NYT reporter says their nonstop coverage of Biden's age is retribution

[bigtree]

Eric Schultz @EricSchultz 10m
wow - NYT reporter says their nonstop coverage of Biden’s age is retribution for not giving their boss an interview:

“It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219



emptywheel @emptywheel
Anon NYT journo says that A.G. will demand the NYT relentlessly focus on Biden's age unless and until the nepotistic brat and presumed transphobe activist gets an interview with Biden personally.


__According to interviews with two dozen people on both sides who were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject, the relationship between the Democratic president and the country’s newspaper of record — for years the epitome of a liberal press in the eyes of conservatives — remains remarkably tense, beset by misunderstandings, grudges and a general lack of trust. Complaints that were long kept private are even spilling into public view, with campaign aides in Wilmington going further than their colleagues in the White House and routinely blasting the paper’s coverage in emails, posts on social media and memos.

Although the president’s communications teams bristle at coverage from dozens of outlets, the frustration, and obsession, with the Times is unique, reflecting the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organization catering to an elite audience — and a deep desire for its affirmation of their work. On the other side, the newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that Publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219

Link to tweet

[NoMoreRepugs]

1. Let's see how the shitBird NYT responds to the revelations being out in the open.

[tavernier]

2. This guy sounds like a real jerk.

And has a bit of a Trump complex himself.

[ificandream]

14. Agreed. And I doubt that their source is what he says he is.

A real journalist wouldn't say something like that, especially if he gives a shit about his job. I think Politico should have vetted this guy a little more. And if he does work for the Times, he won't be much longer.

[LiberalArkie]

33. It comes from the inherited wealth it seems.

[Voltaire2]

3. And those of us pointing out the obvious bias

at the NYT are just entirely shocked.

[yardwork]

6. I'm curious to see if any of the perennial NYT apologists will comment.

[Voltaire2]

8. I'm wondering what horrible insult Clinton

Did to deserve her mistreatment.

[mopinko]

13. did bill take a shot at them during the impeachment?

or is it just that he didnt resign after they decreed he shd?

[ificandream]

21. I don't think the Clinton coverage was bias. It was inexperience.

No one had dealt with a clown like Trump before. I think a lot of it had to do with clickbait. And there may have been some female stereotyping involved in the way they dealt with her. But I think this "reporter" either isn't one or won't be much longer.

[NanaCat]

42. The negative NYT coverage of the Clintons started

Long before HRC v TSF.

And it's not inexperience--that's just beyond naive for a newspaper that's been around in NYC for over a century.

It's complicity with the oligarch agenda. They have been gunning for Democrats since, well, forever.

WAKE UP.

[ificandream]

47. The Times didn't start the negative coverage. The right-wing media did.

The Clintons were targets of Fox when Bill was president. That's not to say the Times didn't do investigative stories about them. They did. Whitewater was an example. But as much as we don't like these kind of stories, the press will report on them. Certainly, Whitewater laid the groundwork for what Hillary had to deal with later. I wouldn't say the Times is naive. Not even a little. They're not perfect, but they look for facts a hell of a lot more than the right-wing media.

[PatSeg]

22. She was a female candidate for President

That was more than enough.

[dsc]

28. marrying Bill Clinton whom they loathed with the power of a billion suns

[shrike3]

40. Bill Clinton was, is, an incredibly brilliant man from a poor background.

The anecdotes I've read about him have put me in awe of his brilliance. I think that's where at least some of the resentment comes from. He's so much smarter than they are but doesn't come from their world, and they hate that.

[edhopper]

9. Including 5 random NYT articles

that aren't about age.

[dchill]

61. Claude Rains would be shocked, as well.

[ShazzieB]

66. LOL!

[malaise]

4. Hmmmmmm

His major at Brown was Ethical Culture?

Ah well.

[et tu]

11. he either slept through

those classes or skipped-
corporate journalism=yellow journalism

[Lonestarblue]

5. This does not surprise me.

I believe Sulzberger was also behind the Times’ extremely negative coverage of Clinton in 2016, including publishing an excerpt from the totally biased, conspiracy-laden book Clinton Cash.

