NYT Shares Profile of Exiting PP Pres Cecilia Richards By Noting Some Call Her a Deeply Evil Woman

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

Thanks to JayC3 for bringing this (and the Dana Loesch profile) to my attention.

Mods let me know if I'm posting too many of these I just feel they should have their own focus.

So to boot they published it in the "Styles" sectikn

This is the intro to the article:

According to Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood for over a decade, protesters who wave anti-abortion signs outside one of the organization's clinics will sometimes return — a week, a month or a year later — for an annual medical exam.

The men in Washington, D.C., who have done battle with Ms. Richards ("and they're almost always men") don't see that side of the organization, she said.

"For women, access to reproductive health care isn't a political issue," Ms. Richards said. "The women who walk into Planned Parenthood clinics come from every background, every political persuasion."

Yes, she said, even women who support President Trump.

Now, as Mr. Trump's administration tries to eliminate taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, thrusting the debate over abortion rights back into the halls of Congress 45 years after the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, Ms. Richards is stepping down, as first reported in BuzzFeed.

The move is well timed for her to promote a new memoir: "Make Trouble: Standing Up, Speaking Out, and Finding the Courage to Lead — My Life Story," which Touchstone will publish in April. Ms. Richards said she planned to pour herself into the midterm elections, fund-raising and campaigning for Democrats, and advising the expected record number of women candidates.

"As a lifetime organizer, I've never been more excited, despite this Congress and this presidency," she said in the first interview in which she confirmed and discussed her departure. "There's this kind of organic activism by women."

And look at the kind of pieces it's listed among

And here's how they advertised it on twitter

NYT Politics made sure to highlight that some believe her to be a deeply evil woman

Here's how they profiled Dana Loesch of the NRA.

This was also publushed in the Styles section

Conversely this profile (while published officially in the Food section) can be found in the politics section.

https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/957267980051730432

It's interesting how two political profiles of women end up in the Styles section but something like that Chef's story ends up in Politics

EDIT:

Adding this as I think this might even be more questionable. In the piece on Richards the NYT was driving traffic (via linking) to random far right "news" sites:

Paradox House said:
What they say is true. Shes worked and fought in a political area that is highly sensitive and controversial in America.

Idk why people keep expecting the Times to be some partisan paper. Its right in a profile like this to highlight the split.

It's a complete distortion of what the piece is about.

It'd be like writing a profile on say Bernie Sanders and his future plans as a Democrat by tweeting out "Some call him a hero some call him a cultural marxist" where in fact when you find that tiny section in the article it turns out to look like this:

Depending on whom you ask, the handsome 76-year-old is a national "hero" or a "cultural marxist" and "communist."

And it turns out clicking on cultural marxist and communist takes you to some random ass right wing nonsense sites citing tweets... Oh and also when you click Hero it also takes you to a random right wing site with a bit more crediblity

Which oh btw is exactly what this NYT piece did:

Her refrain that Planned Parenthood is apolitical will strike some as laughable. Depending on whom you ask, the elegant 60-year-old is a national "hero" or a "deeply evil woman" and "mass murderer."

Hero leads to The Washington Free Beacon (which in their defense the article is just a series of tweets and shit... but why use a conservative source for that)
Deeply Evil Woman leads to some random fucking nonsense site called Politics Liberty
Mass Murderer leads to a site called and I shit you not Church Militant

Why is the NYT directing traffic to far out right wing bullshit?

UnpopularBlargh · Jan 28, 2018

People should instead go watch her interview with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show.

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

UnpopularBlargh said:
People should instead go watch her interview with Trevor Noah on The Daily Show.

Do you know how sad it is to see it suggested one turn to a comedy show for better coverage?

Tukarrs · Jan 28, 2018

I don't see the problems with the two profiles of women. To those who believe that life begins at conception, anyone who has anything to do with PP would be considered deeply evil.

All three should probably end up in the political section.

UnpopularBlargh · Jan 28, 2018

excelsiorlef said:
Do you know how sad it is to see it suggested one turn to a comedy show for better coverage?

I know. I think Jon Stewart even said the exact same thing many times. But at least (and yes, this is the depressing reality we live in) the comedy shows aren't treating Nazis/white-supremacists as equal counterparts to pro-choice advocates and organizations.

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

UnpopularBlargh said:
I know. I think Jon Stewart even said the exact same thing many times. But at least (and yes, this is the depressing reality we live in) the comedy shows aren't treating Nazis/white-supremacists as equal counterparts to pro-choice advocates and organizations.

