I wanted to revisit that awful Liz Spayd column that led me to cancel my New York Times subscription. We all make fun of “both sides do it”, but most BSDI types believe that both sides are in fact doing it, and that’s why they should keep saying “both sides do it” over and over again. That’s quite different from believing that you should say “both sides do it” over and over again on general principle. Liz Spayd is saying that both candidates should be criticized equally regardless of what the facts are. For example, she writes:
CNN’s Brian Stelter focused his show, “Reliable Sources,” on this subject last weekend. He asked a guest, Jacob Weisberg of Slate magazine, to frame the idea of false balance. Weisberg used an analogy, saying journalists are accustomed to covering candidates who may be apples and oranges, but at least are still both fruits. In Trump, he said, we have not fruit but rancid meat. That sounds like a partisan’s explanation passed off as a factual judgment.
In the absence of any facts (she mentions hardly any in the piece), how can she say that it’s a partisan’s explanation rather than a factual judgment? There is factual reason to believe that Trump is a puppet of Vladimir Putin. If Mitt Romney is an apple and Obama is an orange, then, yes, rancid meat is the right comparison for a puppet of Vladimir Putin.
And let’s take a step back here and notice that Jacob Weisberg, one of the most mealy-mouthed, centrist, establishment pseudojournalists out there has now become an angry unserious uncivil hippie in the eyes of the New York Times? How the fuck did this happen?
There was a lot of discussion about the difference between derp and denial a while ago (see this, for example). The idea here is that derp is “yes, the earth may be getting warmer we can’t be sure of the causes, and we shouldn’t slow down our economy, and what about that fourteen year pause derp derp”. It’s Bjorn Lomborg, Breakthrough Institute, David Brooks type stuff. Denial is “global warming isn’t happening”. It’s Jim Inhofe stuff.
Spayd’s piece is denial, it doesn’t rise to the level of derp. She argues that false balance is not a problem and by definition cannot be a problem. Just “shine light in all directions”, that’s what journalists do! It doesn’t rise to the level of “yes, perhaps Trump’s issues are unusually bad and Hillary’s mostly minor but in the interests of letting our readers know as much as possible derp derp derp”.
It’s the rhetorical equivalent of bringing a snowball to the Senate floor to prove climate change is a hoax.
You can call 877-698-5635 to cancel your subscription.
Lit3Bolt
When you call, mention you’re switching to the Washington Post, “the nation’s paper of record,” just to drive home the dagger a little deeper.
Doug!
@Lit3Bolt:
Will do.
Trollhattan
@Lit3Bolt:
Or The Guardian, who employ zero Krauthamers. Just sayin’.
mkro
Doesn’t matter, the damage is already done. Look at this week’s polls in swing states. Trump has taken a lead in CO, FL, OH and NV. He now has a path to victory. BALANCE!!
Mnemosyne
I think this is the reason why I get impatient with people who say that the solution to bad speech is more speech — if the “more speech” is lies, and no one in the media is willing to point and say, Hey, that’s a lie, then lies and truth end up being equivalent and nothing gets fixed.
If news judgment doesn’t exist anymore and it’s all about regurgitating press releases, why even bother with a newspaper anymore? Just read BusinessWire and PRNewswire and you’ll get the same level of information.
Trollhattan
@mkro:
Chill the fvck out until the debates, will ya?
TaMara (HFG)
Jeezus it’s not even balanced both sides anymore – I half listened to spawn of Trump talk/lie about the Newsweek scandal on GMA this morning and it all went unchallenged. I mean, if they at least gave it as much attention and scrutiny as they do the Clinton so-called scandals, I might give them a pass.
But fuck, this is beyond failed media, it’s criminal
Villago Delenda Est
This woman is a hack. Like the entire national political team of the NYT.
End of discussion.
Trollhattan
@TaMara (HFG):
Depraved indifference by the carcass of our media. And NOBODY wants to major in journalism, so where’s the longterm solution?
IanY77
Her comment was stupid but not entirely wrong. Liberals do complain more about it because liberals are overwhelmingly the targets of false equivalence. The Republicans are the ones who have gone off the rails, not the Dems, so therefore it’s the Dems that have to be dragged down to the level of Republicans. If Democrats were crazy, and for whatever their faults they aren’t, then the media would have to drag the Republicans down to the level of the Dems. Because the Republicans have been getting nuttier since 1994, the SCLM has to try to make both parties seem as bad. But because it’s the Dems complaining, the SCLM isn’t scared of them. Plus, Hippie Punching! “Look! We’re not biased, we punched a hippie!”.
Dadadadadadada
OT but I have to vent somewhere, and stepping on the refugee article seemed wrong. Here goes:
My wife and I were seconds away from closing on a mortgage for an absolutely awesome apartment for an unreal price. And then the bank suddenly said “Nope, can’t do it.” We’ve been feverishly looking for alternatives, but everyone I’ve talked to regards co-op issues (the place we want to buy is a co-op) as black magic that cannot be dealt with by mere mortals. One potentially useful bit of advice was to “press” the original bank to reconsider, and I guess that would work if I hadn’t been raised to be as meek and submissive as possible.
To cap it all off, the bank in question is Wells Fargo, which apparently has not much of a problem with committing fraud and extortion on a massive scale, and yet cannot stomach the idea of lending 65% of the value of a cheap apartment to a family that has solid income and enough cash on hand for a 35% down payment. We’ve put MONTHS of work into this whole project, and I’ve permanently closed a number of productive investments (to get the cash on hand, as the bank insisted I must), and it’s all going to come to nothing.
JGabriel
DougJ!:
Sadly, Spayd’s thesis isn’t even that journalist’s should shine light equally in all directions. Spayd is arguing that journalists should shine less light in Trump’s direction because it makes him look bad, and more light in Clinton’s direction until she looks just as bad or worse – because to do anything else would be partisan.