Trump received mostly positive coverage in 2016, and that continues now. Sulzberger sounds like a petulant child who believes his wishes should take precedence over those of the President of the United States. Biden has a few more important things to do than kowtow to a media bully.

[NanaCat]

43. Also a key player in all of the hate on Democrats

That the New Hork Slimes has been spewing against Democrats since, well, forever.

They've only been blatant about being ever-so-willing to regurgitate right wing lies the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, and every BS claim against Obama.

And don't forget that TSF was running an organized crime front, right under their very noses, but they couldn't be bothered to notice that.

[2naSalit]

7. All the more reason...

For the readers to sanction them by ending subscriptions.

[NNadir]

15. Done some months back. I should have done so with, "...but her emails"

[LittleGirl]

25. we cancelled last fall. I don't miss it. NT

[SergeStorms]

10. How petty and selfish.

"A.G." would prefer a fascist slimeball in the White House?

[Ford_Prefect]

12. Actually A.G. believes he's above it all, like so many of his idols. Imagine that?

[Farmer-Rick]

34. Even when the Nazis

Break out their black boots to trample on our democracy, the filthy-rich think they will be safe. They forget about all the very rich Jewish people Hitler stole from.

Hate knows no bounds. Wealth will not keep a Nazi dictator from attacking you too. You could simply state you are against a policy and find yourself falling out of a window in Russia.

In 1930 Germany, Jewish estimated net wealth (in Reichsmarks) was 20 billion. In 1938 it was 4.5 billion. The filthy- rich are not protected by their bubble of wealth no matter how much they delude themselves. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1289274/estimates-jewish-net-wealth-nazi-germany/

[DBoon]

54. Fritz Thyssen found this out when he was interred at Dachau

Though of course he was treated much better than the other inmates, he still found that financing the Nazi Party did not make him immune to its reach

[Farmer-Rick]

65. Wow, I looked him up

He was an early supporter of Hitler and funded the Nazis a lot. He was so rich that a magazine cover had him as the puppet master of Hitler. As if he was the oligarch manipulating Hitler.

All his wealth and support meant little to the Nazis who sent him off to the concentration camps when they caught him traveling between France and Belgium visiting his ill mother. Luckily he was still alive when America and Russia arrived and released the concentration camp victims. A lot of other people were not as lucky.

No amount of wealth is going to protect you if a dictator and Nazis target you. They can even catch up with you in another country.

[PortTack]

16. Anyone still have a subscription....if so why??!!

[ificandream]

24. Because it's one of the two best newspapers (along with the WashPost) in the country.

Last edited Thu Apr 25, 2024, 10:02 AM - Edit history (2)

If you're looking for bad "journalism," look at Fox or any of the right-wing media. Real journalists are not cheerleaders. It's ironic that Fox used a motto like "we report, you decide" when they don't report. The Times and the Post aren't there to be an echo chamber. They report facts. They're not perfect but they try damn hard. Fox (and the other right-wing media garbage) are the real dangers to this country, not The Times. Fox is a scumbag outfit run by a guy who is only out to make money, not do journalism. And their most popular shows are by three idiots (Hannity, Ingraham and former O'Reilly gofer Watters) who don't know what truth is. They and Fox and the right-wing media in general are the ones we should be scared of, not the Times.

[NanaCat]

44. No, it is not a good newspaper

It claims to be that...but it's not. The few right stories they get does not make up for the vast majority of wrong ones they puke up.

They have devoted literally hundreds of thousands of pages alleging criminal behaviour on the part of the Clintons, and 99% of it proved to be blatant, filthy lies. The only thing that wasn't a lie was the blow job, which wasn't a crime. Only the lying about it was.

And don't get me started on the Iraq War they pushed and screeched for, as hard as ShrubCo.

They are not the paper they pat themselves on the back for being. They never were. That's what too many of the cheerleaders of this traitor rag refuse to grasp.

[maxsolomon]

46. "Vast majority"? Sounds like you monitor it closely.

How do you do that without a subscription?

