Leave a Reply
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!
Feel free to contribute!
Peter Baker Argues Joe Biden Is Unfit because Peter Baker Is Too Lazy to Read... Peter Baker Argues Joe Biden Is Unfit because Peter Baker Is Too Lazy to Read...
This really is mind-boggling – the non-sourced NATO article isn’t even the worst. President Biden is defiant – how dare he? Does he think he is the elected President of the United States and winner of the Democratic primary system for the upcoming election?
How dare we Democrats not take our orders from the New York Times? How ever shall the nation survive? (Meanwhile, the monstrous Trump, Project 2025…)
Google Biden defiant.
It is standard. As it was when Biden’s son was refusing to comply with a subpoena that James Comer did not yet have authority to enforce.
Sulzberger has evidently ordered every reporter, opinion and “straight” news, to let their inner Inspector Javert dominate until further notice. Amazingly, Trump attacked Peter Baker and his wife and the Times generally over the weekend on Untruth Social. If Dash believes that his anti-Biden crusade will result in any leniency for the Times after Project 2025 is in place, he’s in for an unpleasant surprise.
SO infuriating. One question I have is who writes the headlines?
One possibility [NYT denies it went further than testing]:
THE NEW YORK TIMES IS SUING OPENAI — AND
EXPERIMENTING WITH IT FOR WRITING HEADLINES AND COPY EDITING
“You are a headline writter [sic] for The New York Times,” says a prompt for the paper, which is suing OpenAI for copyright infringement. https://web.archive.org/web/20240708170751/https://theintercept.com/2024/07/08/new-york-times-openai-headlines-chatgpt/ Nikita Mazurov July 8 2024, 12:05 p.m.
Speaking of headlines, I recommend Mastodon users follow @nyt_diff, a bot which tracks changes made to NYT’s headlines and subheads/abstracts.
Original article headline at the bottom in this ^ image, with some of the edits made to the headlines and abstracts on same articles.
The “Biden defiant” article hasn’t appeared in the bot’s feed — yet.
If this is what humans are producing, I can’t imagine how much worse this could get using AI.
I can’t imagine what NYT is *teaching* AI with this crap assuming its content is scraped, even if this material is copyrighted.
The changes to the second one on the left strike me as more benign than the others. The main change is that it moves from a story about what Biden is planning to do (future tense) to a story about what Biden is doing (present tense). Sounds kind of like an evolving story updated through the day.
Some of their changes are related to evolution. Some are not. Their audience rarely notices the changes being made, though; which version appears in the print edition and how many readers see that and only that?
The full address is @[email protected] for masto users
(thanks am following them now)
I did once, for a week. I had a tryout on the Times’ national copy desk. Did not get a job offer.
The national copy desk writes the heds this post is concerned about (other desks handle business, sports etc.).
Unlike famous Times reporters, copy editors are anonymous, do not get extra money by appearing on MSNBC, seldom write books. They are about as well insulated from the cutthroat competition that dominates the rest of the newsroom as one could be.
Their heds are approved twice: first by the chief of the copy desk, then by whatever person (national editor, assistant managing editor etc.) who is the final authority.
Long ago, when I had my flutter, copy editors were disciplined by the hed count: you had only a set number of letters that would fit. (In the old, old days, before my time, there were decks of heds, where qualifications could be worked in.)
Digital publishing has been the ruination of hed-writing. Sometimes it seems as if every hed fits the formula: Event A but what about speculative Event B.
This explains a lot. Two years ago, I cancelled my subscription mainly because of misleading headlines, and/or because most of the time they seemed to be preparing me how to think about the article content; manipulating me in advance, in other words. Sometimes, those headlines were opposite to what the content of the article connoted. Editorializing seemed to be the goal, letting the reporting within the article take second place.
I blame Editors, ultimately. Surely, they read their own paper!
Very enlightening. I agree that removing space constraints has ruined headline writing. My pet peeves: headlines touting “why” this or that happened when the story is that it happened, not “why,” and the breathless, totally unnecessary use of “just,” as in “Biden just slammed Trump’s comments.”