It’s an argument from neurosis – journalists (not all, but many) have become so neurotic about being labelled biased by the right that they’ve sacrificed truth in the name of balance.
TaMara (HFG)
Going to just leave this here for random trolls/hysterical dems;
PEC
Clinton bad week move the polls?
schrodinger's cat
Media wants status quo, so they can keep talking about how Washington is broken. The narrative must not change.
Doug!
@Dadadadadadada:
That sucks
schrodinger's cat
@Dadadadadadada: Go with a local bank or a credit union.
nutella
To summarize: NYT is doing everything it can to throw the election to the Republican candidate.
schrodinger's cat
@Trollhattan: Please, Guardian was feeling the Bern. They are not above the both sides do it nonsense, they just do it from the left.
TaMara (HFG)
@Dadadadadadada: Are you working with a real estate agent, can they go to bat for you? There was no way, self-employed and SWF that any bank would help me, so I went to a mortgage broker, but I’d second the credit union idea, too.
If you were really close, you should be able to find someone who would approve – traditional banks are very stingy with their money and interest rates are usually higher.
GxB
Liz Spayd? Well, I hope she is… and never had any spawn…
MJS
I think a more apt analogy would be imagining how ridiculous it would have looked if Woodward and Bernstein had to make sure to “balance” their Watergate reporting with one “McGovern is corrupt, too” story for every story about Nixon.
WaterGirl
@Dadadadadadada: Do not give up without a fight! I second the local bank or credit union idea, and though I have no idea what a mortgage broker is, sounds like TaMara knows whereof she speaks, so I suggest pursuing that too!
Good luck, and report back please.
sigaba
@Trollhattan:
I pay for the Guardian too but it seems like part of the reason we’re in this mess is because people don’t read local news and seem to get all their information from national cable networks and celebrity opinion “leaders.” I hope American progressivism isn’t so far gone that we have to go to Manchester to find it.
Get a subscription to your hometown paper, and support local bloggers who cover things like policing and social services.
Villago Delenda Est
@IanY77: Minor correction: Rethugs have been getting nuttier since 1964.
Betty Cracker
I also cancelled my subscription and let them know Spayd’s column was the final straw. If they aren’t going to do their jobs, I’m not gonna pay them. Simple as that.
WaterGirl
@sigaba:
All well and good unless your hometown paper is owned and run by conservatives. Like mine is.
MJS
@IanY77: You lost me when you suggest that if the situations were reversed, the media would drag the Republicans down to the Democrats’ level. I do not believe for a second the media would do any such thing.
sherparick
I think Spayd’s infamous column on “False Balance” has to be read in conjunction with her column on 24 July 2016 where she talks about the need to sensitive and address the concerns of conservative readers and potential readers of the N.Y. Times. No dismissal of their concerns as “partisan” when they expressed unhappiness about coverage of Trump, which is basically just covering what Trump has said.
mkro
@Trollhattan: Riiight … because that’s when the press will start really digging into Trump! LOL … Not. Gonna. Happen.
Roger Moore
@MJS:
That is a really excellent analogy.
Miss Bianca
@Dadadadadadada: Oh, how sickening. Seconding (or thirding) TaMara’s suggestions. What was the bank’s problem all of a sudden?
JGabriel
@JGabriel:
Bad tag (my fault), which is making that sentence look way more melodramatic than intended. It’s supposed to read:
WaterGirl
@Betty Cracker: Exactly. You’re paying for journalism not useless ink on a bunch of paper.
WaterGirl
@Miss Bianca: Wasn’t there just a very public settlement for a ton of money because of their wrongdoing? Unless I have confused banking institutions, I wonder if it might be related to that.
gogol's wife
@JGabriel:
Right on the nose.
Miss Bianca
@WaterGirl: Yes, I believe there was. Not that I’m worried about it because they hold my *own* mortgage or anything…
Mary G
That column was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. It was so condescending and belittling – you people are just childish partisans and we know what’s best for you. She even implied at the end that the Washington Post’s uncovering of the Bondi donation scandal proves that the Times coverage isn’t unbalanced. WTF?
Villago Delenda Est
@gogol’s wife: Agreed. Nail. Hammer. Hit.
Wipe them out. All of them.
Trollhattan
@sigaba:
Still get my daily dead-tree local paper, a McClatchy property, where they consistently run articles and columnists from guess who: NYT and WaPo.
The McClatchy National Bureau reporters can be good. IIRC they’re the remains of Knight-Ridder.
pea
it is stunning to me, who remembers that both henry hyde & newt gingrich were cheating on their wives while they led the charge to impeach bill, that numerous embassy attacks with more lives lost occurred under reagan & bush jr., cheney’s secret energy talks, 30 million emails deleted by the bush administration, several thousand deleted by trump to avoid scrutiny in a law suit, the new york times lying to the american people re wmd in iraq, and has watched the clintons being skewered for 30 years, no matter what they do (including chelsea & obamas daughters being attacked as a children, while the bush twins got a pass), that there is any question that a majority of “journalists” have settled for being “reality show” moderators.
it’s not “lying” anymore, it’s not “behaving badly” anymore.
it’s “planet nine from outer space”.
scav
Fundamentally, failing to — refusing to — make a distinction between fact and opinion, between fact and fact, between fact and lie is to assert the position that the difference between all these things doesn’t matter. That in itself is a choice, a position taken. Having a single table full of food with both well-fed and starving children around it and going with serving all the children the same exact sized serving in the name of “fairness” is a moral judgement, a position taken. Pretending not to choose by knee-jerk both-side-ism or blind half-and-half-ism is a pretense, it is itself a choice.
Trollhattan
@mkro:
Oh shit, it’s the corpse of RtR everybody! The LOLs and ALL CAPS! are the tell.
scav
Or alternately, the NYT is also waving its scale about and is insisting that a cubic foot of lead and a cubic foot of marshmallow Peeps weigh exactly the same because they are the same size.