The NYT is flawed. For instance, far too much focus on terrible pop music. But I can see the flaws and read around it. There's so much that's good to great that I'd never read in my local POS paper.

[Think. Again.]

53. You might still be thinking of...

...what NYT was before it got sold.

[soldierant]

64. Nana Cat is right.

It was a good newspaper once. It didn't become "the paper of record" without being good. Slowly but surely it has slipped into what it now is. And money was the reason.

I'm 78. I remember good journalism. If you want it today, try The Guardian. The New Yorker does some gret in-depth investigations, but it doesn't even come close to covering everything that needs to be investigated. And it tends to look at things no one else sees.

The Washington Post is probably no worse than the New York Times, but it's also no better.

[TBF]

27. I still subscribe to the Times & Wash Post -

they were my go to papers when I lived & worked in the District. They've both gone steadily downhill however ... I really should cancel the NYT.

[KS Toronado]

17. Love to see Biden do a short interview with A.G.

And Biden gets to ask all the questions......."Why are you helping Fascists wanting to kill Democracy?" etc, etc

[Happy Hoosier]

18. So, "give us an interview ro we give you bad coverage?"

Now THAT is journalistitic integrity.

[The Unmitigated Gall]

30. Thug Journalism.

“Nice little presidency you got there…be a shame if…”

[shrike3]

41. Nothing in this story surprises me.

I used to work in media. A big problem in that institution has always been egos. It goes up and down the line, large media and small.

[JohnSJ]

19. "retribution". Sounds just like trump. So glad I cancelled my subscription to The NY Times, after they accused

President Obama's hubris of causing republicans to reject global warming.

[Wonder Why]

20. Their new motto: "All the ethics we don't use when we print"

[JohnSJ]

23. Sulzberger allegedly told employees to court conservative readers, so this should come as no surprise.

"According to anonymous sources within the newspaper's staff, upon taking his position in 2018 Sulzburger "told employees explicitly that his biggest concern was that the paper’s audience saw it as a 'liberal rag...' [his] vision for the paper is to change that perception and court conservative readers."[44][45] However, this view was refuted by The Economist, which published a study evidencing a gradual leftward shift in the partisan slant of The New York Times, beginning in 2017.[46] The New York Times' former opinion section editor, James Bennet, in light of the paper's Tom Cotton controversy, also disagreed, arguing that by catering to a partisan readership and an influx of new journalists focusing on digital content the New York Times under A.G. Sulzberger had taken on an "illiberal bias".[47]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._G._Sulzberger

The OP to this thread seems to support the assertion

[SleeplessinSoCal]

26. When and why have so many big shots in this country become so petty?

[TBF]

31. I doubt it's new - it's just that everything is so much more in the public eye now with social media, etc.

Now we are seeing our "leaders" for what they really are. Putin, Netanyahu, Trump, etc ... Joe Biden may be elderly but he is looking pretty darned good by comparison to any of them.

[summer_in_TX]

29. This "either you do a sit-down interview with us, OR we'll harp on your age, and whatever else" is coercive.

But so many of those running for office at any level these days refuse to do sit-down interviews with newspaper editorial teams. They cut them out of the equation. That's bad for democracy writ large.

In Texas, we pretty much never get any Republican candidates who will sit down for an interview and so the voters don't get a sense of how they respond to nuanced questions. Even if we disagree with the newspaper's endorsements, at least they would detail their reasons based on the interviews, allowing far more information than candidate-controlled PR does.

If the campaign team doesn't want him to do interviews with news media lest video be misused, then print media interviews avoid that potential pitfall.

We need a norm where candidates up and down the ballot respect the public need for independent eyes up close. No one likes to be on the receiving end of coercion though. Not surprised if Biden has his Irish up.

Too bad the anonymous source didn't just quietly tip off the Biden team so this wouldn't be a high profile "thing" now.

[NanaCat]

45. A smart candidate does not do interviews

With newspapers that have a credible history of dishonesty and blatant partisanship. You especially don't do interviews with a paper that is known to promote dishonesty about your party and its members if you're a politician.

