Why do you guys consistently frame things as bad for Biden but never bad for Trump?
And your reply was to frame things that exact way. You're acting as though you're just reporting the "view from nowhere" or something but you're not. You're talking about two unpopular politicians, and yet when Trump came up you only spoke about his popularity within his own base.
The old "let me disprove your point by proving your point" technique.
Yeah.
I mean, the one point towards fairness: It's clear that that's actually how he sees it. If he were trying to engineer some boost for Trump by cleverly slanting his coverage, then he would have obfuscated it with how he answered this question. His answer shows that he clearly just believes that's how the world is: Trump is popular, Biden is unpopular, and they need to accurately reflect that in their political coverage and there are no other relevant objective facts that should impact that decision.
Which is not like I'm trying to insult him personally for that being how he sees it, but it does mean he has no business being a journalist. If you tend to freeze up under stress, then no shame about it, but it means you can't fly an airplane for a living.
I think you’re misunderstanding his point. Biden is facing the difficult task of governing a divided country. Trump is looking to consolidate power within his own party. One of these tasks is a historic, perhaps insurmountable challenge, and the other is routine. Even from a completely neutral perspective, this means you will report on more failures by Biden and more successes for Trump.
I personally don’t find this “the media is so mean to Biden!” narrative any more compelling than when Trump was claiming the same thing as president. The media has always been critical of those in power and this is a healthy part of our democratic system.
I mean, if they were reporting on Biden's progress in governing through that lens, and Trump's progress in the election, then I could see validity to what you're saying as the reason why. But that's not the case -- they're reporting the election in those unequal terms.
One great example is the little nugget contained in his answer, where Trump is "winning primary races" and that's a notable point about his popularity. Biden's won 86% of the primary popular vote. Trump's won 72% of the primary popular vote. Every single person who follows political news knows that there's a little revolt of uncommitted voters because of Biden's support for Israel. How many people know about 30+% of voters in Republican primaries saying that they won't necessarily support the eventual nominee in November? That's very unusual, and clearly a bigger story on exactly the same subject, and it'd be worth diving into the reasons behind it because they would uncover some objective things underlying their decisions that would be great to report on. Yet somehow it gets less press than the uncommitted voters making problems for Biden (which, obviously, are also an important story to report on.)
I personally don’t find this “the media is so mean to Biden!” narrative any more compelling than when Trump was claiming the same thing as president. The media has always been critical of those in power and this is a healthy part of our democratic system.
I mean, every president in modern history has whined about how the press is being mean to them (usually with some validity). It's part of the job. But it doesn't mean that careful analysis of "is the press coverage actually slanted" suddenly turns into an automatically wrong thing.
A lot of media coverage, especially in elections has to do with expectations. Biden is an incumbent facing no real opposition in the primary. Trump had real opposition, and there was a chance he would lose. You could argue he’s a semi-incumbent but I don’t think the media views him that way. Reporting on his overcoming this obstacle is naturally going to look a little more positive. In contrast, Biden has little to no chance of losing but has somehow managed to create major opposition to his candidacy anyway. This is noteworthy.
The non-committed vote is an unusual event and it ties into an important issue: the US government’s ongoing material support for ethnic cleansing in Gaza. I think it would be quite bizarre if this did not get coverage.
I am not saying that arguments of bias are automatically wrong, but as you say they have been (falsely, I think) repeated by every president. It’s going to take some compelling evidence and argumentation to overcome my natural skepticism of this idea. So far, I haven’t seen any real case be made. Not to mention that I think there is generally a greater danger in coverage of the powerful that is too positive as compared to too negative. See right-wing media’s fawning Trump coverage for an example.
It's equally routine for Biden to be campaigning as an incumbent and due to his competition is age is also routine at this point. While Trump is actively currying favor with fascists (Orban, Putin) and trying to overthrow democracy. Which is objectively a massive new development in the history of America. The fact they aren't covering it like this shows inherent bias.
Except Trump isnt overwhelmingly popular within his own party. Yes it's a strong majority within the GOP but its not a stranglehold. Nicki Haley was getting a consistent 40-45% of the GOP voters.
Your own wording softens the blow too much, imho. How is it "fairness" to point out that he may or may not have been lying (you seem to think not but... how can you tell, really? after all: his answers were prepared in advance, thus the fact that they were not inconsistent is not a surprise?)
Also, even if like you say he is massive unintelligent, he still collects a paycheck to do the job - how then is he not a liar, either way? When people get into a plane, it is with the expectation that the "pilot" knows how to fly the plane. Then, if someone passes themselves off as one, how is that not a lie?
There are so many more ways than one to be incorrect. For example, just b/c they don't slant the coverage as much overtly towards Trump does not mean that it is unbiased for it to have been slanted away from Biden.
