Can’t wait for the NYT expose of Iowa folk and how they feel about Cortez’s victory. Should be something.
“But but but…Trump was being mean to us!!!”
This specific situation seems pretty messy and complicated, but in the larger conversation, institutions like the NYT seem far too cowed with playing the political game of pre-reacting to outraeg [sic] from professional outraeg purveyors on the right.
What, some hilljack Sinclair station from East Jesus, Arkansas is going to shriek about librul bias? Okay, whatever, they’re going to do that anyway. You’re the New York damn Times. Make your decisions, stand by them, and dare anybody else to challenge you.
Of course, this is not limited to just the media. If you adhere to the good-faith interpretation (as I do), this is exactly the mistake James Comey made in late 2016.
“Abramson also took issue with what she claims was the Times’ ignorance of local candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s meteoric rise until the huge upset Tuesday night…”
To which Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy replied, “Who?"
This is one of the many reasons I dropped my subscription to the NYT…back in the Bush years.
I can however use my several devices if I want to read an article as each gets 10 freebies a month from NYT - up to 40 for me. Funny thing though…I never seem to come close to using them all and the ones I do are Krugman.
Yep. Krugman is pretty much the only reason I ever find myself reading a NYT piece. They sit at the epicenter of the dishonest, pandering, black hole journalism shitshow that got Trump elected.
The NY Times has huge blinders on certain issues. But not only do they not try to discover and modify their take on these issues, they think they are righteousness itself.
Charles Blow is reason enough to read the Times. He makes up for a lot.
The Times spokeswoman went on (inadvertently paraphrasing the response to me of the department store worker from long, long ago when I asked her if they had any reggae), “Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez an individual?”
Meh. I found that story newsworthy, I also felt like it was a topic of extreme interest to journalists. And it broke an important piece of news – the border patrol agent involved in the investigation. And I find the times reporting generally strong, especially on international matters. Not sure where all this bashing comes from.
(Psst - private mode. Easier than deleting cookies.)
my take 1961 - as a bookstore clerk in my late 20’s, many people would come up and ask where they could find books on a certain subject, and I would just state plainly " I don’t know what that is." and then they would enlighten me, and I learned one more thing about the world that day. Not knowing all subjects is a sign of only temporary ignorance - just a digression…
I think it was less the what than the how.
Narcissism? At the New York Times? No way!
Same here, and I’m referring to Bush, 1989-1992. Krugman, Charles Blow and Linda Greenhouse are very good, and that’s about it for me. And the crosswords.
This is why the Golden Trust Fund Boy fired her. He could not abide an uppity woman and considered Baquet less uppity.
What is this New York Times you speak of? Is it some sort of newspaper?
I have the NYT Weekend print deal. It gives you full web access. But over the years their metro coverage has been meh. I usually go over to the Daily News for metropolitan news.
Times isn’t what it once was. Make mine WP.