“But that’s too easy if you’re the Times, an institution that has never met a story it couldn’t water down”
DAMN – light them up Drew!
transcriptoin_error on
The New York Times has really taken a dive. It used to be trustworthy.
> We’re just over a month away from the presidential election and, if you ask the New York Times, the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president/Keystone kriminal Donald Trump remains “deadlocked.” Despite the fact that Trump is losing in Pennsylvania, a state he needs to win, by four points. Despite the fact that polls in North Carolina just turned in Harris’ favor. Despite the fact that a grassroots campaign for Harris, one that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, sprung up the instant her boss ceded his spot in the race to her. Despite the fact that Trump got his ass beat in a nationally televised debate with Harris after repeating, with supreme gusto, the lie that Haitian immigrants in Ohio are eating people’s pets. The lie that his own running mate openly said was a lie. […]
bl3ckm3mba on
Always has been. But this is some diatribe about polling.
Apparently they weren’t washed while lending credence to “the Manchurians are mind controlling us”, at every moment of the Cold War especially during Regan while amplifying the *imagined* Team B intel of Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld, obscuring to this day the US’ role in Lebanon, Nicaragua, East Timor, Chile, Guatemala, Indonesia and Grenada with limited hangouts, or even during WMD and selling the “war on terror”. Nope, it’s the electoral horse race that did it.
OppositeDifference on
I have to agree at this point. NYT has been absolutely terrible this election cycle. There’s no crazy shit on the Republican side that they’re not willing to water down and normalize, yet there’s no criticism of Kamala that’s too small, petty, or unimportant to highlight. They’re trying to make the news instead of report it, and even their polling has been an outlier to everyone else’s despite them previously being among the best in that department.
They need the horse race and the close contest to the point where they’re willing to try to report it into existence.
Silo-Joe on
I hate any article in The NY Times that starts with “What your need to know” or “Here’s the what you need to know. “
… and the local NY coverage is laughable.
TintedApostle on
The author is pretty spot on here. The times is like the Sunday political shows now. When republicans are in power they have more Republican guests and when Dems are in power they have more Republican guests or allow last rebuttals to the dem guests.
The NY Times is too busy washing down Trump to normalize the most egregious actions and lies. To the times a nuclear bomb is equal to a firecracker if it gets clicks.
A case study into how to lose as much credibility as you can in as short a period as possible. Truly a stunning achievement.
StormOk7544 on
But the election IS roughly a coin flip at the moment. I’m not sure why this writer is so upset at NYT for saying so.
a9JDvXLWHumjaC on
Awesome, a “NYTimes” article that finally has truth in it.
But of course, it had to be Drew to add that honesty.
>You don’t have to work terribly hard to sum up this race as it stands: Harris is destroying Trump, because Trump is a deranged old s—tbag. See how easy that was? But that’s too easy if you’re the Times, an institution that has never met a story it couldn’t water down. Rather than give it to you straight, the paper of record has opted, as ever, to give you its patented strain of prestige clickbait.
dbag3o1 on
Nytimes also downplayed Hitler and spewed nazi talking points. It has always been fond of fascism.
Time to abolish this trash paper.
Accidental-Hyzer on
You know what? I’m perfectly fine with the media reporting how close the race is, that it’s going to be razor thin in all of the battleground states. Keep reporting that, even if polling show Harris up by 7 points in these states.
Complacency due to reporting was possibly a factor in Clinton’s loss in 2016, so if anything, this sort of reporting benefits Harris. And in the end, it doesn’t really matter all that much. It’s like fans complaining about the power rankings of their favorite team, when it’s the outcome of games that matters. Polling is power rankings. The game is the actual election.
VIRGO_SUPERCLUSTERZ on
NYT has brainworms. They’ve published actual fascists alongside the likes of Ezra Klein. Truly bothsidesing the shit out of everything while being anti Biden/Harris in the end.
PepperMill_NA on
I have not trusted the NY Times since they let Judith Miller cheerlead us into an unconscionable war with Iraq. They have not been trustworthy for quite a long time.
Trump has brought out the worst in them, again.
GeorgeWNorris on
I canceled my subscription to the Times in February and I’m not going back. I’m not going to subsidize a quasi-Trump super PAC. The Times is morphing from the grey lady to the orange lady. Bye bye!
Simorie on
New York Times was an utter failure in the run up to and coverage of the war in Iraq.