Agreed

WhateverItTakes · Jan 28, 2018

Tukarrs said:
I don't see the problems with the two profiles of women. To those who believe that life begins at conception, anyone who has anything to do with PP would be considered deeply evil.

All three should probably end up in the political section.

Even though one of the core parts of Planned Parenthood is preventing conception in the first place?

Tukarrs · Jan 28, 2018

WhateverItTakes said:
Even though one of the core parts of Planned Parenthood is preventing conception in the first place?

There's a significant portion of the right that believe in Project Veritas nonsense. Most people won't look into what the group actually does.
NYT is trying to capture the rare reader who has "pro-life" beliefs. It's an attempt to humanize Ms. Richards for these folks.

DemonSwordsman · Jan 28, 2018

Ok so what's the problem? That Twitter headline is a fact is it not? It is relevant to this woman. Or do you want nyt to frame this in a way more pleasing to your viewpoint?

Honestly the only sad part here is the fact that there are a large number of Americans who think this negatively about pp.

WhateverItTakes · Jan 28, 2018

Tukarrs said:
There's a significant portion of the right that believe in Project Veritas nonsense. Most people won't look into what the group actually does.
NYT is trying to capture the rare reader who has "pro-life" beliefs. It's an attempt to humanize Ms. Richards for these folks.

I guess there's the thing. Is it okay to use unearned criticism to draw in readers that wouldn't read pure praise, in the hope laying out 'both sides' means some might realise she isn't a she-devil? Or does that muddy the waters for people further and make her more reviled?

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

DemonSwordsman said:
Ok so what's the problem? That Twitter headline is a fact is it not? It is relevant to this woman. Or do you want nyt to frame this in a way more pleasing to your viewpoint?

Honestly the only sad part here is the fact that there are a large number of Americans who think this negatively about pp.

Yes the NYT should not be giving credibility to the idea that Richards might be a deeply evil woman...

Deleted member 197 · Jan 28, 2018

Ah yes the truth, really problematic nowadays for some weird reasons.

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

maluma baby! said:
Ah yes the truth, really problematic nowadays for some weird reasons.

Framing a profile about someone who has done incredibly important work through the lens of hero vs evil woman is infact a problem

Shauni · Jan 28, 2018

I actually can see the justification there, but I think it could have been worded better. The fact that it was in the styles section is weird.

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

Shauni said:
I actually can see the justification there, but I think it could have been worded better. The fact that it was in the styles section is weird.

I think how they word the their tweeting of the profile on Loesch vs Richards is worth examining

Dyle · Jan 28, 2018

The fact that people think she's evil is a fact, unfortunately, not acknowledging that up front would be a much bigger issue than this. The Twitter headline and body text are accurate although perhaps it could be written better. The clearer issue is that it was thrown in the style section and not politics. The comparison with Loesch raises good points, but I feel most of it is due to them covering different career events, departure/arrival, with different narrative arcs

kristoffer · Jan 28, 2018

Phrased another way, some people find abortion to be a deeply moral question.

Christian communities are a major part of the United States, on both sides of the political aisle. For the left, this includes Hispanics who are mainly Catholic.

Mivey · Jan 28, 2018

excelsiorlef said:
Framing a profile about someone who has done incredibly important work through the lens of hero vs evil woman is infact a problem

The paper highlights the controversy that exists, and the fact that many on the right are treating PP as something to fight against. Not mentioning that fact would make it into a PR piece. I don't get why it's in the "Style" section, rather dumb, but it seems they do put profiles of such figures in the Style section, so that's more of a general issue with categorization. The actual article seems fine. It notes her accomplishements, give the reader an idea about what she did during her time at the helm of PP, and puts her in the larger political context, even as it notes that she always emphasizes that PP is apolitical.
As for the fact that the twitter post is saying something, I mean, that's just vying for views, this way it might get more hits on social media, giving them more links. Judging the marketing of an article is a bit too meta for me.

Of course the NYT isn't perfect and considering the sheer amount of News they cover, they will necessarily not give every story enough coverage. They are a business and focus on getting views.

