far worse than Clinton)
The election happened more than a year ago yet we're still re-litigating it, and still blaming the results on everyone BUT the candidates themselves. Hell, if we go back deeper people are still re-litigating the primaries. It was a toxic election that clearly turned decent people into toxic apologists who will never stop playing a zero sum game. Let it go.
(Now to be fair, I do believe Trump is far worse than Clinton)
The election happened more than a year ago yet we're still re-litigating it, and still blaming the results on everyone BUT the candidates themselves. Hell, if we go back deeper people are still re-litigating the primaries. It was a toxic election that clearly turned decent people into toxic apologists who will never stop playing a zero sum game. Let it go.
those people can continue to be mad, but it wont change a thing. Clickbait journalism is nothing new, and its not going away unfortunately.
If you don't like clinton getting an unfair headline, should have been complaining about all the other unfair headlines about everything else, and actually tried to affect how these offices are run then.
I've seen articles written, then rewritten by other staff to be more critical in real time, only captured in cache is the original. Its a fact that exists in "mainstream media"
If you don't like clinton getting an unfair headline, should have been complaining about all the other unfair headlines about everything else, and actually tried to affect how these offices are run then.
I've seen articles written, then rewritten by other staff to be more critical in real time, only captured in cache is the original. Its a fact that exists in "mainstream media"
Well done kirblar. During the debate about the importance of the news I also felt the nyt was displaying a bias that was concerning but I haven't followed them so closely to see a distinguishable pattern.
You laid it out really well.
You laid it out really well.
A passionate candidate can change how people think. Bernie Sanders, to his credit, did it for healthcare. It could happen here, too.
That rules out Bernie/Biden/Edwards/Dean, who all failed to get more votes than their primary opponents.
Warren/Harris/Gillibrand would all face the same kind of sexism that Hillary did, but they don't have Hillary's baggage or horrible political instincts.
You can't approach them like Bernie/Biden/Edwards did, either. That's a recipe for losing the primary.
Obama was able to avoid not talking about things like police brutality because black voters rightly assumed he had empathy for them based on his life experience. If you're a white candidate, you have to handle those issues more like Warren and less like Sanders.
I think the frustration might be from the fact that people might think NYT out of all the outlets should be on our side and get with the program, but even they aren't.
Trump awarded nyt first place in his fake news awards and routinely thrashes it. So there might be an expectation that why isn't nyt more anti-trump.
Nyt can be seen as detrimental in the efforts to destroy trump (and the gop in the midterms).
Their news is on point. Their editorials are trash. People seem to be confusing the two.
I find Nate Silver's long standing feud with the NYT (former owners of 538) to be interesting and relevant. Basically, Romney was called the winner of the Iowa Caucuses, but at like 1AM Nate Silver was looking through some of the returns and found out that Santorum had actually won, and wrote a blog post about it. The politics writers at the NYT went absolutely apeshit, because their view was that he was mucking things up and costing them access with the Romney camp.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-like-a-high-school-lunchroom/article/2591167
There's still a lot of bad blood, and the Maggie vs. Nate twitter feuds kind of show that the NYT really doesn't respond well to criticism. They were willing to write shit articles to appease their sources back then, and they still are willing to do it now. Same thing nowadays with them publishing articles sourcing the Javanka camp completely uncritically to keep them as sources for future articles, which the WaPo has called out multiple times as "We heard from those same sources, and thought they were full of shit so we didn't run an article."
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...-like-a-high-school-lunchroom/article/2591167
There's still a lot of bad blood, and the Maggie vs. Nate twitter feuds kind of show that the NYT really doesn't respond well to criticism. They were willing to write shit articles to appease their sources back then, and they still are willing to do it now. Same thing nowadays with them publishing articles sourcing the Javanka camp completely uncritically to keep them as sources for future articles, which the WaPo has called out multiple times as "We heard from those same sources, and thought they were full of shit so we didn't run an article."
Last edited:
The Times is just like every other old institution of wealth and/or power that wants to protect its wealth and/or power. People like Maggie shouldn't be getting printed while she's currently lining up to make bank on a book that depends on her work being edited to favor the money train.
There's some opinion piece about the "necessitty of Stephen Miller" and it just boggles my mind that they allow this shit
They also did this today:
Cecile Richards headed Planned Parenthood, an organization that advocated for and provided healthcare for women.
In contrast, they called Dana Loesch, the spokesman for the NRA, the "National Rifle Association's Telegenic Warrior".
Cecile Richards headed Planned Parenthood, an organization that advocated for and provided healthcare for women.
In contrast, they called Dana Loesch, the spokesman for the NRA, the "National Rifle Association's Telegenic Warrior".
"A deeply evil woman."
Fucking hell
Btw fun fact that piece was printed in the style section :|
Look at everything around this.
Jesus H. Christ.
If that were an opinion piece, sure, I could see that tweet-headline. Wouldn't like it, but, yeah, depending who you ask...