Sure_Quality5354 on
Sadly yes. For some reason their framing of trump is entirely too generous. Mistakes are labelled as “strategy”, hatred is labeled as “fiery rhetoric”, his flaws are overlooked as “wacky” and the fascist plans he spews is labeled as “aggressive governing”. They are normalizing and excusing him every single day
StanTheManBaratheon on
There’s a ton of reason to dislike the Times right now, not the least of which is that it seemed to editorially turn against Biden because the guy refused to give them an exclusive – wildly unethical from the so-called “Paper of Record”.
That being said, venting that the New York Times is awful because it’s calling this race deadlocked is dumb – the race *is* deadlocked. I don’t think there’s going to be a +4% polling error in Trump’s direction this year, but I think it would be foolish to look at Harris being up 1, 2, and 3% in PA and WI and blanket say she’s “trouncing” him.
The wind’s at her back right now, I’m more confident than I’ve been in two years that Democrats can pull this out. But this editorial is the sort of thing that can look immensely silly when November comes around.
GonzoVeritas on
“Morning Joe” weighed in on the NYT’s reporting.
When you’re too much for mid-level MSM hacks, like Joe Scarborough, maybe you need to stop and think about what you are doing.
> Scarborough singled out the The New York Times’ Bret Stephens, who recently penned a column that claimed Harris spends too much time sharing her background and too little on answering questions about specific policies.
>
> Scarborough told his MSNBC viewers that Stephen’s claims, which others like Daniel Henninger of The Wall Street Journal have also shared, are “an absolute lie.” He added that Stephens “obviously hasn’t been watching the campaign.”
>
>
> “Do you have no shame?” Scarborough later asked of the pair of columnists. “Do you really have no shame?”
Ejziponken on
All forecasts are saying the race is deadlocked. It’s not just NYT. I’m not sure if you could describe the race differently as it stands right now. They are one of the best rated pollsters for a reason. I don’t think that should be thrown out just because they’re showing a close race.
Not sure what Drew is after. Just because Harris is doing great does not mean that she is winning. She did win the debate. She is doing great in fundraising. She is doing a lot of rallies and started doing a few interviews.
But that’s not winning.. Winning is when you convinced enough people to vote for you. 538, Silver and NYT all showing a close race because the polls are showing a close race.
So I just think Drew is trying to define winning in a weird way. A great performance does not equal a win.
And as for Trump.. In a normal person’s eyes, everything he does is the opposite of a great performance. But he might actually also be doing great with his audience. I’m not exactly sure, tho. Would he poll better if he acted like a normal person?
And what about trajectory? I think Harris could be on a winning trajectory. But time will tell. It’s all about reaching out and letting people to get to know her. Does she have enough time? We have to wait and see. I do think she is doing everything she can tho.
In the end, it’s really up to the people.
VOTE!
Icy_Ad_837 on
In today’s times they have a senior columnist admitting in the lead editorial that they are holding the two candidates to different standards and it’s their right to do so.
That’s right after the other says that one candidate isn’t antisemitic even though he makes antisemitic statements constantly
LeadingRegion7183 on
NYT had the very same policy in 2016 and were SHOCKED!! (Simply SHOCKED!!) that there “no challenge of his lies” backfired in their faces. NYT rolled over like a fat cat wanting a belly rub to maintain their precious “access” to the WH Press Room. Turned out great for everyone, didn’t it?
Donkletown on
I actually just cancelled my subscription this morning over the sanewashing and double standard.
The characterization over the race as “deadlocked” isn’t as egregious as those two things, I don’t think. But if it leads to more people cancelling, good.
not2dv8 on
Not only is SFGate right about the New New York Times, CNN is guilty of the same Shameless dangerous clickbait. Should Trump become president again, which is against all logical pointers and current data, SFGate will be one of the first Publications Trump shuts down. Moreover, the New York Times will most likely thrive.
The_Jolly_Dog on
It’s really a shame. I used to like the NYT but their (seemingly?) recent swing to VERY conservative viewpoints has been just exhausting to read.
Cancelled our subscription to them and an now actively avoid their site for page views
EddiePotatoes on
But the Wordle! (Connections is also goated.)
Dry-Possession5800 on
The fact that real journalism around the world is imperil is the real issue.
abnormalbrain on
Agreed. I unsubscribed around November of last year, after the Anat Schwartz thing came out. Too similar in result with their Judith Miller thing, many years earlier. My answer to their ‘why are you leaving’ survey referenced those two names and how every time NYTimes makes an oopsie, massive amounts of people of color die. I know there are many more examples but those were the two that came to mind. I can’t support whatever NYTimes has become.
