Two things…check that…three things appear to have gone off the rails at the paper we used to call the Gray Lady. First, whoever is in charge of the paper’s polls is not doing their job. Second, whoever is choosing what to emphasize in the Times coverage of the campaign for the presidency is showing bias. Third, the Times is obsessed with Joe Biden’s age at the same time they’re leaving evidence of Donald Trump’s mental and verbal stumbles completely out of the news.
And Maureen Dowd's column calling on Biden to use SOTU to announce he won't seek re-election b/c of age concerns is particularly egregious coming from a 72-year-old columnist with dyed red hair.
My sisters dye their hair. I'm fine with it, as long as people don't take a swipe at someone else's age. Maureen Dowd is obsessed with destroying Biden at the expense of democracy, and it's vanity. He reminds her that she's not far behind on the scrap heap.
I tried to go natural, once in my 50’s where my neighbor (less than 10years younger) was mistaken for my daughter. Then again during Covid years. I found it liberating…until…my college pal thought I resembled one of the nuns we had in college in the 1960s! Like Trump, I will go to my grave with blonde hair. But not the worst comb-over on earth, or a red tie to my knees. And…Hopefully… much later than he!
LOL. Plus, Cal Lash's concern about the chemicals he thinks you're using may not know that you studied at Brandeis the use of eggplant as a hypoallergenic dye. [Insert crazy laughing emoji here.]
I know a shitload of Brandeis grads, but they were all English majors. some of the best times I had in college were the weekends I spent visiting Brandeis. although there WAS one weekend at Bennington....
I was kicked out of Brandeis in 1960, collateral damage six months after federal and state cops searched a student friend's off-campus apartment , where I'd bunked for a few days, and found dread Marijuana, use of which my pal had offered me and I'd declined, mostly out of fear: I loved jazz, so I "knew" -- from the examples of Bird, Lady Day, Chet Baker, so many others -- what "muggles" would *inevitably* lead to.
The real, real, real victim --- and gah-damn , today's "religious" Right, led by Clarence Thomas, apparently thinks this was part of what made America Great --- was my friend's girlfriend. The cops found her diaphragm at his apartment. We heard the deal was that Brandeis kicked her out immediately and sent her home to New York, in exchange for which she wasn't prosecuted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for illegal possession of a contraceptive device.
I'm 72 and can't imagine wanting to dye my hair. What a hassle! What an expense! One of my grandmothers did, the other didn't. My mother didn't either. I do wonder if straight women are more likely to dye their hair than lesbians -- does anyone know of any studies or at least fact-based stories on this?
Clairol? Seriously? This would be about how women are influenced by social standards of beauty and acceptability and what they're trying to achieve when they make choices about hair, dress, etc. Also about how this changes over time.
"Date?" Is that an even-more-polite word for bonking? Ms. Dowd is good-looking now. I'm not a betting man (cliche apology) but if she could have gotten proximity to JFK, I suspect his legendary priapism would have taken care of things. Go on the web, search "Princess Grace + JFK" then images, and you will be a photo of the princess at the White House giving JFK a look that would have fogged his glasses, if he was wearing them.
I'm thinking of the pic in which JFK is OBVIOUSLY looking down the front of a very young Nancy Pelosi's dress.
actually, until a few months ago (when her bullshit started to stink), I would have been very happy for a "date" with Ms. Dowd. but I'm the one in my group of friends of whom it was said that I'd gladly be intimate with a long, scary reptile.
You can file this under, two lecherous geezers walked up to a photographic light table.
I believe the photo you're referring to shows Nancy D'Alesandro, probably 21 or 22, looking at the camera with a deer in the headlights stare. Her dress is dark and covers her from shoulder to bottom hem. Moreover, a fairly high rez version of that photo shows the edges of President JFK's pupils looking...at her face.
There's *another* photo you can find on the web, JFK, the President, talking to Nancy's dad, Thomas, with Nancy's mom looking proudly at her husband. Nancy, far left, is clearly, um, entranced by JFK -- if not at the same steamy level as the Princess.
My bona fides in this, uh, area, are two years as West Coast editor of Playboy, where, as you know, boob-staring was the original foundation of the corporate structure.