Today my Washington Post cancellation takes effect. (I guess I was paid up until today.) I thought about paying for the NYT’s with my freed-up funds, but no way will that happen now. I can’t watch CNN any longer, and MSNBC isn’t totally dependable either.
Any suggestions on where I should turn for fair and balanced reporting? It looks to me like ProPublica is perhaps the only media outlet invested in exposing the crooked conservative monopoly over America. Other than Emptywheel, of course.
The Guardian is pretty good and has no paywall. They’re certainly not on the level of ProPublica on investigative journalism, but you won’t find the same issues that you see above on their front page.
Don’t kid yourself about bias at The Guardian. They have their own; they just don’t capture as much US audience as NYT.
source: https://mstdn.social/@[email protected]/112756446315703403
Guardian has also changed the headline on the older article in this comparison – the original is shown in the screen capture above.
I wish there was a bot tracking changes on headlines for each major news outlet which publishes content online.
I’m not saying they’re perfect, but come on, they clearly are not the NYT. There is plenty of Gaza reporting that avoids the language and perspective your example shows.
If anything, I find their editorial bias to be very much in favor of liberals and Democrats (or Palestine if you want to focus on a specific issue). Sure, that’s still probably not very far to the left in the UK, but it’s much more tolerable than the NYT and WaPo of the present.
My point was simply that you won’t find a front page where every story is spun around Biden and why he should drop out. It doesn’t feel corrupted in the way those papers have become. And it is freely accessible for anyone, which holds some value to me.
I’d just like to add that currently, Biden is mentioned once on their front page/top headlines. It is quoting him condemning the Kyiv hospital strike.
Reply to Sloth Sloman
July 9, 2024 at 8:39 am
And what’s the next assignment once you get Biden’s statement? Get the other candidates’ statements – Trump’s in particular.
Guardian is taking an oppositional tack to NYT’s “Get Biden” approach given the top story now. But this allows much less attention on Trump and Project 2025 when we know Team Trump is worried based on its softening position on abortion.
ADDER — Look at that: the media let Trump stay silent — except for his spotty blathering on Truth Social which isn’t mentioned at all. Why didn’t they lean into his lies and demand explanations for each lie and why so many lies? Why isn’t that content taking up a big chunk of real estate instead of a big white space under “Donald Trump expected to break post-debate silence at Florida rally” which acknowledges a campaign strategy of silence? That right there should be a thumb in the eye to media which respected that strategy by giving into it.
Which brings us back to NYT, likewise respecting Trump’s campaign strategy.
You’d think they’d make at least a half hearted effort at bothsides-ing this but nope.
The Guardian also ran a story on the New York Post Parkinson’s conspiracy theory: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/06/joe-biden-neurologist-doctor-meeting
*nods* Yeah, that’s some RawStory-like treatment. They could have made a constructive difference doing the actual reading required but nope.
While The Guardian is still one of my go-to’s, a couple of opinion pieces lately had me saying “Et tu?”
And yet, there is still Margaret Sullivan.
“The media has been breathlessly attacking Biden. What about Trump?”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/09/biden-media-attacks-trump-felon
Once again, I’m grateful to Marcy for both her witty ledes and essential analysis.
Remember this op-ed? If Trump Runs Again, Do Not Cover Him the Same Way: A Journalist’s Manifesto
Sullivan warned the media and yet they’ve almost universally blown off her observation that “Trump was a deeply abnormal candidate, but the news media couldn’t seem to communicate that effectively or even grasp the problem” and her warning, “The stakes are enormously high. Doing things the same old way isn’t remotely appropriate.” Instead, news media doubled down on their spinelessness. They’ve attacked what they see as an easy target rather than the truly dangerous target.
Thanks. They will be added to my favs.
It’s kind of depressing that we must look across the pond for another media source that is brave enough to defend American democracy.
My experience very similar to yours and UpIsDown.
I dramatically cut back on my news reading since last December. Every thing I read from usual suspects (NYT, WP, LAT) was getting worse on topics I was most interested in. I was left more confused rather then informed, and no longer willing to go down rabbit hole trying to find what they missed. So for a bunch of reasons I won’t go into, I just cut back… a lot.