ElDub73 on
NYT isn’t a journalist company and hasn’t been for a while.
They’re not even a news company anymore.
They’re an entertainment company.
kanepupule on
Just cancelled my subscription!
p_murph87 on
…here’s why that’s bad for Kamala Harris
gafftapes20 on
Okay I get that NY Times is not doing a great job of covering the election and in particular has a lot of blame for sanewashing or normalizing Trump and his campaign, but the idea that this election is anything but a toss up based on the data points we have is ridiculous. Polling has largely shown to be within in the margin of error in PA. you can look at the poll aggregators: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/pennsylvania/. People see a +1 or +2 and assume a state is a lock? we have shown that the MOE can change the race from a +2 to a -.5. Granted historically polls can swing either way in an election within that standard deviation, but it’s still crucial to understand that this election is not a given and Kamala Harris only has a slight advantage over trump coming into the last few weeks of the campaign.
xMend22 on
Subscribed in 2016 after the election. Unsubscribed in 2020 after several garbage articles that simply brushed away the insane shit going on as normal.
TraditionalProduct15 on
It’s pretty sad to see but they’re a shell of what they once were.
A free and independent press are supposed to be a roadblock to authoritarianism but for the NY Times and countless others, the click money from creating the narrative instead of reporting it is far more important.
Always be sure to get your news from trustworthy sources, like the comments section on Reddit.
greysqualll on
I’m no fanboy of the NYT but to question the Times journalistic integrity and then confidently say Trump is losing PA by 4 pts and is “getting his ass kicked” when every poll has the race as one of the closest ever is pretty ironic.
ejkeebler on
This became blatantly obvious when the NY Times asked ONE presidential candidate to step out of the race, and it wasnt the one who sexually assaulted someone, was convicted of fraud, incited an insurrection and is demanding to be a dictator, demanded innocent children to be put in jail for a crime they didnt commit, has filed for bankruptcy several times, and is old as dirt, lies about everything, can’t remember where he is, what wars were fought, who his wife is, thinks nazis are fine people, and makes up everything and is getting hundreds of millions of dollars from Russia and Saudia Arabia. Nope it was the other one.
Hot-Ad2102 on
I felt like something was off, happy to cancel my subscription.
Resident_Repair8537 on
*an institution that has never met a story it couldn’t water down*
Got em.
Capable_Mud_2127 on
There was a headline the other day on Kamala that was so bad I had to step away: “Harris Cracked Down on Violent Offenders,
Showed Leniency on Less Serious Crime”
Isn’t that the way it should be? Nyt can go pound sand.
Pytheastic on
I was fully ready to roll my eyes at the hyperbole but man, even as a subscriber to the NYT he’s so right. And I was glad to see Bret Stephens called out, the guy is insufferable.
Seriously, he shits on Kamala for having no experience with foreign policy when Trump literally met with dictators with just a translator and trashed the world order that made the USA so outrageously powerful. And there are so many more examples it’s intellectually lazy and infuriating lol
todudeornote on
That is one stupid article. The author disagrees with the Times contention that the polls are right and that the election race is very close. He wants the Times to report that the coming presidential elections will be a blow-out.
Drew Magary, the author, calls himself a “journalist, humor columnist, podcast host, and novelist.” Well 3 out of 4 ain’t bad. He’s no journalist (under the journalist section of his wikipedia page, he starts off saying he was a contributor to a NFL humor website and ends saying he once interviewed someone from Duck Dynasty).
Why does this matter? Because like far too many people, he fails to understand the difference between opinion and journalism. Journalists don’t get ahead of the evidence. In elections they report on the polls, and don’t make shit up about how much of a lead Harris has.
The Times is still one of the world’s great newspapers and while they have made some huge mistakes, overall, their work is smart, well researched and extensively fact checked – unlike the opinion pieces of humorists.
fastinserter on
>Harris is winning this election right now in large part because she has avoided legacy outlets, the Times foremost among them, altogether. Her team understands that it behooves these outlets to have a close race, which means that they’ll seize on any gaffe Harris makes if it gives them a chance to falsely equivocate her remarks to those of Trump screaming, “THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!” to kick up a racial holy war. Team Harris has no interest in helping the Times sanewash Trump more than it already has, so they’ve decided that the only way to win the game is not to play.
