mtutiger Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 2 hours ago, chasfh said: I don’t think it would be a bad thing at all for Biden to have an extensive interview with a major legacy media vehicle like the Times, provided he nails it, and I think the administration would like to do so. It’s a risk, though, and it could go upside down in unexpected and uncontrollable ways that wouldn’t apply to prior presidents, which may be why they’re avoiding putting Biden out there in the first place. He did do an interview with The New Yorker around the SOTU, so it's not like hasn't done one with a legacy outlet recently. I think it's less about his abilities and more about the fact that he just doesn't like or care for The New York Times and doesn't want to give them the time. Whether it's the right posture or not is another matter... like Boehner said in his memoir, sometimes you gotta feed the alligators, and I agree with you that he'd probably be better off just doing it and letting the chips fall where they may. Edited April 26 by mtutiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 minute ago, oblong said: That will reach more people. I love that he's doing Stern. He's flipping off the NYT. An interview with the Times probably has some effects indirectly (ie. coverage in other media, how journalists on cable cover / detail the interview, etc.), but in terms of direct contact, this is unironically true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 I haven't listened to Stern in ages. What's his demo these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Just now, mtutiger said: An interview with the Times probably has some effects indirectly (ie. coverage in other media, how journalists on cable cover / detail the interview, etc.), but in terms of direct contact, this is unironically true. and clips of it will show up on tiktok and reels and youtube shorts. That's how people under 30 get their information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 12 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: I haven't listened to Stern in ages. What's his demo these days? I would imagine mostly 35-49 and 49-64.... he draws about 10 mil/day still Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 31 minutes ago, mtutiger said: I would imagine mostly 35-49 and 49-64.... he draws about 10 mil/day still I've caught bits and pieces of interviews on YouTube. What I've heard he seems to have mellowed with age, was just never a fan (plus I was working a lot when his shows aired) I did recently catch an interview with one of his former program directors (not Pig Vomit, but the guy who replaced him) and he said he got along great with him at WNBC. Back to the original premise of the Biden interview, I hope to catch it on line. It would probably be better than most mainstream interview with politicians. Edited April 26 by CMRivdogs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) 2 hours ago, oblong said: That will reach more people. I love that he's doing Stern. He's flipping off the NYT. And of course, truth is, he doesn’t need the NYT. 99% of NYT readers already support him and are more irritated at the Times in this affair than Biden. Biden has a pretty good sense of where he needs to put in effort he has the energy for and what’s just distraction. Edited April 26 by gehringer_2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 How many interviews did Reagan do in 1984? Asking for a friend... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, 1984Echoes said: How many interviews did Reagan do in 1984? Asking for a friend... 40 years ago isn’t a good comparison, imo. The world, and forms of media, have expanded geometrically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 You missed the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 8 hours ago, mtutiger said: Doesn't count, not the NYT I think it counts. Stern is a major legacy media vehicle by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted May 3 Share Posted May 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 two big mysteries right now: The New York Times and Katy Tur both carrying water for the MAGAs. The article is an interesting take on Trump dissembling lunatic rant not being worthy of coverage by the NYT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 9 hours ago, romad1 said: two big mysteries right now: The New York Times and Katy Tur both carrying water for the MAGAs. The article is an interesting take on Trump dissembling lunatic rant not being worthy of coverage by the NYT. So the complaint by Bill Kristol is that the thing he thinks should have been page one news didn't make page one? Maybe he should campaign for editorship of the Times so he can make those decisions going forward, then. I don't know whether the problem is so much the Times is totally in the bag for Trump, which I guess is Kristol's conclusion, than it is that Trump continuously unleashes such a firehose of nonsense all day every day nonstop that it would look unhinged of the Times to put all of it on page one every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 1 minute ago, chasfh said: So the complaint by Bill Kristol is that the thing he thinks should have been page one news didn't make page one? Maybe he should campaign for editorship of the Times so he can make those decisions going forward, then. I don't know whether the problem is so much the Times is totally in the bag for Trump, which I guess is Kristol's conclusion, than it is that Trump continuously unleashes such a firehose of nonsense all day every day nonstop that it