For first time in years, started reading ProPublica (after their 1st Thomas gift reporting), and gave $$ there. Same with Guardian. Guardian not perfect, but many times better than any other primary news source on this side of the pond. They do good work on climate, something NYT/WP etc. ignore almost completely.
Gave them some $$ as well. And I watch Nicole and Velshi on MSNBC.
I’m doing just fine cutting back on news. I’m over seas most of time anyway now, but still… think less news = breathing easier. So much of it is just… bull shit.
So much of this reminds of favorite Bertrand Russell quote, when he was asked how his search for truth was going, he replied: “We haven’t found any yet.”
I’m using my local paper’s website and then checking out the direct AP and Reuters pages.
Off to the races.
https://bsky.app/profile/iboudreau.bsky.social/post/3kwsswu7qgi2q
Jul 8, 2024 at 9:12 PM
From the screenshot:
Which Democrats have called for Biden to drop out of the race? […]
Which Democrats Have Called for Biden to Drop Out of the Race?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/elections/biden-drop-out-democrats.html
July 3, 2024 Updated July 8, 2024, 5 p.m. ET
They’re completely ignoring NYU’s Jay Rosen who has exhorted news outlets to report on the stakes in election, not the odds which horse race reporting offers.
Rather the NYT is leaning into this presidential election as a sport. Only wondering when and how NYT will monetize betting on the odds they’re publishing.
I really miss the rally calls of Firedoglake when Jane would point out “the stakes” on issues and provide a couple of copy samples to copy and paste into letters, posts or use as a script for calls.
So many grassroots efforts happened in real time and made a huge impact in real and virtual spaces.
Need that again.
I totally agree about the “horse-race” aspect of the reporting, not only at the Times, but also at every other news venue. Especially annoying is the weekly segment on PBS News Hour (which I otherwise mostly respect) with the Cook Report, and the other regular NPR reporter who “cook up” a mix of “statistics” with numbers, numbers, numbers, percentage points, which, to me, are absolute nonsense, designed to create anxiety. I turn off the sound while it’s on. I likewise do not read articles about polls.
The only poll which counts is the number of actual votes the candidates achieve. Everything else is noise.
NYTimes and the Washington Post are behaving like high school kids. They recognize that someone has to take on the school bully but they are too afraid to do so themselves. And when someone does step forward to challenge the bully, they say, “Oh no, not that nerd.”.
And, while they both mention, as an aside, that Trump should withdraw, they don’t want to say it too loudly. And they continue to prop Trump up. Not only do they avoid scrutinizing his increasing incoherence, they helpfully interpret his gibberish and form it into policy statements. The “shark and battery”, like the “injecting bleach and lightbulb” Covid therapy shows such ignorance that one wonders how he made it through high school. Yet they bang the drum for Biden to withdraw.
In the meantime:
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.bsky.social/post/3kwsuchtzwm2h
Jul 8, 2024 at 9:36 PM
“It’s 100 percent certain that we’re gonna have a terror attack”
— TRUMP to HANNITY [7/8/24, on the phone] [AUDIO]
That kind of story freaks me out more than a little, given Trump’s closeness to the Saudis: did one of those contacts drop some intelligence in his ear?
I think it’s more likely this is a “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario. If there’s a terrorist attack (which isn’t all that unlikely given the state of the world), then Trump was right and Biden endangers America. If there isn’t, Trump’s rise in the polls (not to mention his strength and manly manliness) scared off the terrorists. They came to Trump on their knees and begged him to be merciful, with tears in their eyes. /s
“If there’s a terrorist attack (which isn’t all that unlikely given the state of the world), then Trump was right and Biden endangers America.”
Sadly funny that the possible outcome of a terrorist attack would be the conclusion that “Biden endangers America” despite Biden likely paying far more attention during his PDBs than our country’s last two Republican presidents.
These guys trade on fear. Its part of fascist/authoritarian playbook. I’ve read 2 of the newer books on just this, they both cover it and it makes sense. Get people scared, they are more likely to do and believe what dear leader asks.
It’s the opposite of enlighten (eg. shine light on). It darkens. There’s nothing there, just a black hole.
