“But that’s too easy if you’re the Times, an institution that has never met a story it couldn’t water down”
DAMN – light them up Drew!
transcriptoin_error on
The New York Times has really taken a dive. It used to be trustworthy.
> We’re just over a month away from the presidential election and, if you ask the New York Times, the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president/Keystone kriminal Donald Trump remains “deadlocked.” Despite the fact that Trump is losing in Pennsylvania, a state he needs to win, by four points. Despite the fact that polls in North Carolina just turned in Harris’ favor. Despite the fact that a grassroots campaign for Harris, one that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, sprung up the instant her boss ceded his spot in the race to her. Despite the fact that Trump got his ass beat in a nationally televised debate with Harris after repeating, with supreme gusto, the lie that Haitian immigrants in Ohio are eating people’s pets. The lie that his own running mate openly said was a lie. […]
bl3ckm3mba on
Always has been. But this is some diatribe about polling.
Apparently they weren’t washed while lending credence to “the Manchurians are mind controlling us”, at every moment of the Cold War especially during Regan while amplifying the *imagined* Team B intel of Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld, obscuring to this day the US’ role in Lebanon, Nicaragua, East Timor, Chile, Guatemala, Indonesia and Grenada with limited hangouts, or even during WMD and selling the “war on terror”. Nope, it’s the electoral horse race that did it.
OppositeDifference on
I have to agree at this point. NYT has been absolutely terrible this election cycle. There’s no crazy shit on the Republican side that they’re not willing to water down and normalize, yet there’s no criticism of Kamala that’s too small, petty, or unimportant to highlight. They’re trying to make the news instead of report it, and even their polling has been an outlier to everyone else’s despite them previously being among the best in that department.
They need the horse race and the close contest to the point where they’re willing to try to report it into existence.
Silo-Joe on
I hate any article in The NY Times that starts with “What your need to know” or “Here’s the what you need to know. “
… and the local NY coverage is laughable.
TintedApostle on
The author is pretty spot on here. The times is like the Sunday political shows now. When republicans are in power they have more Republican guests and when Dems are in power they have more Republican guests or allow last rebuttals to the dem guests.
The NY Times is too busy washing down Trump to normalize the most egregious actions and lies. To the times a nuclear bomb is equal to a firecracker if it gets clicks.
A case study into how to lose as much credibility as you can in as short a period as possible. Truly a stunning achievement.
dbag3o1 on
Nytimes also downplayed Hitler and spewed nazi talking points. It has always been fond of fascism.
Time to abolish this trash paper.
Accidental-Hyzer on
You know what? I’m perfectly fine with the media reporting how close the race is, that it’s going to be razor thin in all of the battleground states. Keep reporting that, even if polling show Harris up by 7 points in these states.
Complacency due to reporting was possibly a factor in Clinton’s loss in 2016, so if anything, this sort of reporting benefits Harris. And in the end, it doesn’t really matter all that much. It’s like fans complaining about the power rankings of their favorite team, when it’s the outcome of games that matters. Polling is power rankings. The game is the actual election.
VIRGO_SUPERCLUSTERZ on
NYT has brainworms. They’ve published actual fascists alongside the likes of Ezra Klein. Truly bothsidesing the shit out of everything while being anti Biden/Harris in the end.
PepperMill_NA on
I have not trusted the NY Times since they let Judith Miller cheerlead us into an unconscionable war with Iraq. They have not been trustworthy for quite a long time.
Trump has brought out the worst in them, again.
GeorgeWNorris on
I canceled my subscription to the Times in February and I’m not going back. I’m not going to subsidize a quasi-Trump super PAC. The Times is morphing from the grey lady to the orange lady. Bye bye!
Simorie on
New York Times was an utter failure in the run up to and coverage of the war in Iraq.
Sure_Quality5354 on
Sadly yes. For some reason their framing of trump is entirely too generous. Mistakes are labelled as “strategy”, hatred is labeled as “fiery rhetoric”, his flaws are overlooked as “wacky” and the fascist plans he spews is labeled as “aggressive governing”. They are normalizing and excusing him every single day
GonzoVeritas on
“Morning Joe” weighed in on the NYT’s reporting.
When you’re too much for mid-level MSM hacks, like Joe Scarborough, maybe you need to stop and think about what you are doing.
> Scarborough singled out the The New York Times’ Bret Stephens, who recently penned a column that claimed Harris spends too much time sharing her background and too little on answering questions about specific policies.
>
> Scarborough told his MSNBC viewers that Stephen’s claims, which others like Daniel Henninger of The Wall Street Journal have also shared, are “an absolute lie.” He added that Stephens “obviously hasn’t been watching the campaign.”
>
>
> “Do you have no shame?” Scarborough later asked of the pair of columnists. “Do you really have no shame?”