would look unhinged of the Times to put all of it on page one every day. I guess the Times can view itself as having certain public service obligations - but they also have to stay afloat in a business whose economic model has pretty much collapsed in a generation. At 50,000 ft it's a little unfair to say newpapers have some greater obligation to political outcomes in a system that won't even make websites pay them for their content. The NYT has a reader base that knows they aren't going to vote for Trump, don't really care about him, have already dismissed him and the need to know anything more about him than they already do. If those are the people paying your monthly bills, those are the people you are writing for. And it's a false premise anyway. The low information voter, when they finally do start paying whatever attention they decide they should before they vote, is most definitely not going to be subscribeing to the NYT in any part of that effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 1 hour ago, chasfh said: So the complaint by Bill Kristol is that the thing he thinks should have been page one news didn't make page one? Maybe he should campaign for editorship of the Times so he can make those decisions going forward, then. I don't know whether the problem is so much the Times is totally in the bag for Trump, which I guess is Kristol's conclusion, than it is that Trump continuously unleashes such a firehose of nonsense all day every day nonstop that it would look unhinged of the Times to put all of it on page one every day. JVLast wrote the piece. He has a pretty decent essay about the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: I guess the Times can view itself as having certain public service obligations - but they also have to stay afloat in a business whose economic model has pretty much collapsed in a generation. At 50,000 ft it's a little unfair to say newpapers have some greater obligation to political outcomes in a system that won't even make websites pay them for their content. The NYT has a reader base that knows they aren't going to vote for Trump, don't really care about him, have already dismissed him and the need to know anything more about him than they already do. If those are the people paying your monthly bills, those are the people you are writing for. And it's a false premise anyway. The low information voter, when they finally do start paying whatever attention they decide they should before they vote, is most definitely not going to be subscribeing to the NYT in any part of that effort. The NYT is basically propped up by Wordl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 2 minutes ago, romad1 said: JVLast wrote the piece. He has a pretty decent essay about the situation. I read it until I got here: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 2 minutes ago, chasfh said: I read it until I got here: So not this far Quote The paper of record is worse than you thought. Jonathan V. Last May 13, 2024 ∙ Paid Look man...I was just pointing out who wrote it...JVL is a D and has his own axe to grind but is clearly on the team with Bill K. Bill Kristol is Bill Kristol and has his own baggage and both guys are 100% devoted to keeping Trump from winning again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 Haberman has not been the NYTs finest hour - but if IRCC, she started out as a freelancer - another symptom of a system making choices without money to back them. I'm fine with people lobbying the Times to change their coverage - I think a lot it has been silly, breathless, vapid, but people do have to remember that the bottom line matters there as much as at Fox, they write what sells to their readership. If you are selling writing that is always the bottom line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 19 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Haberman has not been the NYTs finest hour - but if IRCC, she started out as a freelancer - another symptom of a system making choices without money to back them. I'm fine with people lobbying the Times to change their coverage - I think a lot it has been silly, breathless, vapid, but people do have to remember that the bottom line matters there as much as at Fox, they write what sells to their readership. If you are selling writing that is always the bottom line. The bottom line is they make their money on wordl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 14 Share Posted May 14 18 minutes ago, romad1 said: The bottom line is they make their money on wordl Newspapers used to make their money on want-ads, which had nothing to do with the news either, so maybe appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 2 hours ago, romad1 said: So not this far Look man...I was just pointing out who wrote it...JVL is a D and has his own axe to grind but is clearly on the team with Bill K. Bill Kristol is Bill Kristol and has his own baggage and both guys are 100% devoted to keeping Trump from winning again. I didn’t notice with my first post that it wasn’t Kristol who wrote it. I assumed he did because it was his tweet I clicked on to get there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 Maggie Haberman's story is not unlike a lot of "serious reporters" who are compromised along the way. A bunch of serious reporters have been in the pay of the Russians with ( and without knowledge (dating back to the 20s). I would say a lot of Pentagon reporters are fully in the thrall of the MIC. But, this is right out of Christopher Nolan's Batman movies: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.