To Sloth Sloman
Three cheers to the Guardian.
Countdown with Keith Olbermann on
His free podcast might tickle your fancy
I just canceled my NYT subscription of 30 years. Enough is enough.
[Welcome to emptywheel. Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We have adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]
Re: The Guardian
Although I was previously unaware of her work, Rebecca Solnit penned a piece on July 6 that I desperately needed:
“Why is the pundit class so desperate to push Biden out of the race?
Yes, Biden had a bad debate – but so did Trump. The media is once again repeating the mistakes of 2016“
[snip]
“And so it goes with what appears to be a journalistic competition to outdo each other in the aggressiveness of the attacks and the unreality of the proposals. It’s a dogpile and a panic, and there is no one more unable to understand their own emotional life, biases and motives than people who are utterly convinced of their own ironclad rationality and objectivity, AKA most of these pundits.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/06/biden-trump-race-rebecca-solnit
She also mentioned the mind-numbing, journalistic ethics violation of WaPo’s mock “resignation letter”.
Rebecca Solnit is a voice of great reason. I only wish she published more.
Add in, of course, Heather Cox Richardson – https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/.
I had some insight yesterday into the “Biden defiant” accusations thanks to what I learn here.
As Dr. Wheeler has pointed out, none of these hit pieces on Biden have even considered the stress and emotional fallout of Hunter’s prosecution, trial, conviction and still looming tax case in September on Biden.
And who pressured that to happen.
I believe Biden is going to be defiant to the bloody end of whatever is to be because I think his running against Trump is much more personal rather than delusional as the media implies because Trump has managed to successfully damage his only remaining son’s life.
Imagine the protective rage Biden must feel towards Trump over Hunter, and Biden can’t even use the power of pardon that he has to help his son much less even attend his trials to show his support.
I really think this is a strong motivator for Biden not to let go of this fight. If you don’t take this into the calculus of trying to understand Biden’s fight to stay in the race, it’s just attributed to being Scrappy Joe from Scranton with a side of delusion rather than the fiery and fierce love of a father for his son influencing his decision.
And the press is already squealing with horror about Hunter’s lately presence in the White House “advising” his father and being present in meetings. Their heads would explode if they really took the time to think the whole situation through.
NYT: An expert on Parkinson’s disease visited the White House eight times in eight months, according to visitor logs.
<< ew annotation: Headline left uncorrected after Dr. O’Connor explained NYT chased a false conspiracy theory
Correct…AND the following article briefly quotes that letter, but does not link to it:
White House Briefing Devolves Into Shouting Over Questions About Biden’s Health
Karine Jean-Pierre, the press secretary, refused to answer questions about whether visits to the White House by a Parkinson’s doctor were about the president. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/us/politics/white-house-briefing-shouting.html
Shere July 8, 2024
Greg Gonsalves links to the letter here:
https://bsky.app/profile/gregggonsalves.bsky.social/post/3kwu27zikby2o
Jul 9, 2024 at 8:55 AM
From the letter:
AND O’Connor is NOT “implying”, but plainly telling us
why the neurologist visits the WH:
This whole episode about Biden’s age, the reporting (sic) and editorializing about his candidacy, reminds me of the technique the NYT used when Pres. Clinton was caught with his pants down. There were daily speculations about comings and goings of various officials to the White House, what it probably, or, possibly meant, repeated, in sequence every day, even when there was no “news” to print.
Some of this flurry of attention to Biden’s age can possibly attributed to slow news during a week of Holiday events, as well as the slow pace of news during the summer months. You know, you just have to keep the interest up, so, just dribble out a detail or two, makes some errors of reporting which have to be repeated and rebutted the next day, ad nauseum.
Replying to jdmckay8
July 9, 2024 at 10:36 am
Me, too [re cutting way back on media consumption], although I do now subscribe to Apple News, and block channels with glee.
In addition, since the pandemic’s stark mortality reminder, I try not to enter into recurring support and auto-renewals in an effort to ease the burden for my executor.
That said, this site is an essential, and timely, balm.
For those who don’t need the reminder, forgive me please.
https://www.emptywheel.net/support/