Motown Bombers Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 It still gets me when they play the Village People at his rallies. Do they not know who the Village People are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 5 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: It still gets me when they play the Village People at his rallies. Do they not know who the Village People are? They were so macho. I'll bet those guys got so many ladies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted April 4 Share Posted April 4 38 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: It still gets me when they play the Village People at his rallies. Do they not know who the Village People are? They are pissed that the Y is full of refugees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said: I think the Pitchbot has probably done more the make the people at the Times think twice about it's headline writing on Biden stories than anything the admin has or could do. The self-righteous hate to be made fun of. Every admin gets petty with the press, but as a devoted NYT reader, I absolutely agree the Times is doing the country a total disservice in it's Trump coverage. Edited April 25 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 are these papers relevant anymore when it comes to politics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted April 25 Author Share Posted April 25 IDK, I recently learned I can get free access and I was like, nah I'm good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 (edited) 6 minutes ago, oblong said: are these papers relevant anymore when it comes to politics? Print journalists are relevant because what they write is still the raw material for most of what appears everywhere else downstream and online and even cable. Witness the big fight between the online services and the State of Ca over a bill that would force reimbursement back to the print industry. If the 'net didn't need what print was doing so badly, they wouldn't be screaming so loudly about being asked to pay for it. Edited April 25 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 4 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: I think the Pitchbot has probably done more the make the people at the Times think twice about it's headline writing on Biden stories than anything the admin has or could do. The self-righteous hate to be made fun of. Every admin gets petty with the press, but as a devoted NYT reader, I absolutely agree the Times is doing the country a total disservice in it's Trump coverage. On one hand, I still don't know that Biden has been out there engaging enough, but there is a strategy being employed that revolves around more exposure on local TV under the guise of meeting people where they are at. I don't know that I fully buy it, but that's part of what's going on. At some level, the friction is of a personal nature, but Biden's campaign and how it's allocating it's resources doesn't benefit the Times the way that other campaigns in the past have done, so it's making the Times' job tougher. Not a huge surprise that it's reflecting in their coverage, for better or worse. However, this is flying under the radar in what everyone else has said, but I think it's worth highlighting from the piece: Quote In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency. I have to rant about this for as second.... This characterization of Sulzburger (from anonymous sources) is the sort of arrogant, elitist, condescending bull**** that people sort of hate about the media in general, particularly the coastal set. And at a time when the journalism AS A WHOLE is facing an existential crisis (ie. less and less local news sources, newspapers dying - something that many of their staff have spent time highlighting / virtue signaling about on Twitter as well), there's something really unseemly about seeing this sort of entitlement from one of the few profitable operations in America today. Like, who the hell do these people think they are? Do they think that ABC12 in Flint are incapable of practicing journalism or asking tough questions? If the last few years have taught me anything, I'd argue that local and smaller outlets are able to engage in and elicit revealing responses from politicians in ways that the big outlets never could or would. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 13 minutes ago, mtutiger said: I'd argue that local and smaller outlets are able to engage in and elicit revealing responses from politicians in ways that the big outlets never could or would. GOP lawmaker called out after claiming credit for projects she voted against Perfect example here... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 Quite a ratio for this one... and well deserved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 5 minutes ago, mtutiger said: Quite a ratio for this one... and well deserved Third paragragh feels dropped in or what left of something longer edited out. "However" doesn't really parse there. And 'instead' of what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 “Mr. Biden has granted far fewer press conferences and sit-down interviews with independent journalists than virtually all of his predecessors. “ what does the use of “virtual” mean jn this context? I hate when people use it like this. It’s like you want to say something that isn’t true but figure throwing in “virtual” lets you say it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 22 minutes ago, oblong said: “Mr. Biden has granted far fewer press conferences and sit-down interviews with independent journalists than virtually all of his predecessors. “ what does the use of “virtual” mean jn this context? I hate when people use it like this. It’s like you want to say something that isn’t true but figure throwing in “virtual” lets you say it anyway. The paper of record is a bitchy bunch of so and sos. Or at least their publisher likes him some Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted April 26 Author Share Posted April 26 what's up with that nytco url? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted April 26 Author Share Posted April 26 parent company, never seen it before. Curious to not use the regular URL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 (edited) Pure speculation but I'am going to guess Joe Kahn would as soon have made no statement about the Politico story at all, it's just inside baseball, but Sulzberger took it personally and couldn't leave it be so it came from corporate. J Rubin in WaPo has written a couple pieces eviscerating the Times coverage on journalistic grounds, but she never mentioned Sulzberger by name and NYT never said boo in response. Edited April 26 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said: Pure speculation but I'am going to guess Joe Kahn would as soon have made no statement about the Politico story at all, it's just inside baseball, but Sulzberger took it personally and couldn't leave it be so it came from corporate. I disagree. The standard they hold themselves to is that of being the "Paper of Record"... the revelations in this piece were credible and likely well sourced, and they really cut against the brand that they have for years cultivated. Particularly when their reporters came out on social media in a defensive posture after this piece dropped, it was fait accompli that they would have to respond. Although I'm not sure the response is going to help a whole lot. None of this is existential obviously, but I'm sure for a lot of readers, it definitely clarified or confirmed some things that were pretty evident about their political coverage in recent years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted Friday at 03:35 AM Share Posted Friday at 03:35 AM (edited) 30 minutes ago, mtutiger said: I disagree. The standard they hold themselves to is that of being the "Paper of Record"... the revelations in this piece were credible and likely well sourced, and they really cut against the brand that they have for years cultivated. Particularly when their reporters came out on social media in a defensive posture after this piece dropped, it was fait accompli that they would have to respond. Although I'm not sure the response is going to help a whole lot. None of this is existential obviously, but I'm sure for a lot of readers, it definitely clarified or confirmed some things that were pretty evident about their political coverage in recent years. What's funny to me is how flawed Sulzberger's premise is to begin with. If Trump and the current GOP should teach a journalist anything it's that what a politician has to say for himself should probably be the very least important aspect in forming the basis of your reporting. The readership and the democratic process requires hard fact, and you aren't going to get that from a poll even on the more honest side of the 50/50 split between minor liars and epic liars. Dig, research, report - what are they DOING, how are they doing it. I'm so completely burned out with this society's fixation with empty meaningless verbiage. That all the interviews and debates and ****-can them and try reporting on what's happening. Sulzberger wants that interview because it's prestigious, not because it's going to tell his readers anything important. Edited Friday at 03:42 AM by gehringer_2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted Friday at 03:48 AM Share Posted Friday at 03:48 AM 2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: What's funny to me is how flawed Sulzberger's premise is to begin with. If Trump and the current GOP should teach a journalist anything it's that what a politician has to say for himself should probably be the very least important aspect in forming the basis of your reporting. The readership and the democratic process requires hard fact, and you aren't going to get that from a poll even on the more honest side of the 50/50 split between minor liars and epic liars. Dig, research, report - what are they DOING, how are they doing it. I'm so completely burned out with this society's fixation with empty meaningless verbiage.. Part of the problem with political reporting, and it's certainly not exclusive to the NYT at this point although they are the biggest offender, is that it all feels outsourced to polling. The "shoeleather" stuff isn't actually being on the ground trying to find out what people are talking about, it's the paper hiring a polling outfit to do a poll, and then having the political folks do a large writeup on said poll and drawing sweeping conclusions. And then sending the reporters out into the field to interview folks on the basis of whatever the polling results are. Obviously old school political reporting can be informed by hard data, and certainly reporters shouldn't be drawing conclusions off of random interactions in the field, but often times it just seems like the data does all the driving and reporters just work backwards. And that really seems mailed in. 10 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Sulzberger wants that interview because it's prestigious, not because it's going to tell his readers anything important. 100%, it's all about the brand. I think it's a fair discussion to have as to whether Biden is out giving independent interviews enough, but the sense of entitlement that the Times demonstrates is off-putting regardless. Especially in a time when other publications in the industry who don't have the resources that the Times has are facing existential challenges 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted Friday at 04:36 AM Share Posted Friday at 04:36 AM 47 minutes ago, mtutiger said: Part of the problem with political reporting, and it's certainly not exclusive to the NYT at this point although they are the biggest offender, is that it all feels outsourced to polling. The "shoeleather" stuff isn't actually being on the ground trying to find out what people are talking about, it's the paper hiring a polling outfit to do a poll, and then having the political folks do a large writeup on said poll and drawing sweeping conclusions. And then sending the reporters out into the field to interview folks on the basis of whatever the polling results are. Obviously old school political reporting can be informed by hard data, and certainly reporters shouldn't be drawing conclusions off of random interactions in the field, but often times it just seems like the data does all the driving and reporters just work backwards. And that really seems mailed in. QFT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted Friday at 12:13 PM Share Posted Friday at 12:13 PM 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. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them try it, though. Just not now because the topic is too hot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted Friday at 02:21 PM Share Posted Friday at 02:21 PM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtutiger Posted Friday at 02:22 PM Share Posted Friday at 02:22 PM Doesn't count, not the NYT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted Friday at 02:31 PM Share Posted Friday at 02:31 PM That will reach more people. I love that he's doing Stern. He's flipping off the NYT. 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.