The NYT like the “mainstream media” is corporate and they want to fund their bottom line and he’s absolutely right here. Previously I had thought that it was more of punishment as to why Biden and then Harris shunned them, but this makes far more sense and it is very savvy. As the publications are corporate and they want to have a close race, they will do everything in their power to try for that, so the only thing to do is not play their games.
42 Comments
“But that’s too easy if you’re the Times, an institution that has never met a story it couldn’t water down”
DAMN – light them up Drew!
The New York Times has really taken a dive. It used to be trustworthy.
> We’re just over a month away from the presidential election and, if you ask the New York Times, the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former president/Keystone kriminal Donald Trump remains “deadlocked.” Despite the fact that Trump is losing in Pennsylvania, a state he needs to win, by four points. Despite the fact that polls in North Carolina just turned in Harris’ favor. Despite the fact that a grassroots campaign for Harris, one that numbers in the hundreds of thousands, sprung up the instant her boss ceded his spot in the race to her. Despite the fact that Trump got his ass beat in a nationally televised debate with Harris after repeating, with supreme gusto, the lie that Haitian immigrants in Ohio are eating people’s pets. The lie that his own running mate openly said was a lie. […]
Always has been. But this is some diatribe about polling.
Apparently they weren’t washed while lending credence to “the Manchurians are mind controlling us”, at every moment of the Cold War especially during Regan while amplifying the *imagined* Team B intel of Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld, obscuring to this day the US’ role in Lebanon, Nicaragua, East Timor, Chile, Guatemala, Indonesia and Grenada with limited hangouts, or even during WMD and selling the “war on terror”. Nope, it’s the electoral horse race that did it.
I have to agree at this point. NYT has been absolutely terrible this election cycle. There’s no crazy shit on the Republican side that they’re not willing to water down and normalize, yet there’s no criticism of Kamala that’s too small, petty, or unimportant to highlight. They’re trying to make the news instead of report it, and even their polling has been an outlier to everyone else’s despite them previously being among the best in that department.
They need the horse race and the close contest to the point where they’re willing to try to report it into existence.
I hate any article in The NY Times that starts with “What your need to know” or “Here’s the what you need to know. “
… and the local NY coverage is laughable.
The author is pretty spot on here. The times is like the Sunday political shows now. When republicans are in power they have more Republican guests and when Dems are in power they have more Republican guests or allow last rebuttals to the dem guests.
The NY Times is too busy washing down Trump to normalize the most egregious actions and lies. To the times a nuclear bomb is equal to a firecracker if it gets clicks.
Tom the Dancing Bug had a good [comic about this](https://boingboing.net/2024/03/13/tom-the-dancing-bug-one-day-in-january-2025-in-the-new-york-times-newsroom.html). It was before Biden dropped out, but it’s still relevant.
Edit: Also, the Time has been here before … [including their efforts to drum up support for the Iraq war.](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/26/pressandpublishing.usnews)
A case study into how to lose as much credibility as you can in as short a period as possible. Truly a stunning achievement.
But the election IS roughly a coin flip at the moment. I’m not sure why this writer is so upset at NYT for saying so.
Awesome, a “NYTimes” article that finally has truth in it.
But of course, it had to be Drew to add that honesty.
>You don’t have to work terribly hard to sum up this race as it stands: Harris is destroying Trump, because Trump is a deranged old s—tbag. See how easy that was? But that’s too easy if you’re the Times, an institution that has never met a story it couldn’t water down. Rather than give it to you straight, the paper of record has opted, as ever, to give you its patented strain of prestige clickbait.
Nytimes also downplayed Hitler and spewed nazi talking points. It has always been fond of fascism.
Time to abolish this trash paper.
You know what? I’m perfectly fine with the media reporting how close the race is, that it’s going to be razor thin in all of the battleground states. Keep reporting that, even if polling show Harris up by 7 points in these states.
Complacency due to reporting was possibly a factor in Clinton’s loss in 2016, so if anything, this sort of reporting benefits Harris. And in the end, it doesn’t really matter all that much. It’s like fans complaining about the power rankings of their favorite team, when it’s the outcome of games that matters. Polling is power rankings. The game is the actual election.
NYT has brainworms. They’ve published actual fascists alongside the likes of Ezra Klein. Truly bothsidesing the shit out of everything while being anti Biden/Harris in the end.
I have not trusted the NY Times since they let Judith Miller cheerlead us into an unconscionable war with Iraq. They have not been trustworthy for quite a long time.