ETA: and in the next minute, insisting that the scale is level with 10 Volkswagens and 10 toothpicks on opposite sides because 10=10.
eclare
@Miss Bianca: They hold mine too. From what I’ve read this morning, they have admitted no wrongdoing, and while the fines are huge overall, to an entity like Wells Fargo it’s basically couch change. I’m more relieved that to my knowledge they haven’t opened fake accounts in my name.
eclare
@Trollhattan: McClatchy was the only outfit that didn’t buy into the Iraq War.
ETA> Only “major” outlet.
PPCLI
There is so much that is offensive about that public editor’s note that I keep finding more whenever I reread it. Something that could slip by because of all the other horrors:
“On the other hand, some foundation stories revealed relatively little bad behavior, yet were written as if they did.” Excuse me? “relatively little bad behavior”? In a story that goes “Two guys accompanying Bill Clinton to save American hostages ask Huma Abadin about diplomatic passports for the trip. She gives a non-committal “I’ll see” response. They don’t get the passports.” That was the story that managed to be written in such a way as to make it appear they were conspiring over the St. Bartholomew’s day massacre.
That story didn’t have “relatively little bad behavior”. It had NO bad behavior at all. In fact, to the extent that moral adjectives are relevant, these guys should be praised for doing what they were doing.
What a self-satisfied fraud.
Starfish
@Dadadadadadada: Why are you doing business with Wells Fargo? Go to bankrate.com and research some mortgage companies.
The co-op thing is nuts, and it took a long time for the mortgage thing to pan out for a relative because the co-op attorney was just ridiculously bad at paperwork. (I am assuming NYC co-ops.)
catclub
@eclare:
Actually it was Knight-Ridder that performed well. McClatchy bought them out. I don’t think McClatchy has distinguished themselves since then.
Starfish
@sherparick: It surprises me that she would put *potential* readers before *actual* subscribers like that.
Poopyman
@Betty Cracker: They are doing their jobs. They know who signs their paychecks. That’s where the real problem lies.
waysel
@scav: THIS
eclare
@catclub: My bad! Local paper here owned by Gannett, mainly just read local stuff.
Mnemosyne
@Dadadadadadada:
Given the current issues with Wells Fargo, this may turn out to be a lucky escape in the long run, though it’s stressful right now. I, like, fifth or sixth the suggestion of trying a credit union or smaller bank — if you were good enough for Wells Fargo, you’ll probably be good enough for them. Check the bankrate.com suggestion above, and don’t forget that many colleges and universities will let you join their credit union if you’re an alumni.
sigaba
@Trollhattan: Yeah that’s sorta why I threw bloggers in at the end. Professional journalism doesn’t really cover localities anymore. People know more about police beatings in Baltimore than police beatings on their corner.
@scav: I thought the Spayd column was execrable but I honestly don’t fault our MSM as much as that. Trump’s malfeasances get an airing, how else would we know about them?
The problem is the press can’t and won’t (and probably shouldn’t) decide what’s actually a disqualifying crime for a candidate, and many voters don’t care. The Republican Party has signaled they’re note going to hold Trump responsible for anything; between Watergate and Iran-Contra congressional Republicans made a decision that they were going to let their presidents skate on everything, no matter how egregious. That’s the lesson they learned from Watergate: if we’d backed the president, the press will have to Both Sides the issue and even if it hurts us we’ll be able to cloud the issue enough to keep our jobs. Nailing Nixon only hurt us, we came out against Nixon and we got plastered in the midterms anyways.
Also since 1992 the Republicans have essentially dropped any pretense of being ethical or considerate of procedural norms. They state up front that government is a corrupt game and that politicians are cheats, and that all that matters to them is winning the day by any means necessary. So when they do break the rules to get what they want, the press can tell people but it’s not like Republican voters care. And the press can ask Democrats “what are you going to do about it?” and if they’re in the minority all they can really do is call for hearings, which the press correctly interprets as “the issue is dead.” Democrats are held to as high a standard as they hold themselves, and that’s the only standard a journalist is prepared to accept.
The press can drag people to the river of lies but they can’t make people drink. Exactly how many Trump voters care if he wins or not, or care WHO wins in November? How many of them are just voting to register their contempt, just their way of raising a middle finger at liberals? Even among the grossest Trump fans on Twitter and in comment threads you rarely see people actually making positive arguments for him, he’s just Not Hillary. No amount of reporting about Trump’s ethical or legal problems will change these peoples minds? None of these things even constitute “news” to them.
PPCLI
@pea: Don’t forget Karl Rove being subpoenaed to appear before a congressional investigation and just refusing to show up. Ever. And the Bush administration refusing to enforce the subpoena.
scav
@Starfish: “Growth” is fetishized by air-port economics and management styles, far more so than customer satisfaction or product quality — once the checks have cleared, it’s in the rear-view mirror and utterly negligable.
sam
I kind of wish I could cancel my subscription just on principle – I’m piggybacking off of my stepmom’s as her “second” digital user from her print delivery (which she already gets pretty much for free through her job), so I’ll just have to satisfy myself with the fact that I haven’t paid a dime for thing since I cancelled my own physical paper delivery over 10 years ago.
Instead I’m just satisfying myself with leaving nasty comments on Liz Spayd’s moronic columns. seems I’m not alone based on the weight of the commentariat.
I did start paying for the Washington Post two months ago though – so the fact that I’ve basically been free riding for my own “local” paper, ever, but thought the WP had been putting out enough good stuff recently that I finally bit the bullet and paid them because I kept hitting the ‘more than 10 free articles/month’ paywall and really wanting to read more should say something.
Mnemosyne
@sigaba:
I tried to get a subscription to the LA Times. They signed me up for the Baltimore Sun instead and then never even sent me the wrong paper, just charged the credit card.
Never again.