Ejziponken on
All forecasts are saying the race is deadlocked. It’s not just NYT. I’m not sure if you could describe the race differently as it stands right now. They are one of the best rated pollsters for a reason. I don’t think that should be thrown out just because they’re showing a close race.
Not sure what Drew is after. Just because Harris is doing great does not mean that she is winning. She did win the debate. She is doing great in fundraising. She is doing a lot of rallies and started doing a few interviews.
But that’s not winning.. Winning is when you convinced enough people to vote for you. 538, Silver and NYT all showing a close race because the polls are showing a close race.
So I just think Drew is trying to define winning in a weird way. A great performance does not equal a win.
And as for Trump.. In a normal person’s eyes, everything he does is the opposite of a great performance. But he might actually also be doing great with his audience. I’m not exactly sure, tho. Would he poll better if he acted like a normal person?
And what about trajectory? I think Harris could be on a winning trajectory. But time will tell. It’s all about reaching out and letting people to get to know her. Does she have enough time? We have to wait and see. I do think she is doing everything she can tho.
In the end, it’s really up to the people.
VOTE!
Icy_Ad_837 on
In today’s times they have a senior columnist admitting in the lead editorial that they are holding the two candidates to different standards and it’s their right to do so.
That’s right after the other says that one candidate isn’t antisemitic even though he makes antisemitic statements constantly
LeadingRegion7183 on
NYT had the very same policy in 2016 and were SHOCKED!! (Simply SHOCKED!!) that there “no challenge of his lies” backfired in their faces. NYT rolled over like a fat cat wanting a belly rub to maintain their precious “access” to the WH Press Room. Turned out great for everyone, didn’t it?
Donkletown on
I actually just cancelled my subscription this morning over the sanewashing and double standard.
The characterization over the race as “deadlocked” isn’t as egregious as those two things, I don’t think. But if it leads to more people cancelling, good.
not2dv8 on
Not only is SFGate right about the New New York Times, CNN is guilty of the same Shameless dangerous clickbait. Should Trump become president again, which is against all logical pointers and current data, SFGate will be one of the first Publications Trump shuts down. Moreover, the New York Times will most likely thrive.
The_Jolly_Dog on
It’s really a shame. I used to like the NYT but their (seemingly?) recent swing to VERY conservative viewpoints has been just exhausting to read.
Cancelled our subscription to them and an now actively avoid their site for page views
Dry-Possession5800 on
The fact that real journalism around the world is in peril is the real issue.
abnormalbrain on
Agreed. I unsubscribed around November of last year, after the Anat Schwartz thing came out. Too similar in result with their Judith Miller thing, many years earlier. My answer to their ‘why are you leaving’ survey referenced those two names and how every time NYTimes makes an oopsie, massive amounts of people of color die. I know there are many more examples but those were the two that came to mind. I can’t support whatever NYTimes has become.
kanepupule on
Just cancelled my subscription!
xMend22 on
Subscribed in 2016 after the election. Unsubscribed in 2020 after several garbage articles that simply brushed away the insane shit going on as normal.
greysqualll on
I’m no fanboy of the NYT but to question the Times journalistic integrity and then confidently say Trump is losing PA by 4 pts and is “getting his ass kicked” when every poll has the race as one of the closest ever is pretty ironic.
Cluelessish on
That is grossly simplifying things. Harris does NOT have a big lead over Trump. Yes Harris looks strong in Pennsylvania, but in Michigan and Wisconsin Harris’s lead is just 1 or 2%, according to several recent polls. That means that it can go either way. And Trump is and surprisingly strong in Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina, also according to recent polls.
That columnist doesn’t seem too keen on facts. They seem to want NY Times to go on some kind of early celebration of something not yet won. That seems very dangerous. That’s exactly what made Trump win in 2016.
Listen to Pod Save America for real inside info and insights, if you are interested.
Here is also a pretty balanced analysis of the current situation. It’s not only NY Times that is apprehensive.
This became blatantly obvious when the NY Times asked ONE presidential candidate to step out of the race, and it wasnt the one who sexually assaulted someone, was convicted of fraud, incited an insurrection and is demanding to be a dictator, demanded innocent children to be put in jail for a crime they didnt commit, has filed for bankruptcy several times, and is old as dirt, lies about everything, can’t remember where he is, what wars were fought, who his wife is, thinks nazis are fine people, and makes up everything and is getting hundreds of millions of dollars from Russia and Saudia Arabia. Nope it was the other one.
Hot-Ad2102 on
I felt like something was off, happy to cancel my subscription.
Capable_Mud_2127 on
There was a headline the other day on Kamala that was so bad I had to step away: “Harris Cracked Down on Violent Offenders,
Showed Leniency on Less Serious Crime”
Isn’t that the way it should be? Nyt can go pound sand.
