I think this example of a Hillary “gaffe” is actually the worst. The media took one short phrase about taking away coal jobs from a much longer statement expressing strong empathy and advocacy for coal communities. The media deliberately portrayed Hillary’s attitude and positions as diametrically opposite to what they clearly were. The title of this article says it all:
“ Hillary Clinton’s “coal gaffe” is a microcosm of her twisted treatment by the media
Also how has the media missed the most important part of that conversation between Bret Stephens and Gail Collins — Gail’s response in which she says the quiet part out loud:
“ Gail: You know I’m not gonna tell you that Harris is doing enough serious interviews with national reporters. She’s not. Neither, obviously, is Trump, but we have a right to hold her to a higher standard.”
Amen a few hundred times. I dumped my NY Times sub after 2016. My WaPo sub runs out this winter. Noah has eloquently explained why I don't and won't miss either one of them. I continue to subscribe to the Guardian (both US and UK editions) and to quite a few Substacks. I know how to get more info when I need it. Harris and Walz are raising the bar for journalists, and so far this seems to piss most of them off. The 1st Amendment says that *Congress* shall make no law abridging freedom of the press, but it doesn't prevent the press from sinking under the weight of its own incompetence.
Glad to read that! As a Brit, I can assure you The Guardian, whilst thankfully and rightly not hiding the fact it leans centre-left, truly is at the top-end of independent, high quality reporting, especially over here in the U.K. Meanwhile, the Daily Mail (or “Daily Fail” as British people call it) is horrendously biased towards Trump and all right-wing governments. It is increasingly poisonous and a threat to all who cherish truth and democracy.
Thanks for the support! Another reason I subscribe to the Guardian is that it treats Europe in general as "up close and personal" as opposed to out in the asteroid belt somewhere.
Harris is working her ars off. And she’s showing who she is to many who may not read the MSM. Trump is a newsmaker machine. Boring. The MSM seems unable to get beyond their double standard of judgement including about newsworthiness re the candidates. The MOST important thing is focusing on Trump’s unfitness totally vs Harris fitness and readiness.
If I were running NYT I'd have a running side panel that compares basic things about Harris and Trump:
Harris has committed to continued support of NATO, the most successful international agreement in human history that has helped enable 75 years of unprecedented peace in prosperity in Europe and North America.
Trump: has deep ties and scandalous associations with authoritarian Russians, including Putin, that undermine NATO. His actions and comments are counter to US laws, policies and, according to vast majority of international policy experts, harm the United States.
Every single day.....first thing you see when you log onto the site.
These are value judgements that the NYTimes is afraid to make other than in its editorial or opinion columns. They present the news.. The news is a matter of the news editors choice as to what is worthy of front page PLUS what headline to use. So the "news" goes where all the attention moves, like a school of fish. Therein lies the opening for our criticism. They do good investigative deep articles occasionally. The "analysis" writing- the choices what to analyze. Sulzberger seems to value journalistic independence more than anything, whatever that means. Editors are fallible and biased. I am reminded of the accusations several years ago that reporters were "taking dictation from the WH" really evidenced in their reporting at the time.
I was just coming to the comment section say that. If that's the level of skill in proofreading that Politico can offer, I should think Kamala would be far better served by staying away from them!
Has anybody on here noticed how badly proofread some of The Daily Beast reporting has been in recent months? It’s just silly, but unprofessional, errors like the misuse of a word, or a word or words missing altogether, rendering a sentence unreadable. It was so bad one recent weekday that I even wondered if the reporters are real any more or was I reading AI generated content. It’s very depressing. I came to the conclusion the reporters are real, but cost-cutting means a lack of proofreading and/or Editors and an increased desire by bosses to simply get content posted as quickly as possible.
Kamala won’t speak with the NYT because they wrote a hit piece about her the one and only time she did. And then when she was ramping up her campaign and not giving interviews because she was like idk busy or something, they wrote a piece interviewing the guy who wrote the original hit piece about why she still sucks. Fuck these guys.
Awesome evaluation. When you wrote about the double standard I was captivated about the intentions of these organizations. So I wrote to the New York Times and asked that question: Why not sit Trump down for an interview and do a story on it. Then ask Kamala Harris for her reaction and whether she’d like equal time for a fair and open dialogue and response to Trump’s comments. Trump will claim Fake News. Harris will tell the truth.
I'm constantly trying to make this argument, but you did it so much better than me. I've forwarded this all over the place, so hopefully you get new subscriptions.
Not surprisingly, I agree with a lot of these comments about the NYT and WaPo in particular. They have completely failed us in the interest of gaining eyes over targeting and delivering substantive news/journalism.