Mike J
@TaMara (HFG):
What to remember about the presidential election when Donald Trump’s comeback narrative begins
NoraLenderbee
NYT headline: “Hillary Clinton Is Getting Surprisingly Little Extra Lift From Blacks and Hispanics”
She’s getting almost as much support as Obama did. But because it’s not MORE, she’s showing surprising weakness.
“But Mrs. Clinton isn’t getting the same leaps in support and turnout among nonwhite voters that let Mr. Obama grow the Democratic coalition as much as he did.”
Amir Khalid
To summarise what someone mentioned in one of these threads, Liz Spayd believes the aim of balance is to handicap both sides so that they look equally good/bad, whereas most consumers of journalism expect The New York Times and news media in general to present both sides so that they look as good/bad as they deserve to. Spayd apparently believes the former approach is objective; whereas the latter is based on the journalist determining in advance how good either side deserves to look, and thus subjective.
Villago Delenda Est
@Poopyman: THIS
Our media model is badly flawed. Freewheeling capitalistic journalism might work if it wasn’t for a handful of media companies controlling everything.
PsiFighter37
Apparently Donald said he tries to kiss Ivanka (as much as he can) on Dr. Oz. Barf.
Also, he has high cholesterol and has a BMI of 30 – in other words, he’s almost obese.
Pretty much matches his demographic backing there!
Dadadadadadada
@Miss Bianca: A bogus foreclosure on my wife’s house 6 years ago. Bank of America admitted wrongdoing and sent her a $1000 check, but it’s still on the record, and it scared Wells Fargo out of offering the loan.
Villago Delenda Est
@Amir Khalid: “Objectively shitty” is what Spayd is aiming for.
Villago Delenda Est
@PsiFighter37: Fat stupid fucks.
Betty Cracker
@sigaba: We’re not asking the press to disqualify Trump. We’re asking them not to grade on the curve. Investigate both with equal vigor, and give an honest accounting of the facts found. Seriously, Google “Clinton Foundation” and “Trump Foundation” at the NYT site and witness the lopsidedness of the coverage for yourself. It’s a scandal in its own right, and that’s just the one issue — there are literally dozens more.
glory b
@schrodinger’s cat: Yeah, a credit union would be my suggestion too.
KBS
@WaterGirl: My local paper is too, but I still subscribe. Most of the young reporters are more liberal than the conservative editors, and I think it’s important to encourage them and to make sure the newspaper itself outlives its current editors. :)
Markenator
I already did
That extra 40$ a month is the best $ ever
Even better then the cut the cord $
Mnemosyne
@NoraLenderbee:
Uh, didn’t Obama have record high numbers among minority voters? There wasn’t a whole lot of room for growth there.
Starfish
@Dadadadadadada: Can you dispute this with the credit agencies and get it removed?
bemused
@Betty Cracker:
The press is grading on a ridiculously low curve.
Trollhattan
@PsiFighter37:
Every day of the Trump campaign is Geraldo Rivera opening Capone’s vault. “There’s this yooge thing! It’s a cricket.” Repeat daily until November.
PhoenixRising
@Mike J:
Recommended. Again. Also, the broken record: If Republicans control the voting mechanics in your state, register voters like your hair is on fire:
Ohio is going to be a swing state even though a majority of registered voters aren’t Trump supporters. The polling is weighted, but what if it reflects actual GOP tricks already baked into the cake?
hueyplong
Now Pat McCrory can add the ACC to the list of left wing radicals trying to hurt the decent people of North Carolina. The ACC has yanked its championship football game (Dec 3) from Charlotte and will move it to another state (probably Florida).
Looking forward to the spittle emanating from the governor’s PR people.
Mnemosyne
@NoraLenderbee:
Or, to quote Gin and Tacos:
Just A. Guy
If you want to cancel, but just can’t live without the other stuff the Times provides:
Step 1: Cancel NY Times subscription (and tell them why)
Step 2: If you don’t already have it, install Google Chrome as your browser
Step 3: Ctrl-Shift-N (Windows) to open an incognito browser window
Step 4: Read up to 5 articles on the NY Times without paying for it; if you want more, just close the old incognito window and open up a new one
sigaba
@Betty Cracker:
Right but the press doesn’t decide the curve a priori, the people they cover do. And readers don’t care about Republican incompetence or venality, because Republicans make it clear from the outset that a vote for them is a vote, to a certain extent, for incompetence or venality. Republican voters don’t love it but they don’t oppose it as long as it produces “results.”
Reporters won’t call a spade a spade, they hold up a shovel and ask Joe Biden and John McCain what it is. I mean you can tell people about 5 million deleted White House emails, but then I would ask, “So what happened,” and the response would be “Barbara Boxer got really angry about it but Republicans slow-walked the investigation. And then the 2010 midterms ended the investigation.” If you’re a reporter and you constantly see the voters rewarding Republicans for their conduct, what lesson do you take away from that? And you constantly see questions of ethics and impropriety sidelined, at what point do you say, this is an aberration or this is just the way our system works?
I mean even by 19th century standards Republican conduct isn’t really out of the ordinary. If anything Democrats hold themselves to a standard that’s ridiculously high, and the press nails Democrats not because they’re on some “curve” but because Democrats are merely failing to live up to standards they set out for themselves.
This is why “the coverup” is always worse than “the crime.” The existence of the coverup, or of spinning, or apologies, certify to the press that something wrong happened. In the absence of those things, the political press won’t actually report if something’s wrong, because they only way they know something is wrong is if someone else says so or the actor in question admits it. They have no objective standard.
So Trump lies, and he tells obvious, baldfaced ones. And the press does point it out; but it doesn’t diminish his support one whit, Republicans don’t call him on it. And when those things don’t happen, where is the actual POLITICAL bad act?
eclare
@hueyplong: Wow! Sports organization doing something right! Predict heads explode in 3…2…1…
Gin & Tonic
@PsiFighter37: I saw on the Twitter (so it has to be true, yo) that he weighs 267. At 6′ 2″ that gives him a BMI north of 34.
srv
America cannot survive another decade of neoliberal open-trade:
Putin doesn’t theaten American jobs, but you keep wallowing in your cold-war thinking.