Deleted member 197 · Jan 28, 2018

excelsiorlef said:
Framing a profile about someone who has done incredibly important work through the lens of hero vs evil woman is infact a problem

Do you disagree with the idea that Planned Parenthood is a really polarizing organization? Hell, even in the article they say that she doesn't consider her work to be political and that women from all political ideas (Even trump supporters) go to PP. They of course also point out that for many people this is laughable and consider her to be a really evil women, even a mass murdered, like they even link to articles where people are saying bad things about her, they obviously also link to an article saying good things about her when they mention some people consider her a hero.

Do you honestly think this a problem? really?

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

Dyle said:
The fact that people think she's evil is a fact, unfortunately, not acknowledging that up front would be a much bigger issue than this. The Twitter headline and body text are accurate although perhaps it could be written better. The clearer issue is that it was thrown in the style section and not politics.

The piece is about her future plans and what not. 1% of the piece mentions what her opponents think.

That tweet distorts the piece entirely.

kristoffer · Jan 28, 2018

excelsiorlef said:
The piece is about her future plans and what not. 1% of the piece mentions what her opponents think.

That tweet distorts the piece entirely.

It's a sitdown with a slightly controversial person. They wrote that line the way they did so you'd click on it. "Woah, the person in charge of Planned Parenthood, I wonder what she's up to."

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

maluma baby! said:
Do you honestly think this a problem? really?

kristoffer said:
It's a sitdown with a slightly controversial person. They wrote that line the way they did so you'd click on it. "Woah, the person in charge of Planned Parenthood, I wonder what she's up to."

So clickbait.

Read the piece on Loesch ... a significant chunk ( much larger than the part in the piece on Richards that is talking about how cons think she's evil) is dedicated to how her participation in an NRA recruitment video which was seen as stoking violence and being dangerous and criticisms that she was calling for violent protection of white supremacy ... yet NYT Politics twitter doesn't highlight that controversy in their framing. Loesch is framed entirely like a rebel

How NYT Politics framed Loesch vs Richards is meaningful

kristoffer · Jan 28, 2018

It described her as "shunned" and "banned". I think you're being a little paranoid about the arbitrary bylines they put in 144 characters or less.

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

kristoffer said:
It described her as "shunned" and "banned". I think you're being a little paranoid about the arbitrary bylines they put in 144 characters or less.

Disagree...

CesareNorrez · Jan 28, 2018

"Shunned" and "Banned" are not character judgments, "Deeply evil woman" is.

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

CesareNorrez said:
"Shunned" and "Banned" are not character judgments, "Deeply evil woman" is.

Precisely.

Cipherr · Jan 28, 2018

kristoffer said:
It described her as "shunned" and "banned". I think you're being a little paranoid about the arbitrary bylines they put in 144 characters or less.

I think trash clickbait wording/titling is starting to be not only accepted and expected but apparently from your posts (no offense) defended by people. Which is another horrible sign.

kristoffer · Jan 28, 2018

Help me out, here. What's the thesis? That the person who runs the NYT Politics feed conspired to add a negative byline to the Richards story and a neutral byline to the Loesch story, despite the Richards one being fair (and rather milquetoast) and the Loesch story painting her in a fairly negative light? For what purpose?

kristoffer · Jan 28, 2018

Cipherr said:
I think trash clickbait wording/titling is starting to be not only accepted and expected but apparently from your posts (no offense) defended by people. Which is another horrible sign.

Let's not use the conjunction "wording/titling", they're different. The headlines here are fine. I think an article's headline is sacred. Conversely, the Twitter description of news articles couldn't be any more trivial to me.

I'm sure the ombudsman has more important things to do than fix tweets.

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

kristoffer said:
Help me out, here. What's the thesis? That the person who runs the NYT Politics feed conspired to add a negative byline to the Richards story and a neutral byline to the Loesch story, despite the Richards one being fair (and rather milquetoast) and the Loesch story painting her in a fairly negative light? For what purpose?

I'm not claiming conspiracy.... It was just worth showing how a week apart the NYT Politics twitter framed a piece largely about what Richards plans to do next in her career and whatever the fuck that Loesh piece is... and how different they are

intheflorsh · Jan 28, 2018

CesareNorrez said:
"Shunned" and "Banned" are not character judgments, "Deeply evil woman" is.

I mean, it's pretty easy to extrapolate that some people hold a negative view of Loesch's character if she's been banned and shunned.

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

kristoffer said:
Let's not use the conjunction "wording/titling", they're different. The headlines here are fine. I think an article's headline is sacred. Conversely, the Twitter description of news articles couldn't be any more trivial to me.