The mainstream “liberal” media also went after Gore for his clothing choices:
“ ….MSNBC anchor Brian Williams went after Gore's clothes at least five times in one week. "Here is a guy taking off his suits.… This is the casual sweater look—what's going on here?" … "He would have been in a suit a month ago." … "He's wearing these polo shirts that don't always look natural on him." Williams's frequent guest *Newsweek'*s Howard Fineman later chimed in: "I covered his last presidential campaign, in 1988. One day he was in the conservative blue suit, the next he was playing lumberjack at the V.F.W. hall in New Hampshire." “
As for the media pretending to be serious about wanting to know about a candidate’s policy proposals, this is how the venerated “Dean of Washington Journalists” reacted when Gore had the effrontery to talk about what he wanted to accomplish if elected — in his acceptance speech:
“The Washington Post'*s David Broder later found Gore too focused in his convention speech on what he'd do as president. "But, my, how he went on about what he wants to do as president," wrote Broder. "I almost nodded off."
As for the environment, while Gore was persuaded by his consultants not to talk about it as much as he would have liked, whenever he did, many in the media ignored it or treated it as comedy. Dowd wrote in one column that "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating."
I strongly recommend reading that entire article. I reread it periodically to remind myself that I am not having paranoid delusions about the media’s treatment of Democratic candidates. That criticism of Gore by Maureen Dowd is one of the most bizarre, misogynistic things I have ever seen from a mainstream journalist yet it received very little pushback.
There is no way today’s media are more serious and substantive than the media were in 2000. Their demand for policy info is a scam designed to catch Harris in a gaffe or something they can twist to portray as one like they did to Hillary.
The MSM was also very upset that content creators were invited to the DNC, that they received spaces to produce content, a section to watch and listen to the speakers, granted interviews and plenty of swag. It's also interesting to note that the content on Substack is ignored by the MSM even though many of the creators have successful Substacks. I'm certain the MSM hates Substack's business model. Currently, the MSM reminds me of people wanting more floppy disks (IYKUK) as the industry had moved on to newer technology. Harris reached more target women with the Call My Daddy interview than any Politico or NYT interviews and the MSM is having a temper tantrum. I'm 72 and I was not familiar with this podcast but, I Googled it and watched some of the clips circulating on social media and realized that this was a very smart move. MSM seems more aimed at Boomers (myself included), but demographics, as well as technology, are not static.
Truly smart move by Harris campaign to treat independent media the same as the MSM at the convention. In many ways, that was a coming out party for many of them. The MSM throwing a conniption fit over these "amateurs" is hysterical. That's because despite these folks being overtly biased they provide better, higher quality information than the Washington MSM media.
If you're not familiar with these YT channels I encourage you to check them out (hope I'm not running afoul of some promotion ban - just think they're good outlets):
Remember how Dubya kept the mainstream media at arms length? His people told the media to their face that they didn’t represent the public or know what the public was thinking. That did not stop them from admiring him for being “more fun to have a beer with” and for giving them idiotic, demanding nicknames. Something tells me Harris won’t get the same free pass.
After years of that quaint little village rag - The New York Times - genially glossing over the madcap behavior of Dogcatcher Trump, now gazes bravely into the 20th Century … bravo!
I still can’t forgive them for peddling right wing smears of the Clintons back in the 90s. Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate were all scams that despite multiple investigations by Republicans and funded by us taxpayers came up empty. Refusing to learn their lesson the Times then fell for their WMD lies.
If you read that conversation with Stephens and Collins you will see that Collins explicitly says they have a right to hold Harris to a higher standard. I don’t have a NYT subscription for obvious reasons but luckily Kevin Drum posted it here:
She owes them NOTHING. MSM continues to fail daily. It’s despicable.
I think this example of a Hillary “gaffe” is actually the worst. The media took one short phrase about taking away coal jobs from a much longer statement expressing strong empathy and advocacy for coal communities. The media deliberately portrayed Hillary’s attitude and positions as diametrically opposite to what they clearly were. The title of this article says it all:
“ Hillary Clinton’s “coal gaffe” is a microcosm of her twisted treatment by the media
She navigated a hall of mirrors.”
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/15/16306158/hillary-clinton-hall-of-mirrors
Also how has the media missed the most important part of that conversation between Bret Stephens and Gail Collins — Gail’s response in which she says the quiet part out loud:
“ Gail: You know I’m not gonna tell you that Harris is doing enough serious interviews with national reporters. She’s not. Neither, obviously, is Trump, but we have a right to hold her to a higher standard.”
https://jabberwocking.com/let-us-hold-donald-trump-to-normal-standards-of-conduct-please/
Stephanie Ruhle showed how to answer Bret Stephens idiotic statement that he won’t vote for Trump but isn’t satisfied with Harris.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DALt4WKRI4K/?igsh=MTZhYjBsYXh0bmRpaw==
Amen a few hundred times. I dumped my NY Times sub after 2016. My WaPo sub runs out this winter. Noah has eloquently explained why I don't and won't miss either one of them. I continue to subscribe to the Guardian (both US and UK editions) and to quite a few Substacks. I know how to get more info when I need it. Harris and Walz are raising the bar for journalists, and so far this seems to piss most of them off. The 1st Amendment says that *Congress* shall make no law abridging freedom of the press, but it doesn't prevent the press from sinking under the weight of its own incompetence.
