The front page of the New York Times. 5 days before the election.
The front page of the New York Times.
Okay, but also…
Leaked NYT Gaza Memo Tells Journalists to Avoid Words “Genocide,” “Ethnic Cleansing,” and “Occupied Territory”. This, while regularly blaming poor electoral performance among liberal politicians on the Palestinian solidarity movement.
and further…
The New York Times rarely quotes transgender people in trans stories in a journal that simply will not shut up about how we need to debate Transgender athletes competing in sports.
then, it cannot be overstated how many times we get…
Why does the New York Times keep calling the left ‘divisive’? With popular candidates and policies routinely pillared as antithetical to the mainstream Democratic Party and a threat to general election success. At the same time, NeverTrump Republicans who run the gamut from Donald Trump’s secretary’s husband to Ted Cruz’s former campaign manager keep getting Op-Eds and interviews explaining why the party needs to move to the right in order to win voters.
The NYT fucking sucks. It consistently tries to have its NeverTrump cake while eating out on Trump-friendly business interests. It is a paper of, by, and for the millionaire class, whose only real criticisms of the President begin and end with how it makes America look to the rest of the world. Stop buying into 96-pt font when as often as not the NYT agenda is buried in the fine print.
Leaked NYT Gaza Memo Tells Journalists to Avoid Words “Genocide,” “Ethnic Cleansing,” and “Occupied Territory"
The news section actually DOES use those words.
For instance:
“Israel Is Committing Genocide in Gaza, U.N. Inquiry Says”*
In a First, Leading Israeli Rights Groups Accuse Israel of Gaza Genocide*
Why does the New York Times keep calling the left ‘divisive’?
Most of the time, this was a quote.
They quoted David Crowley and a college professor Erik Bleich.
Regading Howard Zinn, but he was indeed divisive. I don’t see anything wrong with the title. Conservative politicians have occasionally proposed or pushed to ban Zinn’s. Some liberal historians also criticized his book.
https://newrepublic.com/article/213778/howard-zinn-biography-simple-story-american-history
Don’t get me wrong. I actually like the guy. But he was indeed divisive.
I think it’s crazy to allow people to have guns. But it’s fair to say gun laws are a divisive issue in the United States. The word “divisive” isn’t inherently bad. It’s a description.
The Times has been far too distracted as of late by worries over President Joe Biden’s age, allowing it to steal attention away from the larger and far more serious danger posed by a second Trump administration
Biden’s age was indeed a major concern. If they didn’t cover it, they would have been accused of a cover up.
Their coverage of Trump was extremely good and extensive:
Americans voted for him. That’s their choice.
This is the news section of a major newspaper. It’s not a leftist blog.
Which is funny, given that the bloggers - left, right, and center - have consistently been breaking more stories with better researched articles of late. The last straggling remnants of print journalism don’t have the budget to do more than stenography or the clout to do more than lick the taint of whomever is in charge.
Biden’s age was indeed a major concern.
If you treat MAGA Fascism and Biden’s Octogenarianism as equally important, so will your audience.
Their coverage of Trump was extremely good and extensive
It was extremely late and ineffectual.
Meanwhile, for every Trump scandal story, we got three different Transgender Athlete pieces. North of 30 distinct pieces appeared, often at the front page of the Times coverage. These ran in lockstep with the Republican political campaign ads vilifying liberal candidates for support of Title XI and Equal Access laws.
This, alongside a slew of stories demonizing student protesters which went so far as to call them unwitting agents of the Iranian military.
So, after echoing a slew of lies that echoed Republican talking points in a razor thin election all year long, they also popped off a handful of stories critical of the Republican nominee weeks into the early voting period. Cool. Great job.
Americans voted for him. That’s their choice.
Millions of Americans were disenfranchised in 2024.
This was a failure of democracy regardless of outcome. But the dogged assertion that “Americans Voted For This” consistently ignores how many Americans were strictly prohibited from participating, to the point of facing years of jail time, if they even dared submit a provisional ballot.
Yeah, whatever; go do one Donnie Duck
The only time Donald Trump tells the truth is when he says he’s going to do something terrible
Which is always.
Meh, I’m still on the fence. Let’s give him a third term to really figure this out, guys.
#ivotedforthis
actually...
I totally voted against this, having experienced Trump’s first term; having believed him when he said what he planned on doing on the stump; having become very familiar with Project 2025 Mandate For Leadership. It frustrates me that so many people didn’t, and voted based on racism and vibes.
It’s really interesting talking to people who voted for trump.
It’s like, he said what he would do!!!
And then he did it.