NYT tweets like this should frankly be considered headlines too.... You read the tweet click the link and you might barely acknowledge the actual headline.

Deleted member 197 · Jan 28, 2018

CesareNorrez said:
"Shunned" and "Banned" are not character judgments, "Deeply evil woman" is.

The tweet literally says "depending on whom you ask", they never called her a deeply evil woman, merely claim that other people do, which is true.

Cipherr said:
I think trash clickbait wording/titling is starting to be not only accepted and expected but apparently from your posts (no offense) defended by people. Which is another horrible sign.

If those titles are clickbait, then every title in the history of news is clickbait lmao.

JayC3 · Jan 28, 2018

I'm sure there are plenty of people that view Barack Obama as a "deeply evil man". Can anyone think of any stories in the NY Times that frame him in this way?

He's similarly controversial to the same people that consider Cecile Richards to be a "deeply evil woman". Should we accept it if the NY Times started referring to Obama this way?

moblin · Jan 28, 2018

excelsiorlef said:
I'm not claiming conspiracy.... It was just worth showing how a week apart the NYT Politics twitter framed a piece largely about what Richards plans to do next in her career and whatever the fuck that Loesh piece is... and how different they are

Women in politics are allowed to be different! Loesch and Richards are nowhere near equivalent figures in their respective movements or American political life as a whole. The articles themselves are actually quite good, so what is "interesting" about how the tweets are framed?

Shauni · Jan 28, 2018

kristoffer said:
Help me out, here. What's the thesis? That the person who runs the NYT Politics feed conspired to add a negative byline to the Richards story and a neutral byline to the Loesch story, despite the Richards one being fair (and rather milquetoast) and the Loesch story painting her in a fairly negative light? For what purpose?

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. I don't think anyone is trying to put up some grand conspiracy, but the main thing is pointing out that they deliberately emphasis the 'both sides' to the liberal icon, while not doing so the conservative ones...and why?. That's really the question isn't it? To be honest, I don't think it would be a huge deal in and of itself if not for some very problematic trends within the NYTimes recently.

JayC3 · Jan 28, 2018

kristoffer said:
Let's not use the conjunction "wording/titling", they're different. The headlines here are fine. I think an article's headline is sacred. Conversely, the Twitter description of news articles couldn't be any more trivial to me.

I'm sure the ombudsman has more important things to do than fix tweets.

Disagree with this. AP got a ton of heat this past election because of a tweet that was actively misleading that got disseminated far and wide. People don't click through to the actual article.

Also the NY Times fired their ombudsman.

kristoffer · Jan 28, 2018

excelsiorlef said:
I'm not claiming conspiracy.... It was just worth showing how a week apart the NYT Politics twitter framed a piece largely about what Richards plans to do next in her career and whatever the fuck that Loesh piece is... and how different they are

Worth it... why? If they're a week apart, don't you think it's just random chance? How many tweets do you think they put out in a week? Shouldn't you look at a larger sample size before you draw any conclusions about framing bias?

excelsiorlef said:
NYT tweets like this should frankly be considered headlines too.... You read the tweet click the link and you might barely acknowledge the actual headline.

Actually, I don't get my news from Twitter.

Shauni · Jan 28, 2018

kristoffer said:
Actually, I don't get my news from Twitter.

But it's undeniable that a lot of people do

moblin · Jan 28, 2018

Shauni said:
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. I don't think anyone is trying to put up some grand conspiracy, but the main thing is pointing out that they deliberately emphasis the 'both sides' to the liberal icon, while not doing so the conservative ones...and why?. That's really the question isn't it? To be honest, I don't think it would be a huge deal in and of itself if not for some very problematic trends within the NYTimes recently.

The reason is pretty easy to parse: Richards planted her flag in the most morally contentious political issue in America over the past several decades, and has been the biggest non-elected public face of one side of that issue. She has spoken at the DNC. She has been the target of death threats.

Loesch is a talk show host.

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

moblin said:
Women in politics are allowed to be different! Loesch and Richards are nowhere near equivalent figures in their respective movements or American political life as a whole. The articles themselves are actually quite good, so what is "interesting" about how the tweets are framed?

Because Richards is framed as hero vs deeply evil woman whereas they eschewed the much more direct language from the profile on Loesch (which included accusations from both sides of her calling for violence and civil unrest, for her calling for violence in support of white supremacy, or that some of her behaviour was dangerously incendiary)

kristoffer · Jan 28, 2018

JayC3 said:
Disagree with this. AP got a ton of heat this past election because of a tweet that was actively misleading that got disseminated far and wide. People don't click through to the actual article.