Turgidson
@IanY77:
I’m not sure it’s true that liberals complain more. No matter how easy the so called liberal media is on GOP batshittery, there are still legions of pissed off conservatives who see liberal media bias in every story that doesn’t call for Obama or Clinton to be executed by firing squad. This episode, with liberal-leaning commentators (and Norm Ornstein, no liberal, but a straight shooter) making much the same complaints at much the same time, is probably an outlier.
But substantively you’re right – false equivalence has been a big headwind for liberals since at least 1994 if not Reagan, because they’re not the party that’s suffering from massive brain damage. I think the reason for the recent outcry, and why it’s louder and more unified than liberals usually manage to be, is Trump. If the media can’t ditch its addiction to false equivalence now, with a demented wannabe fascist cheeto running for president at the top of a major party ticket, then they never ever will. The recent criticisms feel almost like a desperate attempt at an intervention to save the media from killing itself. Spayd’s response was the typical “we don’t have a problem, you do, and fuck you for interfering with my life” response of an addict in denial. So, yeah we’re probably fucked.
jl
The miserable column by Spayd is worse than denial, is derp in addition to denial, and it is stupid derp. Her arguments are obvious BS.
Oh, gosh, our reporters write biased conclusions based and stuff that did NOT turn up during the investigation. Gosh golly gee, those reporters just get so dang invested in the story don’t they? Well, OK, WTF do the NYT editors do all day? Are they not supposed to be on top of that?
Ohh.. right, some of your political news editors are corrupt A-holes who rewrite stories with a slant they like, in direct contradiction to events, and don’t tell anyone, least of all the readers.
As for the HRC email non-scandal, THE newspaper of NATIONAL RECORD with a YOOGE news staff could write a prominent backgrounder explaining the long history of communications practices similar too, and precedents for, HRC’s emails and server. And that history was one of the reasons mentioned by Comey for letting HRC off the hook. It’s a good thing that Powell is in such a panick to cover his ass that he brought some public attention to State Dept history on (in)secure communications.
But that possibility of the NYT’s role seem to be completely beyond the idiot Spayd’s imagination.
The NYT can go to hell. It’s run by a bunch of corrupt meretricious incompetent pompous jackasses. But very gracious, high-toned NYC jackasses, so I guess all is well.
Napoleon
@MJS:
I think it is always important to point this out when Watergate coverage comes up, because it is the exception to the rule that proves the rule, but Woodward and Bernstein were not political but police (or city) reporters, which I believe has much to do with why they personally never fell into that trap. The NY Times (i.e. their political desk) totally blew that story (for that matter WaPo’s political desk as well).
SiubhanDuinne
Kurt Eichenwald being interviewed on NPR “Here and Now” right now.
Edit: Just ended. But host/interviewer made it clear they are going to continue unpicking this story.
CONGRATULATIONS!
@schrodinger’s cat: The Guardian is just as inexcusable as the NYT this election. Not the false equivalence shit the NYT is peddling, but just straight up “write in Bernie or Stein, Hillary’s going to jail and sucks anyway” bullshit.
Villago Delenda Est
@srv: HODOR!
Amir Khalid
@SiubhanDuinne:
A Fullbright fellow once told me, journalists shouldn’t be interviewing other journalists. It makes journalism look silly. Why aren’t the people interviewing Eichenwald out there, looking for their own stories?
sigaba
@Napoleon: Yep.
catclub
@Napoleon:
Everbody says that NYT goes after the Clinton’s because they need a scalp of their own. No mention of the ‘we can’t have another failed presidency, so lets not go after Reagan-Bush too hard over Iran Contra’ attitude of the press when the missing scalp is mentioned.
Bobby Thomson
Spayd’s argument is that in an election between Ike and Fredo Corleone, both should get the same amount of negative attention.
Gelfling 545
@Starfish: Thereby failing to recognize that actual subscribers are always potential non-subscribers.
Roger Moore
@sigaba:
They get an airing in whatever outlet originally discovers them, and sometimes in additional ones that are willing to repeat articles from a different source. But they don’t create the kind of feeding frenzy, where every news organization feels the need to repeat them and dig in on their own, the way that Clinton’s faux scandals do. One of the huge points Tom Levenson has been making in his criticisms is that depth of coverage is at least as important in conveying the importance of an event as the details in the articles.
Ella in New Mexico
@mkro
because everyone knows how CO, FL, OH and NV voters are devout NY Times Opinion Page ditto-heads
eclare
@Gelfling 545: This one unsubscribed yesterday and was more than willing to share why.
eemom
I agree with all the above; but upon reading your post yesterday, I had an uncharacteristically optimistic thought: isn’t it at least some kind of progress that the issue of false equivalence is at least being openly discussed now — and indeed, that fucktard hacks like whoever the fuck this Spayed woman is are feeling defensive enough about it to write this kind of shit?
Cuz it seems to me that until very recently, the existence of false equivalence was only recognized in the blogosphere, NEVER acknowledged by the main moron media, and the resulting perversion of truth never challenged or even questioned in any way that got widespread public attention. I do think that’s changing as a result of this sick campaign. Like the Lauer episode for instance.
Betty Cracker
@sigaba:
I don’t think that’s necessarily true, at least for not for people who aren’t dyed-in-the-wool GOP and are going to vote for Republicans regardless. That’s not who I’m worried about. I’m concerned about the people who are more lightly affiliated and who don’t pay close attention. They’re the gettable votes, and the NYT’s unconscionable coverage is driving them to apathy at best, Trump at worst.
People can’t get outraged about what they don’t know about. You and I know about Bush’s deleted emails, but I garan-goddamn-tee you 9 out of 10 of the folks who’ve decided Hillary Clinton is a habitual liar because of the saturation coverage of her emails don’t even know about the Bush emails, not that they matter at this point anyway.