31 Comments
“But that’s too easy if you’re the Times, an institution that has never met a story it couldn’t water down”
DAMN – light them up Drew!
The New York Times has really taken a dive. It used to be trustworthy.
> We’re just over a month away from the presidential election and, if you ask the New York Times, the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president/Keystone kriminal Donald Trump remains “deadlocked.” Despite the fact that Trump is losing in Pennsylvania, a state he needs to win, by four points. Despite the fact that polls in North Carolina just turned in Harris’ favor. Despite the fact that a grassroots campaign for Harris, one that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, sprung up the instant her boss ceded his spot in the race to her. Despite the fact that Trump got his ass beat in a nationally televised debate with Harris after repeating, with supreme gusto, the lie that Haitian immigrants in Ohio are eating people’s pets. The lie that his own running mate openly said was a lie. […]
Always has been. But this is some diatribe about polling.
Apparently they weren’t washed while lending credence to “the Manchurians are mind controlling us”, at every moment of the Cold War especially during Regan while amplifying the *imagined* Team B intel of Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld, obscuring to this day the US’ role in Lebanon, Nicaragua, East Timor, Chile, Guatemala, Indonesia and Grenada with limited hangouts, or even during WMD and selling the “war on terror”. Nope, it’s the electoral horse race that did it.
I have to agree at this point. NYT has been absolutely terrible this election cycle. There’s no crazy shit on the Republican side that they’re not willing to water down and normalize, yet there’s no criticism of Kamala that’s too small, petty, or unimportant to highlight. They’re trying to make the news instead of report it, and even their polling has been an outlier to everyone else’s despite them previously being among the best in that department.
They need the horse race and the close contest to the point where they’re willing to try to report it into existence.
I hate any article in The NY Times that starts with “What your need to know” or “Here’s the what you need to know. “
… and the local NY coverage is laughable.
The author is pretty spot on here. The times is like the Sunday political shows now. When republicans are in power they have more Republican guests and when Dems are in power they have more Republican guests or allow last rebuttals to the dem guests.
The NY Times is too busy washing down Trump to normalize the most egregious actions and lies. To the times a nuclear bomb is equal to a firecracker if it gets clicks.
Tom the Dancing Bug had a good [comic about this](https://boingboing.net/2024/03/13/tom-the-dancing-bug-one-day-in-january-2025-in-the-new-york-times-newsroom.html). It was before Biden dropped out, but it’s still relevant.
Edit: Also, the Time has been here before … [including their efforts to drum up support for the Iraq war.](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublishing.usnews)
A case study into how to lose as much credibility as you can in as short a period as possible. Truly a stunning achievement.
Nytimes also downplayed Hitler and spewed nazi talking points. It has always been fond of fascism.
Time to abolish this trash paper.
You know what? I’m perfectly fine with the media reporting how close the race is, that it’s going to be razor thin in all of the battleground states. Keep reporting that, even if polling show Harris up by 7 points in these states.
Complacency due to reporting was possibly a factor in Clinton’s loss in 2016, so if anything, this sort of reporting benefits Harris. And in the end, it doesn’t really matter all that much. It’s like fans complaining about the power rankings of their favorite team, when it’s the outcome of games that matters. Polling is power rankings. The game is the actual election.
NYT has brainworms. They’ve published actual fascists alongside the likes of Ezra Klein. Truly bothsidesing the shit out of everything while being anti Biden/Harris in the end.
I have not trusted the NY Times since they let Judith Miller cheerlead us into an unconscionable war with Iraq. They have not been trustworthy for quite a long time.
Trump has brought out the worst in them, again.
I canceled my subscription to the Times in February and I’m not going back. I’m not going to subsidize a quasi-Trump super PAC. The Times is morphing from the grey lady to the orange lady. Bye bye!
New York Times was an utter failure in the run up to and coverage of the war in Iraq.
Sadly yes. For some reason their framing of trump is entirely too generous. Mistakes are labelled as “strategy”, hatred is labeled as “fiery rhetoric”, his flaws are overlooked as “wacky” and the fascist plans he spews is labeled as “aggressive governing”. They are normalizing and excusing him every single day
“Morning Joe” weighed in on the NYT’s reporting.
When you’re too much for mid-level MSM hacks, like Joe Scarborough, maybe you need to stop and think about what you are doing.
> Scarborough singled out the The New York Times’ Bret Stephens, who recently penned a column that claimed Harris spends too much time sharing her background and too little on answering questions about specific policies.
>
> Scarborough told his MSNBC viewers that Stephen’s claims, which others like Daniel Henninger of The Wall Street Journal have also shared, are “an absolute lie.” He added that Stephens “obviously hasn’t been watching the campaign.”