I vaguely remember something like this. Wasn't it the headline, too?

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

kristoffer said:
Actually, I don't get my news from Twitter.

Well good for you?

CesareNorrez · Jan 28, 2018

intheflorsh said:
I mean, it's pretty easy to extrapolate that some people hold a negative view of Loesch's character if she's been banned and shunned.

Extrapolation and obviousness do matter. "Shunned" and "Banned" can be seen as badges of honor, especially for people that like the NRA. "Deeply evil woman" is very different. That will insult people who support Richards and it's a gendered insult.

Shauni · Jan 28, 2018

moblin said:
The reason is pretty easy to parse: Richards planted her flag in the most morally contentious political issue in America over the past several decades, and has been the biggest non-elected public face of one side of that issue. She has spoken at the DNC. She has been the target of death threats.

Loesch is a talk show host.

...I see you're not quite familiar with Loesch

kristoffer · Jan 28, 2018

excelsiorlef said:
Because Richards is framed as hero vs deeply evil woman whereas they eschewed much more direct language from the profile on Loesch (which included accusations from both sides of her calling for violence and civil unrest, for her calling for violence in support of white supremacy, or that some of her behaviour was dangerously incendiary)

That isn't what the word eschewed means. You might have been looking for the word "espoused".

I'm getting really tired of these threads on the New York Times. I've got plenty of my own complaints, like the fact that they still keep Thomas Friedman on the payroll after he was a talking piece for a dangerous and evil administration, or the way they tried to assassinate Obama's chances in 2008. I've got my own complaints, so it becomes hard for anyone to hear me when people saturate the space of complaints with superficial nonsense like this.

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

Clearly the NYT heard the concerns because low and behold here's their tweet hours later with a less incendiary framing.

excelsiorlef · Jan 28, 2018

kristoffer said:
That isn't what the word eschewed means. You might have been looking for the word "espoused".

No I mean eschewed, the NYT Politics Twitter account avoided (aka eschewed) using the more direct stuff I listed when sharing the Loesch piece .... Whereas they did not avoid doing so with Richards.

What I missed was a the as in the more direct language...

kristoffer said:
'm getting really tired of these threads on the New York Times. I've got plenty of my own complaints, like the fact that they still keep Thomas Friedman on the payroll despite being the intellectual equivalent of a pickle, or the way they tried to assassinate Obama's chances in 2008. I've got my own complaints, so it becomes hard for anyone to hear me when people saturate the space of complaints with superficial nonsense like this.

Then feel free to click other threads and talk about things more interesting to you.

Shauni · Jan 28, 2018

kristoffer said:
That isn't what the word eschewed means. You might have been looking for the word "espoused".

I'm getting really tired of these threads on the New York Times. I've got plenty of my own complaints, like the fact that they still keep Thomas Friedman on the payroll despite being the intellectual equivalent of a pickle, or the way they tried to assassinate Obama's chances in 2008. I've got my own complaints, so it becomes hard for anyone to hear me when people saturate the space of complaints with superficial nonsense like this.

Nice little stealth edit to try and make sure no one replies to what you said lol. Also beautifully ironic the post that comes right after this, almost cosmic

kristoffer · Jan 28, 2018

excelsiorlef said:
No I mean eschewed, the NYT Politics Twitter account avoided using the more direct stuff a listed.... Whereas they did not avoid doing so with Richards.

Sorry, I guess I was confused again, because to me, the tweet was a direct description of who she is. I just don't see the issue and I don't think I will.

excelsiorlef said:
Then feel free to click other threads and talk about things more interesting to you.

You're on a public forum. Expect dissent. That said, I sincerely doubt I can convince you when you've really made up your mind. So I have nothing else to add, I guess.

Shauni said:
Nice little stealth edit to try and make sure no one replies to what you said lol.

I had more to say. Bad habit. But you can reply to whatever you like.

excelsiorlef said:
Clearly the NYT heard the concerns because low and behold here's their tweet hours later with a less incendiary framing.

Well, congrats. You won.

NYT Shares Profile of Exiting PP Pres Cecilia Richards By Noting Some Call Her a Deeply Evil Woman

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

One Winged Slayer

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

bork bork

bork bork

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis

Bad Praxis