And now you’re are surprised?It really seems they like they didn’t believe he would shit on them. When he shit on everyone for his entire life. I remember reading about him refusing to pay subcontractors 50 years ago.
But a huge part was the whole trans, gay, illegal immigrant, abortion and still is.
Yes he made a mess, but he kept his promise on these issues. So he isn’t just supported, he is worshipped.Who are your talking to?
The Trump supporters I talk to are still fully supporting him. They have no issues because they agree with him to this day.
I spoke with one who seemed to disagree with the mass deportations, but the when I pressed them they admitted that they agree with it all. They even said Renee and Alex deserved what they got.
These are evil people, guys. Do not underestimate this.
This is what people need to understand. MAGA supports and revels in evil acts. They are your enemy, they are threatening you, and doing violence unto you and your family through government violence. They want you dead, enslaved, amd/or as a personal rapetoy. And if it’s not you, they want your children.
Which I wish was all an exaggeration, but its not.
Republicans are the enemy. An enemy you will likely have to kill to stay safe, because you can bet your ass they are coming for you.
This is why I have no sympathy for the “we were lied to” crowd. No you weren’t! You just thought he’d do the awful things to someone else!
The news that American conservatives see is not the same as the news that everyone else sees. Part of the trick of a media bubble is lying so comprehensively that sources from outside the bubble sound genuinely out of touch with reality, a belief that is consistently and purposefully reinforced by sources inside the bubble. A lot of conservatives in the bubble, especially those that work two or three jobs, don’t really have time to fact check everything they see on the news, hear on the AM radio, read on twitter, etc. Some of them (a depressingly high number of them) did genuinely want awful things to happen to others, some of them didn’t, but they all were certainly lied to and manipulated.
I’m not sure how to reply.
Their level of delusion and cognitive dissonance is so large it is difficult to describe.
Unknown journalist in 2016:
They voted for the elephant in the china shop. They didn’t realize they were the china.
If they wanted the statement to be taken seriously, they shouldn’t have put it in the Opinion section.
Also shouldn’t have repeatedly supported a genocide the prior years
deleted by creator
That’s what it is though? You can’t put opinions in news. Even if your opinion is correct.
You can’t put opinions in news.
Sure you can. These journals do it all the time by filtering it through a cushy interview or ghostwritten native ad or “unnamed source”.
That was not an opinion. He said all those things. That full-page headline is only facts.
“This thing happened” is news, so “Trump said this” is news.
“You should have this reaction to it” is for the opinion pages, even if that reaction is “you should believe him”.
That isn’t to say the Times doesn’t try to get away with pushing a narrative while technically following the rules, but that rule is still a good one.
It is also rephrasing what he said, not using his direct words. There is opinion involved in such things.
My friend, lemme tell u something about this “news.”
You can! In the “opinion” section! It’s right there on the first page, actually, right next to the naked lady and perfume ads.
Fox would like a word…
I pointed this out elsewhere recently. The lawyers of FOX News, when trying to defend the agency in Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network made it super clear that FOX News is an entertainment channel and is not supposed to be regarded as news (now called the Tucker Carlson Defense) that no reasonable person would interpret the content of the shows on FOX as actual news.
FNC’s business model depends on the notion that it’s main viewership are not reasonable people.
If he said it is not an opinion but a fact. So, news.
This was published on October, 27 2024
The election was on November 5, 2024.It was printed nine days before.
Also, it was the cover of the Opinion section, not the whole paper.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/chilling-nyt-cover-goes-viral-214330000.html
Good man.
As in hu-man.
Edit: ok so apparently we hate humans because men are also human
All this was basically known by the end of Trump1.0 (yeah yeah some will say they knew it in 2015 already, but it took me a while). But who didn’t see it after Jan6 '21 was beyond deliberately ignorant.
Him getting re-elected really fucked up a lot of us.
I expected his first term to go much as his first term actually did. I expected his second term to be worse, but not this much worse.
If he was going to dismantle NATO, I would have expected him to do it shortly after Putin got him elected.
First term, second term… Jan6 should’ve been the tipping point in everybody’s perception. Not just the event and Trump’s involvement in it, but the aftermath, all of MAGA, the baking, the hysteria, the hate.
I expected his 2nd term to become much worse, I felt the fear in my gut across the ocean when the election result came out.
But yeah, of course I didn’t have any concrete vision, so it’s still shocking, all the time.
the baking
Is this a typo, or a new term for me to learn?