If the Beltway press is taking their cues by how the party reacts to a candidates’ behavior, they should be all over Trump because he’s such a horror show that his own party is flummoxed by him, if in mealy-mouthed fashion. But that whole framework for deciding what gets covered is bullshit anyway. Editors have a function, or used to.
Villago Delenda Est
@Bobby Thomson: Fredo? Santino.
Betty Cracker
@eemom: I share your optimism on that. Working the refs can be effective. God knows the wingnuts have done it to their advantage.
Mnemosyne
@catclub:
Ah, but they don’t want just any scalp — they want a Democratic scalp so they can prove that Both Sides Do It and Republicans are not irredeemably corrupt.
Another Republican scalp is boring. Old news. Just imitating the WP.
Bobby Thomson
@Villago Delenda Est: no. Donnie has the temper of Sonny but the brains and courage of Fredo.
catclub
@eemom: Yep, the Goring of 2000 has taught some lessons. So it is being addressed in real time this time.
1) Slight improvement. Better press without pointing out huge flaws is still too much to ask.
2) We still cannot judge now versus after the results are in.
FlipYrWhig
@Betty Cracker:
I in turn guaran-goddamn-tee you that 9 out of 10 of the folks who have so decided have no idea what the emails contain, the circumstances under which they were retrieved, or what the supposed scandal is. I’d bet not 1 in 10 could spontaneously say as much as “she got emails in a way that I guess she wasn’t supposed to.”
catclub
@Roger Moore:
I agree.
hueyplong
More re the move by the ACC to pull its football championship game from NC. Statement by Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the NC Values Coalition:
“The ACC and NCAA announcements are an attempt to force the State of North Carolina to sacrifice our children’s safety on the altar of political correctness, and legislators who voted to stop this trend should think twice before they abandon our children.”
I’m reading this as an indirect acknowledgement that some GOP legislators might be fixing to fold. If recent history is any guide, McCrory’s office is likely to be less circumspect and restrained.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@eemom:
I know there’s a lot wrong with twitter, but all of the journamalists are on it and read their mentions – they’re being pushed to address the criticisms because of the way the criticisms are picked up and amplified quickly. twitter has a much bigger, more immediate impact than the online comments to articles, which I doubt any of them even read – otherwise David Brooks would have died of shame a long time ago.
jl
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: What they have been doing is not only wrong, it is stupid. Maybe should call them stupid clowns on twitter. that might get their attention. Josh Marshall called them out as ‘chumps’, which may have prompted the NYT’s stupid response.
Edit: bad news is that if they are as stupid as they seem, then not much help to be found, as long the current crew is around.
Betty Cracker
@FlipYrWhig: I’m sure you’re right about that. What’s so damaging is the constant drumbeat and innuendo. Volume of coverage matters as well as quality.
louc
I get the print edition of the New York Times at home. I started getting it because the Washington Post, at the time, was full-on Fred Hyatt and I just couldn’t bear it anymore.
And it’s really been striking to me how certain coverage is played. For instance, a front-page story on how Anthony Wiener’s sexting “casts a pall” on Clinton’s campaign. Sexist much, NY Times? WTF does that have to do with the campaign except six degrees of separation?
Monday, they had THREE stories on the front page about Hillary’s health. And it took up a double truck. Another WTF. moment.
Finally, today, the website covers the Powell hack, but it says NOTHING about his comments on Beghazi.
I don’t think false equivalency plays a role. They’re out to get Hillary.
hovercraft
SiubhanDuinne
@Amir Khalid:
In general I agree with that, and there’s WAAAAY too much of it, especially on cable. Those are mostly just repetitive punditry, horse-race speculation, circle jerks, and tongue-baths.
But I haven’t had a problem with, just in the last few days, David Fahrenthold on the Trump Foundation and now Kurt Eichenwald on the Trump Organization. Sure it would be nice if lots of good investigative reporters were out there digging stuff up, but I’m just glad to have it getting an additional layer of exposure for radio listeners who might well not have seen either WaPo or Newsweek.
And because the formats are so different, the broadcast setting ensures that these two very detailed, long-form print pieces are condensed and summarised for the listener (who may then, it is hoped, seek out the original articles).
(Edited slightly for reasons.)
RaflW
A reminder of how it all works from America’s Best Christian™
tobie
@louc:
You’re in a fine position to cancel your subscription. Please do.
SiubhanDuinne
@hovercraft:
Saw that earlier. The statements/responses from Trump are just terrifying in their ignorance and proud anti-intellectualism. It’s not required to be a trained scientist to serve as POTUS, but at least there should be an acknowledgement that there’s such a thing as science. Whole thing, over at BooMan’s, is worth reading.
Villago Delenda Est
@Bobby Thomson: Oh, well that I can agree with without hesitation.
Shalimar
Donald Trump is not a puppet of Vladimir Putin. He isn’t even a fan of Putin’s quasi-dictatorial power. Trump admires Putin’s ability to steal money from corporations and the Russian government using his official position. Trump claims to be worth $10 billion. Putin is reportedly worth $200 billion.
Imagine what Trump will do when he leads the US government. It will make Teapot Dome look like a 3-card monte scam on a local street corner.
MJS
@Napoleon: Interesting. So I guess the question becomes, in today’s world, would police/crime beat reporters even be allowed to even pursue such a story?