The job of a newspaper is to tell the unvarnished Truth. Whether it fails to do so for reasons of profit, or b/c of Russian interference, or they are merely unintelligent, or whatever - does it matter? Whether it is a "lie" (and that fact demonstrable in a court of law) or not, it is not the Truth, and thus fails the criteria of being "news", and remains mere opinion instead.
Yeah, I mostly agree. I wasn't trying to give the guy a free pass -- just saying that really the fault lies with whoever gave him the job in the first place or told him that's an ok way for a journalist to behave.
But yes, the way he describes looking at political coverage is gross journalistic malpractice and people should be telling him that (or giving him a different role in society if he really insists that how he's doing it is the way.)
The problem here is with his editor. They shouldn’t let that kind of latent bias slip through.
Dude, the other day I was reading some rag because there was nothing else to do in the train... One article was just Trump's agenda without any commentary. How is that news if you don't put it in perspective and with the context that Trump barely reached any of his goals in the first term. Unbelievable.
There was someone here who posted an RNC press release, and was like, "it's news that they said that", and was all upset that we told them it was just propaganda, and that an article about it might be news if it contextualized and fact-checked it. A lot of people don't understand the difference between 'news' as a colloquialism meaning, "new information", and 'news' as journalistic reporting that has certain standards and requirements.
because the media wants republicans to win because they make more money with republicans in power.
The media should be laser focused on highlighting the complete corruption of The Supreme Court
Ginni Thomas is an insurrectionist
Her husband takes bribes
Amerikkka is screwed
Post Citizens United/Hilary democrats are just as bad in that rite.
The media sounds neutral on Trump because noone is surprised. The media is mostly silent on Biden because there is nothing to say other than 'experts say he is slightly better than Trump'.
to be fair you're talking to a hillary democrat and id vote for her again if i could. she would have been a great president.
Hilary was the one that got Trump elected in the primaries so she would have a better chance at winning. When Wikileaks leaked that, they bribed Ecaudor billions to get Assange in jail. Vote for Hilary is a vote for her tactics, getting worse Radical candidates and journalists reporting on it in jail.
Maybe because Trump supporters don't care what he says or does, while nobody fanatically supports Biden
Yeah, exactly. Nothing is bad for Trump because he has turned into a quasi-religious figure.
Power bases are dangerous because they attract the truely insane, people who seek power only for the sake of power.
Frank Herbert
Trump is the dumpster fire the Republican party has been working towards since Reagan. He is exactly what is expected on the Red side.
Biden is a union busting right leaning genocidal sociopath, which is the exact opposite of what you would expect from the Blue side.
America has been lost.
If you went here and had a substantive rebuttal to the reasons Biden's actually been way above average for a US president, you'd be the first.
spent several months engaged in absolutely war-criminal support for Israel's genocide in Gaza
I feel like you laid out why ^ in your own post where you think you're supporting Biden. You're also is incorrect about the US putting military personnel in Gaza (they're not, but that wouldn't be good anyways). They're explicitly building the pier without actually landing any personnel. You're also overstating the 'sanctions' Biden is putting on settlers; they applied to like ~~7~~ (sorry, after double-checking that I wasn't understating it, it turns out I was overstating it; it only applies to) 4 nobodies who the sanctions in no way actually harm.
But he's showing some little stumbling signs of humanity as regards our Israel policy, which is un heard of for a US politician.
Might-actually-be-the-Devil-Ronald-Reagan was harsher on Israel than Biden is being, and it wasn't even over a genocide. Reagan cut off weapons sales to Israel after they bombed Iran's nuclear materials program at Osirak. He allowed 21 UN resolutions condemning Israel to pass without vetoing them, and even backed the resolution (UNSC 248) condemning the attack on Osirak. He also slowed down aid to Israel to pressure them to withdraw troops from Lebanon, and publicly condemned them on multiple occasions.
Meanwhile, Biden is still calling for more weapons for Israel.
Reagan is a literal evil gremlin, and Biden doesn't even come close to matching his response to Israel's evil bullshit.
Every time you downplay or misrepresent Biden's actions on Gaza, you normalize them.
You're also is incorrect about the US putting military personnel in Gaza
You think they're gonna build the port and then extend aid packages on long poles so their feet don't have to touch the soil?
(they're not, but that wouldn't be good anyways)
Compared to the IDF being there unsupervised? Yes it would.
You're also overstating the 'sanctions' Biden is putting on settlers; they applied to like 7 nobodies who the sanctions in no way actually harm.
Correct. It's crap. But, it's more than anyone else has done.
Might-actually-be-the-Devil-Ronald-Reagan was harsher on Israel than Biden is being, and it wasn't even over a genocide. Reagan cut off weapons sales to Israel after they bombed Iran's nuclear materials program at Osirak. He allowed 21 UN resolutions condemning Israel to pass without vetoing them, and even backed the resolution (UNSC 248) condemning the attack on Osirak. He also slowed down aid to Israel to pressure them to withdraw troops from Lebanon, and publicly condemned them on multiple occasions.