But "NYTPolitics" and leading to the Style section. Are people still going to say the NYT isn't questionable?
What bothers me; given Padadopolous's bragging that there was DIRT in the Clinton emails the Russians had, why were the FBI not investigating that. It's doubly concerning given Clinton and company deleting emails even after being informed that they are legally required to protect and deliver those emails. The Justice department seemed very concerned that Flinn could be blackmailed by the Russians as he lied to the press and the Vice President but are not concerned that a potential president could be blackmailed? Apparently Trump was investigated, you can argue why based on your political beliefs but the article quoted seems to indicate they looked for dirt on Trump which I expect given my beliefs was to determine if he could be blackmailed.
If they knew there was no dirt on Clinton then that made the Russian claim bogus so why are they taking it seriously assuming there was collusion between Trump and the Russians to get non-existent dirt? Or do they know there is dirt and are protecting Clinton. It's a binary choice one or the other and both are fishy.
Last edited:
I un-subbed from the Times a couple of weeks back, when it came out that they had been informed of the FBI investigation of Trump but published a story that he wasn't under investigation. I had been unhappy with how anti-Clinton they had always been, but could live with that. But publishing something contrary to what they had just been told for the sake of both-sides-ism was too much. The white nationalists profiles got me close, that pushed me over the edge.
I don't know why anyone's shocked that the NYT has always written articles and headlines designed to get the highest readership? People are baffled how they could be the ones to break a lot of the Trump stories but then also write these weird fluff pieces on noted hate-mongers and alt-right types. I'll tell you why: Both of those articles get clicks and attention. They gain a lot by playing both sides, and there's really no conspiracy to it.
They write headlines and articles in way that infurate and surprise both sides. Trump's economy... doing well? Well man, a Liberal is going to check that out to see how wrong it is, and a Republican is going to check it out to feel validated. NYT is outrageously good at this.
They write headlines and articles in way that infurate and surprise both sides. Trump's economy... doing well? Well man, a Liberal is going to check that out to see how wrong it is, and a Republican is going to check it out to feel validated. NYT is outrageously good at this.
I think it crosses a line when they knowingly publish things that are misleading or false for the sake of keeping their sources happy. That's ultimately the problem with "access journalism". See the stuff about the FBI and Trump, various things about Hillary's Emails, and flipping the fuck out at Nate Silver back when he was like "Actually, I think Santorum won the Iowa Caucus".
Stop equating Hillary Clinton to Donald and then making one statement designed to excuse yourself of it.
It's like comparing the common cold (of politics) to cancer. What a person has to do in order to jump through the hoops of power of the presidency, and prove-able wanton disregard / illegal actions that are traitorous by their very nature aren't even on the same playing field. In her 20s, Clinton was researching race and segregation by foot in the south in her free time. What were you doing in your 20s? What was Donald? Also why the fuck are we talking about Hillary Clinton still? I'd rather talk about the looming collapse of the United States in the hands of a madman.
It's never irrelevant to talk about people in positions of power shielding sexual abusers.
Hypocrite.
Did he call it irrelevant?
His complaint is that people are trying to equate Hillary Clinton to serial rapists, or the abusers themselves. The RNC Finance Chair went down last week for decades of sexual harassment and probable rape, but no, the real story is about Hillary Clinton. The real story is always about Hillary Clinton.
She deserves a lot of flack for not being stronger and harsher against all kinds of abusers and harassers, but trying to paint her as bad as a bunch of rapists is absurd false equivalence and black-belt level "both sides". That's one of the pillars of the complaints against the NYT-- vicious double standards that have repeatedly treated her sins on the same order of magnitude of the sins of various men, when they really aren't.
Yes he did.
And you are arguing something that (I hope) nobody here disagrees with. Donald Trump and all right-wingers are a thousand times worse in every single way.
Reporting or talking about Hillary Clinton and her failure to act against sexual abuse does not boil down to trying to equate her to Trump. Anyone who tries to argue that is being disingenuous. And anyone who tries to hand-wave away the story as irrelevant on account of the fact that Hillary Clinton is not president is being a hypocrite.
lol imagine getting so riled up in another thread that it spawns an entirely different thread about the same thing
Really tho NYTs clearly is having an existential crisis, the Republican President is awful so it's hard being a conservative paper and maintaining credibility.
Despite that, I don't think the Clinton story should be lumped into their questionable tactics. Mostly because she did shield the guy.
Really tho NYTs clearly is having an existential crisis, the Republican President is awful so it's hard being a conservative paper and maintaining credibility.
Despite that, I don't think the Clinton story should be lumped into their questionable tactics. Mostly because she did shield the guy.
That's why there's this thread, really. They were right to publish the article, but people were right to be initially skeptical given the NYT's fucking terrible problem with both-sidesing and false equivalence, and especially their history of blowing Hillary-related stories wildly out of proportion before seeing them collapse a few weeks later.
suspension and loss of multiple weeks of pay is shielding.
How would you feel if your employer did that to you?