Villago Delenda Est
@SiubhanDuinne: They’re doing the digging by looking at public records. Yes, it’s actual work, unlike attending cocktail parties at Sally Quinn’s place.
hovercraft
@SiubhanDuinne:
Scary yeah. Just so you know Martin Longman is Booman. When he’s writing at the Washington Monthly blog Political Animal he uses his real name since they’re a real magazine. So the link is to the same article.
sigaba
@Roger Moore: The depth of coverage is important but I think the depth of coverage is, in part, reactive to the presumed impact. The Times presumes email stories hurt Clinton politically, so they run them; they also presume that Trump Foundation stories don’t hurt Trump politically, so they don’t. They also know that Republicans and their allies will basically shut the door on any suggestion that Trump is doing anything wrong, while Democrats, up to and including Clinton herself, will temporize and qualify their response, and will often themselves acknowledge that there were some corners cut or something. That’s all they need to call it a scandal and do a second story.
Investigative reporters and crime reporters can pick at the Trump foundation but don’t expect the mere fact that Trump is a criminal to discourage his voters. If Trump is proved to be a murderer and a rapist expect to see the political press to tell you how popular rapists and murderers are with the American people.e
@Betty Cracker:
Right but from the perspective of political news, are Bush’s deleted emails news? They’re dead, nobody did anything about them, Washington has effectively endorsed Bush’s email practices. They’re not relevant to Hillary because they neither hurt nor help Hillary, political news is strictly who’s up and down and wether event X hurts or helps. The reporters don’t care about ethics or penalties, because it’s up to the politicians themselves and voters to decide what’s ethical and what the penalties shall be.
We have to stop seeing the press as referees and as actors in the process. Complaining about their unfairness is beside the point and expecting them to mediate disputes between politicians is totally counterproductive, these are disputes politicians must, in our system, resolve amongst themselves. Someone said that the MSM dropped the ball on Iran-Contra. No sorry, the Democrats failed to impeach Reagan, they dropped the ball, it was their defeat, the press are not the District Attorney of Capitol Hill.
Kenneth Kohl
@Betty Cracker:
Exactly! I don’t want the President of the United States (nor any legislator, for that matter) to perform her/his duties “on the curve”.
SiubhanDuinne
@hovercraft:
I did know that, just completely overlooked the link in your comment. Sorry!
hovercraft
@Shalimar:
Since he sees everyone as marks, what better way to line up an entire world of marks than to become the leader of the free world. Can you imagine what his name would be worth if he had ‘President’ before it. Why he could become the worlds first Trillionaire. The greatest man who ever lived, the biggest the best.
Villago Delenda Est
@efgoldman: The IMPORTANT thing here is to maintain the Narrative, no matter how obviously deceptive the Narrative is.
SiubhanDuinne
@Villago Delenda Est:
Yup. Dogged, tedious phoning, note-taking, follow-up questioning when they could be kicking back with an apricot daiquiri.
low-tech cyclist
@PPCLI:
And I remember the MSM basically shrugging, treating it as a one-day story, and not even being a big deal for that one day.
And the refusal to honor the Congressional subpoena was unprecedented in the lives of any of the reporters covering it, including the Dean himself, David Broder, who was still with us at that point. But they yawned. They really grade Republicans in general on a curve.
I was hoping that Trump, being both as ignorant and crazy, and as scandal-ridden, as he is, would have gotten the media out of their habits. But no. And if he’s elected, it’ll be on them. When he sics the entire apparatus of the Executive Branch on the newspapers he dislikes, I’ll be horrified that it has come to pass, but I won’t feel bad for the people who run those papers. Not one little bit.
Matt McIrvin
@low-tech cyclist:
I will. They won’t be the ones we’re complaining about. He’ll shut down the Daily News, not the Times.
RaflW
New Gallup poll out on the media. A not-terribly surprising plunge to 32% of Americans saying they trust the media. That’s the lowest level since 1972, when Gallup began polling. The Times is by no means exempt from pushing us this direction.
Shalimar
@hovercraft: Amazing how time flies. I haven’t read Booman Tribune regularly since a little after the time he met his wife. Now according to a casual reference in that article, they already have a six-year old. It really doesn’t seem that long ago.
BR
@Trollhattan:
The Guardian has had some incredibly bad politcal reporting this year. There was lots of Bernie and Trump are the same because establishment derp neoliberal derp brexit.
Villago Delenda Est
@RaflW: The MSM, and the Village, are worthless.
Villago Delenda Est
@Matt McIrvin: The Daily News has always called the tiny-fingered, cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing shitgibbon a tiny-fingered, cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing shitgibbon. Of course he’d shut them down.
BR
This is a topic that surpisingly Nate Silver had a good point about:
BR
This is a topic that surprisingly Nate Silver had a good point about:
Here’s a math-y way to think about the problem critics have with media coverage of Clinton and Trump. Maybe it will provide some clarity. 1/
Let’s invent a unit called the mitt, after Mitt Romney, which measures a candidate’s scandalousness. Romney himself=1 mitt (pretty low). 2/
Obama is/was also about 1 mitt. There are a few issues around the margin—e.g. Rezko. But overall, a pretty clean bill of health. 3/
On this scale, Hillary Clinton measures 5 mitts. Some stories are exaggerated. But there’s a lot there! Much more than Romney or Obama. 4/
Clinton is in fact treated by media as a 5-mitt candidate. Sometimes the balance is off. But overall she deserves—and gets—much scrutiny. 5/
But Trump is a 50-mitt candidate! There’s everything: corruption, racism, lying, fitness for office. Like nothing we’ve ever seen before. 6/
Trump gets harsh coverage. But it can’t, or doesn’t, fully scale up to his candidacy. He’s treated as a 7 mitt when he’s really a 50… 7/
Trollhattan
@BR:
Seen this?
Have only just skimmed–it’s a massive article.
Dadadadadadada
@BR: From what I’ve seen, Trump is being treated more like a 3-mitt candidate. I’m probably remembering this wrong, but I remember Mitt himself being dogged by negative press, and I just don’t see that with Trump. The only negative press for him is what he himself publishes on Twitter.