Iraq, not Iran (unless I missed something big about Reagan's geopolitical alignments).
And you have to go back 42 years to find a US president who did more than what Biden's doing, and the reason he did it was nothing to do with the Palestinians but just because the IDF was attacking our ally.
But yeah, if you want to tell me bad about what Biden's doing with Israel, you honestly won't get a lot of argument from me.
My point is (a) what the fuck, it's way more than any other US president has done actually on behalf of the Palestinians that I'm aware of, for whatever fucking weak sauce that is (b) Trump is way worse; Trump wants to "finish the problem" in Gaza (c) I'm a lot more open to criticism of him from people who seem like they are reality based as far as politics and world events overall. If he suddenly starts doing everything right in Gaza, and becomes the president who reverses 75 years of genocide enablement (4 fucking blood-soaked months too late) -- are you gonna start saying hey this guy seems like he's produced a genuine permanent improvement in the US's policy which pretty badly needs the help, and as a person who wants to see it get better I'm behind that? Or are you gonna pivot to some other talking point to use to criticize him, if the ones that have some validity are no longer available? And if it's (b)... why?
It seems like everybody needs to remind democrat voters that it was Hilary that made Trump a Republican candidate so she would have a better chance at winning. Republicans work towards Trump, Democrats did. Voting for Democrats is a vote for worse Republican candidates and I assume vice versa.
And then she still lost. Why? Because she was a conservative running as a Democrat because her husband gave her an in with the party.
We do not currently have a liberal party in America. We have a bunch of dunce christian conservatives on the red side and we have a bunch of brainwashed not-christian conservatives on the blue side.
We have VERY few that are anti-war, anti-genocide, anti-cash-in-politics, pro-working-class politicians because Hilary and her circle murdered the moral compass of the Democrat party.
Look, you have two choices:
Agree
I actually don't even agree that Biden is a "lesser evil" in the first place, I've talked about it
But even accepting for a second the premise that there's nothing to support about Biden, I like how to these guys the lesson of 2016 and Hilary Clinton is "let's refuse to support the establishment candidate against someone who's clearly worse, what harm could come of it?"
I blame South Park.
I very much believe -- I'm being completely serious about this -- that 4chan making good memes about Trump becoming president, because it really is just inherently a funny idea, had a lot to do with elevating him from 0 support to a little kernel of popularity that could start to grow into something.
union busting
Biden is arguably the most pro-union president in recent history, hands down.
If you're talking about the one time he signed a bill to force the rail workers to work ... while we were in the middle of already very very serious supply chain issues right before the holiday season... We got through the season and the rail unions ultimately ended up winning https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
right leaning
How?
genocidal sociopath
If he didn't help Isreal he'd be thrown under the bus for weakening the US's only ally in the middle east. He'd also likely be opening up a power vacuum (and potentially larger war) that would backfire very badly for the US.
The real issue is the Isreal people elected their own version of Trump so Biden is dealing with a "Trump of Isreal" that's more than happy to run down civilians.
It's not like he hasn't been trying to go behind Isreal's back and help Palestine. It's just not a "press a button to stop sending them weapons and all the problems go away" situation.
https://old.reddit.com/user/thenewyorktimes/submitted/
The clear business goal of "let's pay the NYT to get more involved at Reddit!" is just one more reason I'm glad that I only go there in response to posts like this at Lemmy.
(That and their horseshit replies in that thread.)
Most likely main news outlets want to gain favor with the impending fascist takeover so if Trump wins and the takeover does happen, they aren't seized or gone after or imprisoned. While they KNOW a Biden or other sane president would never dare attack a newspaper or news channel without clear felonious activity. It's an effort to play both sides that WILL end with fascists attacking them regardless of how much of Trump's chode they suck.
Before we get out the flaming pitchforks, let us not forget that pretty much no one reads or cares about the New York Times. Their readership (print and web) is minuscule compared to entities like CNN, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC (and Fox, OANN, Breitbart, Joe Rogan...).
Sure, it sucks that the NYT is sucking Trump cock, but in the end, that won't move the needle.
I won't necessarily disagree wrt the small readership -- but The New York Times is notable because it is at this point the only big outlet which is both still doing actual journalism (as in researching big stories from scratch and determining the truth of them from primary sources) and also making a profit at it. There are lots of examples of each one in isolation (although, tragically, less and less of the first one year by year), but they are the only one left that is doing both.
If they're starting to turn over to the "truth doesn't matter gimme that bag" side (which it seems like to some degree they are), then it's a significant loss.
I haven't read anything from the NYT that would constitute "actual journalism" in what seems like many years now. It's not much different than the NY Post, just with less bombast.
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.