The NYT is one of them.

[dlk]

32. With the chairman's petulant attitude, it's not surprising President Biden hasn't elected to give an interview

Why would he?

[orangecrush]

35. All the news

As we see fit.

[jalan48]

36. Right. And how many interviews has Trump given?

[Prof. Toru Tanaka]

37. I like the NYT's word games and puzzles.

As for the paper itself, I give it a big raspberry. Sulzberger has done a real disservice to the Gray Lady.

[shrike3]

38. Peter Baker gave the game away during an interview post-Hur report.

Said exactly that: Biden hasn't given interviews to a major newspaper. Translation: to the NYT. Anyone who's been paying attention isn't surprised at all by this report.

[surfered]

39. I thought newspapers were in the business of reporting the news, not retribution.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. They are all too often in the business of flattering the owner's ego - "power without responsibility"

The two press lords were doing all possible to oust Baldwin, by supporting a new party, founded by Beaverbrook, to press for Empire Free Trade. In March 1931 there was a by-election in St George’s Westminster, in which Beaverbrook and Rothermere ran an Empire Free Trade candidate against Duff Cooper for the Conservatives.

Through their columns they accused Baldwin of running an ‘insolent plutocracy’ and of being clueless on how to improve the country’s faltering economy. Three days before the vote, on March 17, 1931, Baldwin counterattacked in a scathing speech.

The newspapers attacking me are not newspapers in the ordinary sense. They are engines of propaganda for the constantly changing policies, desires, personal vices, personal likes and dislikes of the two men. What are their methods? Their methods are direct false- hoods misrepresentation, half-truths, the alteration of the speaker’s meaning by publishing a sentence apart from the context…What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages

.

‘Power without responsibility’ was a phrase Kipling had coined in 1916 in a conversation with Beaverbrook, whom he knew well and was coming to mistrust. In 1931 it turned the tide for Duff Cooper, and the candidate of the press lords was defeated.

https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/quotation/quotes_harlot.htm

[FelineOverlord]

49. Lapdogs Peter Baker and Jonathan Swan have rushed to Sulzberger's defense

emptywheel
@emptywheel
Peter Baker says that the shoddy coverage the NYT has given Joe Biden is the very best they're capable of.

Link to tweet

Peter Baker
@peterbakernyt
Agreed. I’ve never heard AG say anything like that nor anyone else at the @nytimes
. It's just not the way it works. AG wants us to cover this president -- and every president -- as fully, fairly and aggressively as we can because that's our role. That's true regardless of whether we get an interview. AG takes our responsibility very seriously and is a complete straight shooter.

Link to tweet

Jonathan Swan
@jonathanvswan
Fwiw, I have spoken to AG over the past year about this topic & this caricature is unrecognizable. I never usually comment on media stories but this irritated me bc it's such a bs mischaracterization of his views about the importance of serious longform presidential interviews.

John Harwood
@JohnJHarwood
·
"In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency." https://politico.com/news/magazine/

Link to tweet

New York Times Pitchbot
@DougJBalloon
Donald Trump has the courage to face a New York City jury. So why doesn't Joe Biden have the courage to face the New York Times editorial board?

Link to tweet

[malthaussen]

50. This is just petty and stupid enough to be real. n/t

[Think. Again.]

51. It's a shame..

The New York Times was a respectable paper before the sale.

[The Roux Comes First]

52. Talk About Petty and Vindictive!

The Times does Mrs, Trunchbull!!

[OnDoutside]

55. The New York Times is on the same election rigging level as the National Enquirer

[kimbutgar]

56. I remember reading are article being interviewed by USA Today

So he does do newspaper interviews. Maybe it’s because the NYT is biased against him?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/05/06/biden-hunter-done-nothing-wrong/70190647007/

In his first one-on-one interview since announcing a 2024 reelection bid, President Joe Biden defended his son, Hunter, who has faced intense scrutiny by Republicans over his financial dealings, prompting wide-ranging inquiries into Biden and the Biden family by the GOP-led House.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