Mai.naem.mobile
@Dadadadadadada: if this is very time sensitive,i would ask your realtor(assuming you had a realtor) for a recommendation for a mortgage broker. If you got the preliminary list of closing costs from WF then you have something to compare the mortgage broker to. The mortgage ‘fee’ is where the broker socks it to you so if your bank #s are somewhat close with the broker on that, go with the broker. Also as crazy as it may sound I would go to B of A since they know your wife’s situation,and I hate B of A with a passion. I have a credit union for most of my banking but I don’t think they’re any easier to deal with when it comes to banks.
Betty Cracker
@sigaba: You seem to be conflating two different things — candidates running for office vs. elected politicians battling things out in a system in which they hold the levers of power. In the former scenario, it’s perfectly legit for us to see the press actors in the process since their function is to present information so we can make an informed choice. If they fall down on the job, most individual voters don’t have the time or resources to vet the candidates ourselves.
In the case of Iran Contra, yeah, the coverage might have been bullshit, and that’s worth noting, but it’s not the same as coverage of an election because there are actors with actual power, i.e., the opposition in Congress. The two situations are not the same.
Matt McIrvin
@Villago Delenda Est: Meanwhile, the papers and TV channels we’re complaining about would become compliant RT/Pravda-like outlets under an authoritarian Trump regime, and thrive. No crackdown necessary. That’s basically what they did during the Bush years.
eclare
@Dadadadadadada: Weren’t we already seeing ads about now featuring people who had worked at companies taken over by Bain, and then the company was bankrupted/sold/person let go? Where are the ads featuring workers Trump didn’t pay?
Villago Delenda Est
@eclare: Hell, we need ads about the small businesses Drumpf destroyed by his failure to pay them what they contracted with him to pay. Obviously, contracts are just “scraps of paper” to Teh Donald.
sigaba
@Betty Cracker: These situations are similar though because there are actors in an election, namely the opponent.
The biggest failing of the press this cycle, to me, isn’t so much the balance of the scandals as it’s been the balance of the positive coverage — Trump basically gets 4-6 hours of free television time every day, all of his rallies seem to get preemptive coverage, and everyone from the Times to Crooks and Liars is saturated with the messages of Trump surrogates. Hillary should be hitting Trump more and harder from the stump, and all of her people should basically be nonstop on message, and the press should bother actually reporting what they say. Instead we get Katrina Pierson gaffing, which is basically the news equivalent of a cat video. The press is allergic to talking about either candidates vision for the country and would much rather spend time arguing over optics and how this or that thing “plays.”
Meanwhile Hillary goes positive and it’s hardly even mentioned at all, while if Trump goes positive it’s a Double Red Siren PIVOT. The bias in our political coverage isn’t as offensive to me as the pervasive cynicism and incuriosity, and the general presumption that words don’t mean things, unless Trump says them, and then they only mean things if they imply he’s “softening” or something.
Peale
@NoraLenderbee: Its possible both is true. She could end up with higher percentages of the African American, Hispanic and Asian vote than Obama but turnout is the key. The republicans have been working under the assumption that African American voter turnout increased a lot simply because Obama was one of them and if he’s off the ballot, they won’t turn out as much. They also have been assuming that there are all these “missing white voters” who didn’t turn out. So if turnout for white voters is McCain or Bush 2004 levels and minority turnout is at 2004 levels, they’ll win the popular vote by millions. It won’t matter if Hillary wins 84% of Hispanics (an all time high) if only 30-40% of eligible Hispanic citizens show up to vote.
dogwood
@Dadadadadadada:
Mitt Romney committed the big no-no with the press. He’s just not emotionally needy enough to kiss their asses ala John McCain and most of the politicians they fawn over. So they aggressively went after every gaffe because they enjoyed it. The 47% comment is nothing compared to what Trump says every day. This is also the problem they have with Obama, another non-needy generally happy human being. It’s probably something in the natures of both Obama and Romney that make them this way, but as a certified arm-chair psychologist I think people who have good marriages, good family lives and friends tend to be less needy in general.
japa21
@BR: A few things wrong with his ratings. First of all, Obama would be a minus 3 mitts. Mitt had a lot of scandals that could have been reported on but weren’t to any degree. Rezko turned into a nothingburger because it was a nothingburger.
Clinton at most would be a 2 mitt candidate and actually, if things were reported accurately, would probably be either a minus 1 mitt or a 1 mitt.
rikyrah
@NoraLenderbee:
Ferret Head is at 1% with Blacks
Under 20% with Latinos.
How is that not support for Hillary?
debbie
@Dadadadadadada:
First, be very, very wary of mortgage brokers. They were the originators of liar’s loans lo those many years ago.
Credit unions or community banks will be more flexible; friends of mine who financed their previous house with Chase couldn’t believe what a difference it was to work with a community bank when they moved to a new house.
I believe foreclosure usually comes off credit reports after 7 years, but have you tried getting a letter of explanation from your wife’s bank? Or is there documentation showing they admitted the error?
J R in WV
@Dadadadadadada:
You need a personal injury lawyer to meet with the banker who is screwing you. He needs to know he is costing you a lot of money, and you intend it to come out of his pocket, and what he can’t make good will come out of Wells Fargo’s pocket.
If they don’t have good business reasons to suddenly switch horses in the middle of the stream, after making demands that you spend lots of money to meet, I think they have incurred a lot of liability. You can be meek, but you need a lawyer who will be stern for you.
J R in WV
@catclub:
No, in fact McClatchy has a pretty good reputation as a real journalism outlet. Knight-Ridder was also pretty good, and the merger didn’t hurt anyone’s rep for good work.
J R in WV
@Starfish:
This! Credit agencies are required to clean up errors; if you have a letter from BofA admitting error, send a notarized copy to the three credit reporting agencies demanding that they correct their records AND that they send new credit reports to anyone involved that you care about. Wells Fargo would need to review your application in light of the revised credit report, I would think, but still…
Since Wells Fargo is showing their agility at shifty banking, perhaps a locally owned bank might be interested? We still have those, and they usually have more money to lend than credit unions do.