The New York Times Is Doing It AGAIN

[FelineOverlord]

They seem desperate to always pump up Trump and bring down the Democrats.

The "tone" was different. You know they mean Trump's. The comments and retweets are lit.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Joe "tried to frame"

Link to tweet

[marlakay]

1. Such bullshit!

I could tell from start of debate he was on valium, no way could he be calm on his own.

He was like a mental patient on heavy drugs to settle down and they consider that presidential?

[BlueTsunami2018]

3. He's a performer, a used car salesman.

Everything he’s done is an act. The manic shit, the calm shit, the dumber than the wall shit. He’s always acting. He’s ignorant as hell but he isn’t stupid, he’s evil. Everything he does is calculated.

[Turin_C3PO]

6. I disagree.

He and the rest of his administration are the biggest bunch of buffoons I've ever seen. Totally incompetent.

[BlueTsunami2018]

9. Yes, incompetent.

Because he has no idea what the job entails, has zero working knowledge of government, is utterly ignorant to the problems we’re really facing and is only interested in self interest. The people actually working the policy are doing almost all of this stuff on purpose. They are deliberately doing these things and he’s out there selling himself to idiots. He’s performing.

[pwb]

2. I hear it was better.

I didn't watch.

[bullimiami]

4. trumps right about one thing. the new york times is a failed institution.

the day they have to shutter it they will have no one to blame but themselves.

[Hoyt]

5. Don't think the article is that far off. Don't see how anyone could read it and think they are

pumping up trump. They didn't call him a lying, vile sack-of-chit, but they didn't say he's a good man either.

Best a GOPer strategist quoted could come up with was the debate was a draw.

"Over all, Colin Reed, a Republican strategist, said the debate was a draw. “Both candidates came prepared not only in tone and tenor, but also substantively,” he said. “For Biden, a push is a win right now. Trump is the one who needed the knockout blow.”"

[FelineOverlord]

11. Don't think the article is that far off. Don't see how anyone could read it and think they are

It's the WAY the NYT and other media outlets tries to frame things. Over and over again.

They keep expecting him to act NORMAL.

They keep talking about a change in "tone."

And how many articles has the Times had in the last few years about talking to Trump voters in diners? Especially in blue areas and how isolated these poor dimwits felt.

Or when they tried to claim a bunch of people they interviewed were "swing" voters when one of the people they spoke to had been to 23 Trump rallies? And they had quoted her in several other articles.

NONE of the people interviewed for the article were swing voters. Not one.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

And how many times MAGA "Access" Haberman has done PR work for Trump and some of her Times buddies leap to her defense on Twitter when she gets called out?

[Yeehah]

19. This is inexcusable for a supposedly objective journalist

This would be a serious issue for a reporter at any decent small town newspaper. The NYT should be embarrassed that someone caught this clear and intentional misrepresentation.

[David__77]

7. I don't see a problem with that headline/narrative.

...

[maxsolomon]

8. Did you read the A section of the NYT this morning?

I did. Taken as a whole, it was scathing. As usual. They are anything but "desperate to always pump up Trump". They despise him, and they can't hide it all that well.

Your complaint is that the NYT, as corporate policy, tries to maintain their particular standard of journalistic objectivity in the language they utilize. If you can't accept that, don't read them.

[Deacon Blue]

10. K & R

I read it while working early voting in Texas. Not kind to tRump in any sense. Lotsa other good stuff too. Love the Grey Lady...

[FelineOverlord]

12. Totally Disagree

This is painful for me, because I grew up reading the New York Times on a daily basis.

It was a very important part of my life. I studied journalism in high school and college and have worked as a newspaper reporter.

Their hatred of Hillary in 2016 helped lead us to Trump. They reported on Hillary's emails over 600 days in a row.

Meanwhile, everyone in New York knew that Trump was one of the most corrupt people on earth.

A few days before the election the Times claimed that Trump had NO connections to Russia, according to the FBI. None.

What happened to fact-checking?

This despite his apparent business interests in the Soviet Union the Times wrote about way back in 1987.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/02/nyregion/trump-gives-a-vague-hint-of-candidacy.html

But "Access" Haberman is important to them despite her years of promoting Trump.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/is-trump-whisperer-maggie-haberman-changing-the-new-york-times

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/maggie-haberman-best-house-reporter-ever-hated-trump-democrats.html

Anyway, the media wants "clicks" because print in dead and this is how they make money.

Who cares if democracy is destroyed in the process?

[maxsolomon]

16. You're rehashing 2016.

They have not been doing that in 2020. Yes, Haberman is still there; she wrote a piece today.

Since you're a low-count poster, you may not have been around DU the last, say, 20 years, and don't know that this topic has been hashed and re-hashed in 1,000s of OPs. Often it's directed at some formless "MSM", but you're not making any fresh observations.

Democracy is always "dying". The NYT can't save it.

[triron]

13. Mr Jollet has it right 110%.

As I posted earlier any high scholl student with Trump's performance would receive an 'F'
and be laughed off the stage by fellow students. NYT comment is sick.

[Hortensis]

14. Yes, they are. I noticed also of course. Same people in charge with same agenda. nt

[Marius25]

15. If you have a subscription, I would recommend

cancelling it and telling them that them normalizing fascism and dictator Trump is why you're cancelling their trash paper.

[maxsolomon]

17. And then re-subscribe and then re-cancel it.

That'll teach 'em!

[crimycarny]

18. ..." the ability to lie in a dignified manner does not really confer presidential dignity"

That’s an excerpt from one of the CNN analysts who gave their take on the debate. It caught my eye because we’ve all become numb to the lying. If this same debate had happened 4 years ago, the headline would be chock full of shock about the number of lies Trump told. Also his behavior. Even though it was slightly better than his meltdown on the first debate, it was still horrific.

But what’s truly horrific is how far we’ve fallen. 4 years ago “who won the debate?” would be like Biden 80, Trump 20 (or an even wider margin). Today many of us are saying Trump won or it was a tie. Trump’s win in 2016 truly shook my faith in our country. His subsequent crimes and corruption with nothing to check him has brought me to my knees. Trump must be defeated. NYT’s and other media outlet have a duty to continue to point out the lies—make THAT the main story—regardless of how commonplace it has become.