General Discussion

Larissa

(790 posts)

34. You nailed it.

Reply to senseandsensibility (Reply #13)

Tue Apr 9, 2024, 04:45 PM

Apr 9

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Dear NYT et al: NOW do you see why your coverage of cheato's BS is wrong? [View all] senseandsensibility Apr 9 OP

Well said! leftieNanner Apr 9 #1

I agree. ShazzieB Apr 9 #24

100% pandr32 Apr 10 #60

I hate the Fucking US TV Fucking media******..... have for 22 years when Cha Apr 9 #2

I cancelled them too... Think. Again. Apr 9 #4

In fact I think We've Gained.. Cha Apr 9 #8

But from their point of view... Think. Again. Apr 9 #3

But does normalizing and downplaying truly extreme statements senseandsensibility Apr 9 #5

Apparently it does... Think. Again. Apr 9 #9

Apparently, these -- and other -- NYT articles were missed. Silent Type Apr 9 #6

TY Well that's Good to know.. somebody's awake! Cha Apr 9 #28

Thanks... I was in the process of putting together such a list.... reACTIONary Apr 9 #45

the media is simply not particularly into US. They are very much into themselves - profits. NewHendoLib Apr 9 #7

Exactly. Think. Again. Apr 9 #10

I'm sure that's true, but I just don't think this kind of reporting increases senseandsensibility Apr 9 #13

You nailed it. Larissa Apr 9 #34

This kind of reporting???? reACTIONary Apr 9 #46

Damn greedy bunch. They would do anything Dave Bowman Apr 9 #36

Hey, NewHendoLib, you're at 59,999 posts! Beartracks Apr 9 #53

I don't expect either honesty or decency from the media. NNadir Apr 9 #11

Exactly - it is why we turned it all off, or cancelled it (print) well over a decade ago. NewHendoLib Apr 9 #12

I've been relying on the Guardian and a few others Dave Bowman Apr 9 #37

The Guardian does a good job. calimary Apr 10 #65

They never will, they are lazy in their reporting and are parrots, so are the editors. Bev54 Apr 9 #14

Shucks, what about all the weirdo RW preachers that support him wolfie001 Apr 9 #15

drumpf has only EVER supported whatever he thinks benefits himself JoseBalow Apr 9 #16

"Waffling" used to be a liability in politics. usonian Apr 9 #17

True, but only if you're a republican senseandsensibility Apr 9 #19

Trump doesn't support anything... He only calculates what will help him get more votes at the moment. world wide wally Apr 9 #18

Mostly, I agree. malthaussen Apr 9 #21

I dunno, maybe you're being naive. malthaussen Apr 9 #20

Indeed. My wife and I watched Rachel and her reporting was excellent as usual. PatrickforB Apr 9 #22

Yes, the Washington Post and several other newspapers senseandsensibility Apr 9 #25

Well, you know I have often railed about shareholder primacy and how publicly traded news media PatrickforB Apr 9 #26

I don't watch and I don't subscribe....I only wish more would do the same! PortTack Apr 9 #23

Do you get your news online? senseandsensibility Apr 9 #27

Why should anybody report what a rapist says about abortion laws? It should be in the lede of every story Walleye Apr 9 #29

Yup senseandsensibility Apr 9 #35

Nailed it malaise Apr 9 #30

The New York Times is not your enemy. Right-wing media is. ificandream Apr 9 #31

Hallelujah. Not only are they not our enemy, readers aren't as stupid Silent Type Apr 9 #33

The reporting in the New York Times IS a part of the... NNadir Apr 9 #38

I've been reading the NYT daily for over 30 years and it has never struck me that way. CTyankee Apr 9 #40

I've been reading the New York Times longer than you NNadir Apr 9 #42

Good grief. No, it's not. ificandream Apr 9 #44

Thanks! reACTIONary Apr 9 #47

I think I clearly understand the difference between Op-Ed and the "News." NNadir Apr 10 #55

Then you haven't been paying atttention NanaCat Apr 10 #61

They enabled Judith "Neocon Stenographer" Miller to push the bullshit Iraq War lies. Sky Jewels Apr 9 #49

One and the same. live love laugh Apr 9 #51

NYT et. al: "no. what r u even talking about?" nt orleans Apr 9 #32

The NYT gives stenographers a bad name. Nt Fiendish Thingy Apr 9 #39

You got it senseandsensibility Apr 9 #41

Just curious, did you read the report? reACTIONary Apr 9 #48

Is there a valid argument for saying that a law should be ignored if it was passed in the 19th century? DavidDvorkin Apr 9 #43

NYT: "No". live love laugh Apr 9 #50

Of course not. Upton Sinclair explained why (I've used this quote a million times RockRaven Apr 9 #52

This is just what occurred to me BaronChocula Apr 10 #54

in defense of the n y times rampartc Apr 10 #56

What I learned in Journalism 101 at Mizzou's J-School. LastLiberal in PalmSprings Apr 10 #57

Hey, that's a great line! senseandsensibility Apr 10 #59

K&R JudyM Apr 10 #58

Being "wrong" is INTENTIONAL on their part. Sky Jewels Apr 10 #62

It really is that simple senseandsensibility Apr 10 #63

I get it. Sky Jewels Apr 10 #64