>
>
> “Do you have no shame?” Scarborough later asked of the pair of columnists. “Do you really have no shame?”
All forecasts are saying the race is deadlocked. It’s not just NYT. I’m not sure if you could describe the race differently as it stands right now. They are one of the best rated pollsters for a reason. I don’t think that should be thrown out just because they’re showing a close race.
Not sure what Drew is after. Just because Harris is doing great does not mean that she is winning. She did win the debate. She is doing great in fundraising. She is doing a lot of rallies and started doing a few interviews.
But that’s not winning.. Winning is when you convinced enough people to vote for you. 538, Silver and NYT all showing a close race because the polls are showing a close race.
So I just think Drew is trying to define winning in a weird way. A great performance does not equal a win.
And as for Trump.. In a normal person’s eyes, everything he does is the opposite of a great performance. But he might actually also be doing great with his audience. I’m not exactly sure, tho. Would he poll better if he acted like a normal person?
And what about trajectory? I think Harris could be on a winning trajectory. But time will tell. It’s all about reaching out and letting people to get to know her. Does she have enough time? We have to wait and see. I do think she is doing everything she can tho.
In the end, it’s really up to the people.
VOTE!
In today’s times they have a senior columnist admitting in the lead editorial that they are holding the two candidates to different standards and it’s their right to do so.
That’s right after the other says that one candidate isn’t antisemitic even though he makes antisemitic statements constantly
NYT had the very same policy in 2016 and were SHOCKED!! (Simply SHOCKED!!) that there “no challenge of his lies” backfired in their faces. NYT rolled over like a fat cat wanting a belly rub to maintain their precious “access” to the WH Press Room. Turned out great for everyone, didn’t it?
I actually just cancelled my subscription this morning over the sanewashing and double standard.
The characterization over the race as “deadlocked” isn’t as egregious as those two things, I don’t think. But if it leads to more people cancelling, good.
Not only is SFGate right about the New New York Times, CNN is guilty of the same Shameless dangerous clickbait. Should Trump become president again, which is against all logical pointers and current data, SFGate will be one of the first Publications Trump shuts down. Moreover, the New York Times will most likely thrive.
It’s really a shame. I used to like the NYT but their (seemingly?) recent swing to VERY conservative viewpoints has been just exhausting to read.
Cancelled our subscription to them and an now actively avoid their site for page views
The fact that real journalism around the world is in peril is the real issue.
Agreed. I unsubscribed around November of last year, after the Anat Schwartz thing came out. Too similar in result with their Judith Miller thing, many years earlier. My answer to their ‘why are you leaving’ survey referenced those two names and how every time NYTimes makes an oopsie, massive amounts of people of color die. I know there are many more examples but those were the two that came to mind. I can’t support whatever NYTimes has become.
Just cancelled my subscription!
Subscribed in 2016 after the election. Unsubscribed in 2020 after several garbage articles that simply brushed away the insane shit going on as normal.
I’m no fanboy of the NYT but to question the Times journalistic integrity and then confidently say Trump is losing PA by 4 pts and is “getting his ass kicked” when every poll has the race as one of the closest ever is pretty ironic.
That is grossly simplifying things. Harris does NOT have a big lead over Trump. Yes Harris looks strong in Pennsylvania, but in Michigan and Wisconsin Harris’s lead is just 1 or 2%, according to several recent polls. That means that it can go either way. And Trump is and surprisingly strong in Georgia, Arizona and North Carolina, also according to recent polls.
That columnist doesn’t seem too keen on facts. They seem to want NY Times to go on some kind of early celebration of something not yet won. That seems very dangerous. That’s exactly what made Trump win in 2016.
Listen to Pod Save America for real inside info and insights, if you are interested.
Here is also a pretty balanced analysis of the current situation. It’s not only NY Times that is apprehensive.
[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/23/polls-undercounting-trump-support](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/23/polls-undercounting-trump-support)
This became blatantly obvious when the NY Times asked ONE presidential candidate to step out of the race, and it wasnt the one who sexually assaulted someone, was convicted of fraud, incited an insurrection and is demanding to be a dictator, demanded innocent children to be put in jail for a crime they didnt commit, has filed for bankruptcy several times, and is old as dirt, lies about everything, can’t remember where he is, what wars were fought, who his wife is, thinks nazis are fine people, and makes up everything and is getting hundreds of millions of dollars from Russia and Saudia Arabia. Nope it was the other one.
I felt like something was off, happy to cancel my subscription.
There was a headline the other day on Kamala that was so bad I had to step away: “Harris Cracked Down on Violent Offenders,
Showed Leniency on Less Serious Crime”
Isn’t that the way it should be? Nyt can go pound sand.