Baking conspiracy theories.
didnt help the dems slow rolled his conviction because they thought they’d win against him in an election and basically broadcasting to everyone that ‘he wasnt as bad as people say! its just political nonsense!’
the dems slow rolled his conviction
How exactly was it only or mostly dems that did this?
feel free to lookup the public criticism of garland on the topic.
Anyone that claims to have known anything in 2015 about Drumpf is lying to themselves. He wasn’t considered a serious candidate back then. Heck he wasn’t considered a serious candidate once he gained the GOP nomination. Going into the 2016 election, basically everyone thought that there was no way that Drumpf would win, including himself and his team based on their live reactions when it was called for him.
I kinda suspect that the GOP was rigging the voting machines far before the 2016 election, but they never told Drumpf or his team, so when he won, Drumpf and his team were kinda blindsided, and didn’t have plans in place.
Anyone that claims they didn’t have any idea of his plans after 2021 was being intentionally ignorant. Something that The Greediest Generation has perfected for themselves.
I kinda suspect that the GOP was rigging the voting machines
It’s not just the machines. The whole system is - well, prone to rigging. Voter ID, closing down voting places, fucking gerrymandering … also see Florida 2001, that was a blueprint for what we’re seeing today.
These people cut off their own children for him
Yeah, nothing happening now is surprising to anyone paying any attention in 2016, which was apparently basically nobody.
We are very lucky they are so fucking stupid.
We really are. Schmuck & Jeffries can’t sell us out to the Sociopathic Oligarchs and Israel fast enough, and we’d be totally screwed if MAGA wasn’t so virtuosically incompetent.
They kinda aren’t though? In many ways they are but they had a whole plan with Project 2025 and they actually went through with a good chunk of it.
I think it is dangerous that people keep referring to them as stupid. They are in many ways, but they are primarily evil.
And yet, what, half of P2025 has been enacted?
Who are “you” and who are “they”?
Mainstream media was a day late and a dollar short in understanding the threat of fascism. Par for the course for liberal media.
Google: trump fascism before:2016-01-01
Why you should stop calling Donald Trump a fascist. December 4, 2015
Donald Trump Isn’t a Fascist; He’s a Media-Savvy Know-Nothing. December 28, 2015
Whose Fascism Is This, Anyway? Dec. 15, 2015
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/16/opinion/whose-fascism-is-this-anyway.html
Is Donald Trump leading a proto-fascist movement? August 28, 2015
https://theweek.com/articles/574097/donald-trump-leading-protofascist-movement
Trump May Be a Loudmouthed Demagogue, but Is He a Fascist? Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric has his opponents likening him to Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. Such comparisons may be misplaced.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/09/trump-may-be-a-loudmouthed-demagogue-but-is-he-a-fascist/
Is Donald Trump a Fascist?
I’m assuming you meant “liberal” ironically? Those outlets are exactly as liberal as the right-wing conservative corporations that own them.
American liberals are right wing conservative corpos.
I suspect the person you’re replying to is using “liberal” in a way that refers to someone to the right of their own position. Not in the way Limbaugh used it as a catch-all for anyone left of Reagan.
Likely. I get why people find the modern American use of “liberal” as a synonym for the progressive left annoying, but word usages change and that one has unfortunately stuck, which makes references to the “liberal media” confusing.
word usages change
Maybe it changed in your country but that doesn’t affect the meaning it has in my country. We may use the English language to communicate, but we’re not reproducing all of american culture, and we don’t bring over all of their changes. Yes, it’s confusing for you. For us too. No, don’t expect the rest of the world to adopt all the changes you make.
the modern American use of “liberal” as a synonym for the progressive left… but word usages change
Modern American civics education is, on average, basically non-existent. All changes in word usage trends toward less nuance, greater redundancy, and greater ambiguity.
And that’s fine, I guess, because Descriptivism or whatever. But in the event that moderately educated people use the terms “Liberal” or “Leftist”, it’s probably okay to assume the formal meanings.
makes references to the “liberal media” confusing."
You seem to not be that confused, since you correctly pointed out that these companies are owned by conservatives.
I’m well-educated and understand the historic use of “liberal” versus today’s common usage in the United States. My only real concern is that people who are only familiar with U.S. common usage might need some explanation.
Welcome to Lemmy.
I find any use of the same word to mean opposite things confusing, and it seems to happen more often than I would like in the US politics
I hope this comment cleaves your brain.
I think they meant it literally
deleted by creator
Huh. He did exactly that…
“we - we didn’t listen!”
Hey dont include me, I listened and tried to tell my family and friends. THEY didn’t listen.
I’m pretty sure they did.
They wanted it
Perhaps the least prophetic thing ever printed.