57. The Petty Feud Between the NYT and the White House

I cancelled my subscription to the NYT back in 2015/2016 due to the coverage of Hillary. The NYT does a horrible job on covering Democrats and it is clear that the NYT editorial board is trying to punish President Biden

Link to tweet

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219

The seemingly minor incident over sourcing might not have escalated or triggered such emotional responses on both sides if not for tensions between the White House and the Times that had been bubbling beneath the surface for at least the last five years. Biden’s closest aides had come to see the Times as arrogant, intent on setting its own rules and unwilling to give Biden his due. Inside the paper’s D.C. bureau, the punitive response seemed to typify a press operation that was overly sensitive and determined to control coverage of the president.

According to interviews with two dozen people on both sides who were granted anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject, the relationship between the Democratic president and the country’s newspaper of record — for years the epitome of a liberal press in the eyes of conservatives — remains remarkably tense, beset by misunderstandings, grudges and a general lack of trust. Complaints that were long kept private are even spilling into public view, with campaign aides in Wilmington going further than their colleagues in the White House and routinely blasting the paper’s coverage in emails, posts on social media and memos.

Although the president’s communications teams bristle at coverage from dozens of outlets, the frustration, and obsession, with the Times is unique, reflecting the resentment of a president with a working-class sense of himself and his team toward a news organization catering to an elite audience — and a deep desire for its affirmation of their work. On the other side, the newspaper carries its own singular obsession with the president, aggrieved over his refusal to give the paper a sit-down interview that Publisher AG Sulzberger and other top editors believe to be its birthright.

The president’s press flacks might bemoan what they see as the entitlement of Times staffers, but they themselves put the newspaper on the highest of pedestals given its history, stature and unparalleled reach. And yet, they see the Times falling short in a make-or-break moment for American democracy, stubbornly refusing to adjust its coverage as it strives for the appearance of impartial neutrality, often blurring the asymmetries between former President Donald Trump and Biden when it comes to their perceived flaws and vastly different commitments to democratic principles.....

Although the newspaper, like most mainstream outlets with a heavy White House presence, devoted pages of coverage to the president’s early legislative successes, its unrelenting focus on Biden’s advanced age and his low numbers in the NYT’s approval poll have frustrated the president and top aides to no end. Beyond that, they bemoan the newspaper’s penchant for sweepy comparisons, analytical reporter memos — referred to in the Biden press shop as “opinion pieces” or “diary entries” — and story frames that seem consistently skeptical.......

The Times’ desire for a sit-down interview with Biden by the newspaper’s White House team is no secret around the West Wing or within the D.C. bureau. Getting the president on the record with the paper of record is a top priority for publisher A.G. Sulzberger. So much so that last May, when Vice President Kamala Harris arrived at the newspaper’s midtown headquarters for an off-the-record meeting with around 40 Times journalists, Sulzberger devoted several minutes to asking her why Biden was still refusing to grant the paper — or any major newspaper — an interview. Harris, according to three people in the room that day, suggested that he contact the White House press office and later grumbled to aides about the back-and-forth being a waste of the allotted time......

When describing their grievances with the Times, almost every Biden administration and campaign official used the word “entitled” to characterize the institution writ large and several of the individuals within the newsroom, where “Timesian” is an adjective routinely deployed without irony. Those officials described reporters who refused to correct minor errors or mischaracterizations in stories or those who haven’t been willing to engage with anyone besides the most senior administration officials. That said, many White House officials maintain productive working relationships with most of the Times reporters who cover the beat.

I am glad that I cancelled my subscription to the NYT and I tend to discount NYT coverage of President Biden

[Iggo]

58. Okay so that's it then.

[keithbvadu2]

59. Do they still emphasize the term 'Sleepy Joe'?

[live love laugh]

60. Republican OWNED media does this all the time. No surprise.

[D23MIURG23]

62. The Judith Miller Times Strikes Again!

Every time you think they've hit rock bottom, they find a way to unpleasantly surprise you. How long before they are taking payoffs to kill damaging stories for Trump? I hear the National Enquirer got a lot of access that way.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

63. The NYT needs an enema.