Trump has brought out the worst in them, again.
I canceled my subscription to the Times in February and I’m not going back. I’m not going to subsidize a quasi-Trump super PAC. The Times is morphing from the grey lady to the orange lady. Bye bye!
New York Times was an utter failure in the run up to and coverage of the war in Iraq.
Sadly yes. For some reason their framing of trump is entirely too generous. Mistakes are labelled as “strategy”, hatred is labeled as “fiery rhetoric”, his flaws are overlooked as “wacky” and the fascist plans he spews is labeled as “aggressive governing”. They are normalizing and excusing him every single day
There’s a ton of reason to dislike the Times right now, not the least of which is that it seemed to editorially turn against Biden because the guy refused to give them an exclusive – wildly unethical from the so-called “Paper of Record”.
That being said, venting that the New York Times is awful because it’s calling this race deadlocked is dumb – the race *is* deadlocked. I don’t think there’s going to be a +4% polling error in Trump’s direction this year, but I think it would be foolish to look at Harris being up 1, 2, and 3% in PA and WI and blanket say she’s “trouncing” him.
The wind’s at her back right now, I’m more confident than I’ve been in two years that Democrats can pull this out. But this editorial is the sort of thing that can look immensely silly when November comes around.
“Morning Joe” weighed in on the NYT’s reporting.
When you’re too much for mid-level MSM hacks, like Joe Scarborough, maybe you need to stop and think about what you are doing.
> Scarborough singled out the The New York Times’ Bret Stephens, who recently penned a column that claimed Harris spends too much time sharing her background and too little on answering questions about specific policies.
>
> Scarborough told his MSNBC viewers that Stephen’s claims, which others like Daniel Henninger of The Wall Street Journal have also shared, are “an absolute lie.” He added that Stephens “obviously hasn’t been watching the campaign.”
>
>
> “Do you have no shame?” Scarborough later asked of the pair of columnists. “Do you really have no shame?”
All forecasts are saying the race is deadlocked. It’s not just NYT. I’m not sure if you could describe the race differently as it stands right now. They are one of the best rated pollsters for a reason. I don’t think that should be thrown out just because they’re showing a close race.
Not sure what Drew is after. Just because Harris is doing great does not mean that she is winning. She did win the debate. She is doing great in fundraising. She is doing a lot of rallies and started doing a few interviews.
But that’s not winning.. Winning is when you convinced enough people to vote for you. 538, Silver and NYT all showing a close race because the polls are showing a close race.
So I just think Drew is trying to define winning in a weird way. A great performance does not equal a win.
And as for Trump.. In a normal person’s eyes, everything he does is the opposite of a great performance. But he might actually also be doing great with his audience. I’m not exactly sure, tho. Would he poll better if he acted like a normal person?
And what about trajectory? I think Harris could be on a winning trajectory. But time will tell. It’s all about reaching out and letting people to get to know her. Does she have enough time? We have to wait and see. I do think she is doing everything she can tho.
In the end, it’s really up to the people.
VOTE!
In today’s times they have a senior columnist admitting in the lead editorial that they are holding the two candidates to different standards and it’s their right to do so.
That’s right after the other says that one candidate isn’t antisemitic even though he makes antisemitic statements constantly
NYT had the very same policy in 2016 and were SHOCKED!! (Simply SHOCKED!!) that there “no challenge of his lies” backfired in their faces. NYT rolled over like a fat cat wanting a belly rub to maintain their precious “access” to the WH Press Room. Turned out great for everyone, didn’t it?
I actually just cancelled my subscription this morning over the sanewashing and double standard.
The characterization over the race as “deadlocked” isn’t as egregious as those two things, I don’t think. But if it leads to more people cancelling, good.
Not only is SFGate right about the New New York Times, CNN is guilty of the same Shameless dangerous clickbait. Should Trump become president again, which is against all logical pointers and current data, SFGate will be one of the first Publications Trump shuts down. Moreover, the New York Times will most likely thrive.
It’s really a shame. I used to like the NYT but their (seemingly?) recent swing to VERY conservative viewpoints has been just exhausting to read.
Cancelled our subscription to them and an now actively avoid their site for page views
But the Wordle! (Connections is also goated.)
The fact that real journalism around the world is imperil is the real issue.
Agreed. I unsubscribed around November of last year, after the Anat Schwartz thing came out. Too similar in result with their Judith Miller thing, many years earlier. My answer to their ‘why are you leaving’ survey referenced those two names and how every time NYTimes makes an oopsie, massive amounts of people of color die. I know there are many more examples but those were the two that came to mind. I can’t support whatever NYTimes has become.