Glad to read that! As a Brit, I can assure you The Guardian, whilst thankfully and rightly not hiding the fact it leans centre-left, truly is at the top-end of independent, high quality reporting, especially over here in the U.K. Meanwhile, the Daily Mail (or “Daily Fail” as British people call it) is horrendously biased towards Trump and all right-wing governments. It is increasingly poisonous and a threat to all who cherish truth and democracy.
Thanks for the support! Another reason I subscribe to the Guardian is that it treats Europe in general as "up close and personal" as opposed to out in the asteroid belt somewhere.
Harris is working her ars off. And she’s showing who she is to many who may not read the MSM. Trump is a newsmaker machine. Boring. The MSM seems unable to get beyond their double standard of judgement including about newsworthiness re the candidates. The MOST important thing is focusing on Trump’s unfitness totally vs Harris fitness and readiness.
Double standard. Yep.
If I were running NYT I'd have a running side panel that compares basic things about Harris and Trump:
Harris has committed to continued support of NATO, the most successful international agreement in human history that has helped enable 75 years of unprecedented peace in prosperity in Europe and North America.
Trump: has deep ties and scandalous associations with authoritarian Russians, including Putin, that undermine NATO. His actions and comments are counter to US laws, policies and, according to vast majority of international policy experts, harm the United States.
Every single day.....first thing you see when you log onto the site.
These are value judgements that the NYTimes is afraid to make other than in its editorial or opinion columns. They present the news.. The news is a matter of the news editors choice as to what is worthy of front page PLUS what headline to use. So the "news" goes where all the attention moves, like a school of fish. Therein lies the opening for our criticism. They do good investigative deep articles occasionally. The "analysis" writing- the choices what to analyze. Sulzberger seems to value journalistic independence more than anything, whatever that means. Editors are fallible and biased. I am reminded of the accusations several years ago that reporters were "taking dictation from the WH" really evidenced in their reporting at the time.
I cannot pay any attention to a writer that doesn’t know the difference between “neigh” and “nigh” and doesn’t have editors that do either.
I was just coming to the comment section say that. If that's the level of skill in proofreading that Politico can offer, I should think Kamala would be far better served by staying away from them!
Seriously. I had to wonder if that was a passive aggressive jab at Harris with a Trumpian "Horseface" insult. WTF?
I laughed too hard at this.
Has anybody on here noticed how badly proofread some of The Daily Beast reporting has been in recent months? It’s just silly, but unprofessional, errors like the misuse of a word, or a word or words missing altogether, rendering a sentence unreadable. It was so bad one recent weekday that I even wondered if the reporters are real any more or was I reading AI generated content. It’s very depressing. I came to the conclusion the reporters are real, but cost-cutting means a lack of proofreading and/or Editors and an increased desire by bosses to simply get content posted as quickly as possible.
Kamala won’t speak with the NYT because they wrote a hit piece about her the one and only time she did. And then when she was ramping up her campaign and not giving interviews because she was like idk busy or something, they wrote a piece interviewing the guy who wrote the original hit piece about why she still sucks. Fuck these guys.
Awesome evaluation. When you wrote about the double standard I was captivated about the intentions of these organizations. So I wrote to the New York Times and asked that question: Why not sit Trump down for an interview and do a story on it. Then ask Kamala Harris for her reaction and whether she’d like equal time for a fair and open dialogue and response to Trump’s comments. Trump will claim Fake News. Harris will tell the truth.
The only person at the nyt who should interview Harris is Jamelle Bouie.
Oooooh yeah. You’re right. He’s not interested in gotcha questions or games.
I'm constantly trying to make this argument, but you did it so much better than me. I've forwarded this all over the place, so hopefully you get new subscriptions.
Not surprisingly, I agree with a lot of these comments about the NYT and WaPo in particular. They have completely failed us in the interest of gaining eyes over targeting and delivering substantive news/journalism.
The “right” interviews, I.e., the tantrums of self-important journalists who feel like Harris should have to kiss the ring before she dares run.
Excellent analysis.
Harris is being subjected to the “tan suit” treatment except it’s supposedly the “liberal media.”
