The basic story about Trump is his gross incompetence, psychiatric unfitness, and eager embodiment of our long tradition of Know Nothingism. But the whole corporate media ecology, including the paper of record, rests on selling ads, and that requires meta-balance, even when that isn't remotely realistic.
Very good points criticizing the NYT reporting and choice of external opinion pieces. Trump and Vance any utterance is reported and amplified, but Harris statements don´t get the same treatment. The editorial endorsing Harris is not sufficient to offset that.
The news "business" requires conflict and controversy to generate interest and profits. "That evil President not letting us call the shots" plays that up. And it's also an incredibly lazy and simplistic view of the situation.
These aren't normal times and this has been a far from a normal campaign - scheduling for EVERYTHING is compressed for lack of time. The point is, I wouldn't read a single thing from campaign practices during this particular campaign into how or what form actual Administration processes and policies might take once this temporary unique situation is over and we switch back again to real life. I mean, for all we know, her desire might be to devote every Saturday to long form press interviews - we dont know. But the short 13 week time frame in which EVERYTHING has to be done doesn't lend itself to that being a priority when deciding the best way to get her message out to the American people. This is politics. Let the politicians decide how best to spend their time and effect their strategy - not network execs who obvs have a much more limited and profit-oriented worldview and an agenda quite different than VP Harris. And certainly dont assume Harris Administration practices will be the exact same as Harris Campaign practices.
Candidate Trump famously gave money to a lady in a Supermarket the other day. Do you really think President Trump will ever be seen in an actual Supermarket, nevermind handing out money? Campaigning is entirely it's own animal.
Yes, but it will take years for the Times to respond to it intelligently. Expect a decade of pouting. The adjective that best fits the Times is "ossified."
Nate Silver, their own expert, was giving Trump a one-third chance of winning in 2016. Baquet is pathetic -- and actually in line with a long history of poor performance by The Gray Lady. As used to be well documented by LOOT: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22lies+of+our+times%22+archive
Personally speaking, the other thing that is getting buried due to our reigning journalistic "balance" conventions is basic reporting on one-person, one-vote. If not for our shameless flouting of that elementary standard, Trump would be a has-been peddling tacky condos in Atlantic City.
There has never been literal "one person, one vote." The electoral college, along with the senate, was created in order to give states with small populations disproportionate voting power. This was the bargain to persuade the small states to join the union. Of course both the senate and electoral college are complete out of date but changing the constitution is extremely difficult.
There was NO disgraceful handling of 'sensitive' emails by HRC.
In sum total, there were merely THREE (highly non-standard) classification marks on anything, and all three were marked with a (c) in the body of the text (not at the top of the page, indicating the classifying authority and time limitations if any, as IS the standard for actual classified materials-- along with a paragraph marker showing where the classified information is cited). Under questioning, Comey admitted that the absence of such standard markings failed to alert the recipient of the classified status who was thereby not on notice.
The 'confidential' ('c') classification is the lowest level of classification, and it can be sent in the regular mails using the USPS. Moreover, one of the (c) markings was erroneous, because by then the planned call being referenced had occurred and so the (c) aspect was expired.
There were matters that were later classified, which were not classified at that time. And the claimed offending information in her emails was originated by State Dept. staff, only 'sent' by her by her responses to those messages (where the original message was copied in line with her reply). Later, an extensive Inspector General investigation of about 12 State Dept. officials who had sent her those messages determined that none of them had committed any national security harm or crime.
Concerning the alleged bias and/or corruption of the Trump judicial appointments, I guess a credentialed economist may wish to consider the findings of:
The basic story about Trump is his gross incompetence, psychiatric unfitness, and eager embodiment of our long tradition of Know Nothingism. But the whole corporate media ecology, including the paper of record, rests on selling ads, and that requires meta-balance, even when that isn't remotely realistic.
Very good points criticizing the NYT reporting and choice of external opinion pieces. Trump and Vance any utterance is reported and amplified, but Harris statements don´t get the same treatment. The editorial endorsing Harris is not sufficient to offset that.
Must.... Preserve..... Access....
But it seems Harris has their number now and access to a Harris administration may be quite limited.
The news "business" requires conflict and controversy to generate interest and profits. "That evil President not letting us call the shots" plays that up. And it's also an incredibly lazy and simplistic view of the situation.
These aren't normal times and this has been a far from a normal campaign - scheduling for EVERYTHING is compressed for lack of time. The point is, I wouldn't read a single thing from campaign practices during this particular campaign into how or what form actual Administration processes and policies might take once this temporary unique situation is over and we switch back again to real life. I mean, for all we know, her desire might be to devote every Saturday to long form press interviews - we dont know. But the short 13 week time frame in which EVERYTHING has to be done doesn't lend itself to that being a priority when deciding the best way to get her message out to the American people. This is politics. Let the politicians decide how best to spend their time and effect their strategy - not network execs who obvs have a much more limited and profit-oriented worldview and an agenda quite different than VP Harris. And certainly dont assume Harris Administration practices will be the exact same as Harris Campaign practices.
Candidate Trump famously gave money to a lady in a Supermarket the other day. Do you really think President Trump will ever be seen in an actual Supermarket, nevermind handing out money? Campaigning is entirely it's own animal.
Yes, but it will take years for the Times to respond to it intelligently. Expect a decade of pouting. The adjective that best fits the Times is "ossified."
tDrumpf/Vance pronouncements get amplified.
Biden/Kamala's get fact checked.
Nate Silver, their own expert, was giving Trump a one-third chance of winning in 2016. Baquet is pathetic -- and actually in line with a long history of poor performance by The Gray Lady. As used to be well documented by LOOT: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22lies+of+our+times%22+archive
Personally speaking, the other thing that is getting buried due to our reigning journalistic "balance" conventions is basic reporting on one-person, one-vote. If not for our shameless flouting of that elementary standard, Trump would be a has-been peddling tacky condos in Atlantic City.
There has never been literal "one person, one vote." The electoral college, along with the senate, was created in order to give states with small populations disproportionate voting power. This was the bargain to persuade the small states to join the union. Of course both the senate and electoral college are complete out of date but changing the constitution is extremely difficult.
I understand there was a reason at the time. It is outdated. Grossly.
However awful Trump is it is the job of the NYT to report important
and relevant news. Yes Jack Smith's claims should be reported and
yes Hilary's disgraceful handling of sensitive emails should have been
reported. Election prospects and polling ought to be immaterial.
There was NO disgraceful handling of 'sensitive' emails by HRC.
In sum total, there were merely THREE (highly non-standard) classification marks on anything, and all three were marked with a (c) in the body of the text (not at the top of the page, indicating the classifying authority and time limitations if any, as IS the standard for actual classified materials-- along with a paragraph marker showing where the classified information is cited). Under questioning, Comey admitted that the absence of such standard markings failed to alert the recipient of the classified status who was thereby not on notice.
The 'confidential' ('c') classification is the lowest level of classification, and it can be sent in the regular mails using the USPS. Moreover, one of the (c) markings was erroneous, because by then the planned call being referenced had occurred and so the (c) aspect was expired.
There were matters that were later classified, which were not classified at that time. And the claimed offending information in her emails was originated by State Dept. staff, only 'sent' by her by her responses to those messages (where the original message was copied in line with her reply). Later, an extensive Inspector General investigation of about 12 State Dept. officials who had sent her those messages determined that none of them had committed any national security harm or crime.
Concerning the alleged bias and/or corruption of the Trump judicial appointments, I guess a credentialed economist may wish to consider the findings of:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4950475