NYT isn’t a journalist company and hasn’t been for a while.
They’re not even a news company anymore.
They’re an entertainment company.
Just cancelled my subscription!
…here’s why that’s bad for Kamala Harris
Okay I get that NY Times is not doing a great job of covering the election and in particular has a lot of blame for sanewashing or normalizing Trump and his campaign, but the idea that this election is anything but a toss up based on the data points we have is ridiculous. Polling has largely shown to be within in the margin of error in PA. you can look at the poll aggregators: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/pennsylvania/. People see a +1 or +2 and assume a state is a lock? we have shown that the MOE can change the race from a +2 to a -.5. Granted historically polls can swing either way in an election within that standard deviation, but it’s still crucial to understand that this election is not a given and Kamala Harris only has a slight advantage over trump coming into the last few weeks of the campaign.
Subscribed in 2016 after the election. Unsubscribed in 2020 after several garbage articles that simply brushed away the insane shit going on as normal.
It’s pretty sad to see but they’re a shell of what they once were.
A free and independent press are supposed to be a roadblock to authoritarianism but for the NY Times and countless others, the click money from creating the narrative instead of reporting it is far more important.
Always be sure to get your news from trustworthy sources, like the comments section on Reddit.
I’m no fanboy of the NYT but to question the Times journalistic integrity and then confidently say Trump is losing PA by 4 pts and is “getting his ass kicked” when every poll has the race as one of the closest ever is pretty ironic.
This became blatantly obvious when the NY Times asked ONE presidential candidate to step out of the race, and it wasnt the one who sexually assaulted someone, was convicted of fraud, incited an insurrection and is demanding to be a dictator, demanded innocent children to be put in jail for a crime they didnt commit, has filed for bankruptcy several times, and is old as dirt, lies about everything, can’t remember where he is, what wars were fought, who his wife is, thinks nazis are fine people, and makes up everything and is getting hundreds of millions of dollars from Russia and Saudia Arabia. Nope it was the other one.
I felt like something was off, happy to cancel my subscription.
*an institution that has never met a story it couldn’t water down*
Got em.
There was a headline the other day on Kamala that was so bad I had to step away: “Harris Cracked Down on Violent Offenders,
Showed Leniency on Less Serious Crime”
Isn’t that the way it should be? Nyt can go pound sand.
I was fully ready to roll my eyes at the hyperbole but man, even as a subscriber to the NYT he’s so right. And I was glad to see Bret Stephens called out, the guy is insufferable.
Seriously, he shits on Kamala for having no experience with foreign policy when Trump literally met with dictators with just a translator and trashed the world order that made the USA so outrageously powerful. And there are so many more examples it’s intellectually lazy and infuriating lol
That is one stupid article. The author disagrees with the Times contention that the polls are right and that the election race is very close. He wants the Times to report that the coming presidential elections will be a blow-out.
Drew Magary, the author, calls himself a “journalist, humor columnist, podcast host, and novelist.” Well 3 out of 4 ain’t bad. He’s no journalist (under the journalist section of his wikipedia page, he starts off saying he was a contributor to a NFL humor website and ends saying he once interviewed someone from Duck Dynasty).
Why does this matter? Because like far too many people, he fails to understand the difference between opinion and journalism. Journalists don’t get ahead of the evidence. In elections they report on the polls, and don’t make shit up about how much of a lead Harris has.
The Times is still one of the world’s great newspapers and while they have made some huge mistakes, overall, their work is smart, well researched and extensively fact checked – unlike the opinion pieces of humorists.
>Harris is winning this election right now in large part because she has avoided legacy outlets, the Times foremost among them, altogether. Her team understands that it behooves these outlets to have a close race, which means that they’ll seize on any gaffe Harris makes if it gives them a chance to falsely equivocate her remarks to those of Trump screaming, “THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!” to kick up a racial holy war. Team Harris has no interest in helping the Times sanewash Trump more than it already has, so they’ve decided that the only way to win the game is not to play.
The NYT like the “mainstream media” is corporate and they want to fund their bottom line and he’s absolutely right here. Previously I had thought that it was more of punishment as to why Biden and then Harris shunned them, but this makes far more sense and it is very savvy. As the publications are corporate and they want to have a close race, they will do everything in their power to try for that, so the only thing to do is not play their games.