The mainstream “liberal” media also went after Gore for his clothing choices:
“ ….MSNBC anchor Brian Williams went after Gore's clothes at least five times in one week. "Here is a guy taking off his suits.… This is the casual sweater look—what's going on here?" … "He would have been in a suit a month ago." … "He's wearing these polo shirts that don't always look natural on him." Williams's frequent guest *Newsweek'*s Howard Fineman later chimed in: "I covered his last presidential campaign, in 1988. One day he was in the conservative blue suit, the next he was playing lumberjack at the V.F.W. hall in New Hampshire." “
As for the media pretending to be serious about wanting to know about a candidate’s policy proposals, this is how the venerated “Dean of Washington Journalists” reacted when Gore had the effrontery to talk about what he wanted to accomplish if elected — in his acceptance speech:
“The Washington Post'*s David Broder later found Gore too focused in his convention speech on what he'd do as president. "But, my, how he went on about what he wants to do as president," wrote Broder. "I almost nodded off."
As for the environment, while Gore was persuaded by his consultants not to talk about it as much as he would have liked, whenever he did, many in the media ignored it or treated it as comedy. Dowd wrote in one column that "Al Gore is so feminized and diversified and ecologically correct, he's practically lactating."
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/10/gore200710
I strongly recommend reading that entire article. I reread it periodically to remind myself that I am not having paranoid delusions about the media’s treatment of Democratic candidates. That criticism of Gore by Maureen Dowd is one of the most bizarre, misogynistic things I have ever seen from a mainstream journalist yet it received very little pushback.
There is no way today’s media are more serious and substantive than the media were in 2000. Their demand for policy info is a scam designed to catch Harris in a gaffe or something they can twist to portray as one like they did to Hillary.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/15/16306158/hillary-clinton-hall-of-mirrors
The MSM was also very upset that content creators were invited to the DNC, that they received spaces to produce content, a section to watch and listen to the speakers, granted interviews and plenty of swag. It's also interesting to note that the content on Substack is ignored by the MSM even though many of the creators have successful Substacks. I'm certain the MSM hates Substack's business model. Currently, the MSM reminds me of people wanting more floppy disks (IYKUK) as the industry had moved on to newer technology. Harris reached more target women with the Call My Daddy interview than any Politico or NYT interviews and the MSM is having a temper tantrum. I'm 72 and I was not familiar with this podcast but, I Googled it and watched some of the clips circulating on social media and realized that this was a very smart move. MSM seems more aimed at Boomers (myself included), but demographics, as well as technology, are not static.
Truly smart move by Harris campaign to treat independent media the same as the MSM at the convention. In many ways, that was a coming out party for many of them. The MSM throwing a conniption fit over these "amateurs" is hysterical. That's because despite these folks being overtly biased they provide better, higher quality information than the Washington MSM media.
If you're not familiar with these YT channels I encourage you to check them out (hope I'm not running afoul of some promotion ban - just think they're good outlets):
https://www.youtube.com/@MeidasTouch
https://www.youtube.com/@briantylercohen
https://www.youtube.com/@JackCocchiarellaShow
https://www.youtube.com/@ivehaditpodcast
https://www.youtube.com/@FarronBalanced
https://www.youtube.com/@bulwarkmedia
https://www.youtube.com/@LegalAFMTN
https://www.youtube.com/@RebelHQ
Remember how Dubya kept the mainstream media at arms length? His people told the media to their face that they didn’t represent the public or know what the public was thinking. That did not stop them from admiring him for being “more fun to have a beer with” and for giving them idiotic, demanding nicknames. Something tells me Harris won’t get the same free pass.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/01/19/fortress-bush
After years of that quaint little village rag - The New York Times - genially glossing over the madcap behavior of Dogcatcher Trump, now gazes bravely into the 20th Century … bravo!
I still can’t forgive them for peddling right wing smears of the Clintons back in the 90s. Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate were all scams that despite multiple investigations by Republicans and funded by us taxpayers came up empty. Refusing to learn their lesson the Times then fell for their WMD lies.
Harris should publicly announce she will sit down with Stephens and Collins immediately AFTER Trump sits down with Michelle Goldberg and Paul Krugman.
If you read that conversation with Stephens and Collins you will see that Collins explicitly says they have a right to hold Harris to a higher standard. I don’t have a NYT subscription for obvious reasons but luckily Kevin Drum posted it here:
https://jabberwocking.com/let-us-hold-donald-trump-to-normal-standards-of-conduct-please/
You'll pardon my French, but this is a great fucking take on the situation.
SO thankful she's not running a traditional campaign.
I can't be the first to notice Politico's "neigh" error! Or is this the new spelling of "nigh"?
Nope. They screwed up.