About your confession that you were known among your friends as someone whose physical affection could extend to the class reptilia (TMI?), remember comedian Lenny Bruce's sadly accurate line that "men will f**k mud."
you made me laugh (as did Joe Biden a bit earlier, god bless him), so good on you.
to be sure (in my own defense of the once-young me), the lighter (and much nicer) version of what my friends would say was "shit, Levine, you think EVERYONE is beautiful."
the arithmetic doesn't work out...assuming you were being at least half-serious. she was about eleven when JFK got shot.
but, more seriously, what the fuck is wrong with her? admittedly, I liked her snarkiness when Bush was being the stupidest president in history (up to that point).now, of course, if you're rating stupid presidents in terms of the Monopoly Board (why you would do so eludes me for the moment, except that I like the metaphor), Bush is, say, Atlantic Avenue whereas TFF is Baltic (or Mediterranean).
every day, I have a battle with myself over 1) whether to go to the lobby to pick up my copy of the NYT and, later, 2) whether or not to cancel my subscription with a nasty letter. the most offensive section is, of course, the "Opinion" section. that piece yesterday by Nancy Reagan's whomever was especially obscene. my sense is tha they're hedging their bets because they know that if Biden wins, they're fine but if TFF wins and is REALLY pissed off at them, Maggie Haberman (don't even get me started on her putz dad Clyde) will lose her "access." or something like that.
Regarding MoDo, sarcasm doesn't usually require clarification. Sure, she only wished she could have boinked JFK, all of the other Dems she either did or wished shoe could have boinked, on the other hand...
"Big picture: it still boggles my mind that Clarence Thomas participated in the 14th Amendment case & will apparently do so in the presidential immunity appeal too and that there hasn't been sustained outrage over this."
This is astonishing and stands out on the outrage meter even in the face of so many atrocious acts. How in the hell is he still on the court? A better question for me, since I really don't know, is what it would take to impeach or in any way force him off the court? It's too late for Biden to stack the court, which has been suggested from day one of his presidency. I cannot even look at Thomaas and his smirking arrogance. I hate to even mention the old Joe Biden's role in this, how poorly he treated Anita Hill; the problems didn't begin today. And re-electing Biden is our only hope, but the uninformed are buying the crap that's printed, it's no longer all the news that's fit to print. At least the MAGA morons do not, I assume, read the Times.
The theory is Thomas (and Alito) are hoping for a Trump return, so they can retire and make big money, and Trump can select 2 new young conservative's from the Federalist to lock in the court for the next 25 years
I hope to heck Alito and Thomas get deeply, deeply disappointed. Trump shall NOT get another chance to load up the already rotting, smelly Court with more stinkers. Trump, Alito and Thomas can all go to hell together and give Lucifer a headache.
That would be the best of all worlds cause I can’t see any other way you’re gonna rein those corrupt fuckers in but that’s a big if. And they’ve gotten very used to the largeosse, so they would certainly not leave voluntarily
I think there is outrage aplenty, but Thomas lives in the rarified atmosphere--mostly isolated from public (or official) opinion--of the very corrupt and rotting Stench Court. We can be as outraged as we please--it doesn't affect Clarence and Ginni. Yet.
It's very clear that they want a Trump presidency at the expense of democracy, the Constitution, even our precious 1st Amendment. Why? Because like Trump, NYT gets to play the victim when the Administration goes on the warpath against them. Maybe Little Arthur thinks he'll be spared when Stephen Miller comes for CNN and MSNBC.
NYT is learning from the Washington Post's financial stumbles in the Biden era: Trump = $
They know we "need" the Times as an institution, yet they feel no obligation to behave as an unbiased one. The cynicism is astounding.
They want to be a kingmaker and not lose readers. Same bargain Fox News made--access to the no longer President in return for pumping out divisive emotionally laden propaganda.
I was told of an internal memo after Trump decided not to start his own cable service... to double down on Trump's views. My friend resigned from Fox where he did legal compliance.) Though some NY Times' reporting is important and unbiased, ie their Bucha investigation, for example, it's called the New Orc Times for a reason among Ukraine supporters. Russian active measures split democratic society, exploit old strains of American isolationism like before WWII, eclipse Biden and Ukraine. The virus infects Congress, media, social media, drifting to fascism etcetera. You are covering it and it's not new but such a horrible concern when the bulwarks begin leaking. Why no coverage of the agents who died after Trump's leaks?
As a former NYT correspondent, I can only agree in triple with your concerns about Times coverage. Scores of excellent editors have been let go in recent years; there is a "Biden is too old" slant as you suggest to many stories and headlines; carelessness is almost a page-by-page event. I read the paper edition each morning (in Miami) and the overall experience can be most annoying. Add to that the absurdly sophomoric graphic layouts of the once-wonderful Sunday Magazine, and you can lament that what the Times was it ain't any longer. Sad and bad for the USA.
And one Ross Douthat who writes "I am a victim" columns 3 times a week Or "I have a religious solution for everything." The dimwit gets roasted in the comments after every column. I know I've taken many shots at him. In a transparent attempt at bothsiderism I don't (and many others) do not need pearl clutching dispatches from the evangelical, regressive right wing catholic front.
have you noticed that Douthat spends at least three-quarters of every column clearing his throat? then he manages a topic sentence (when he's as good as he gets, which is not very, not ever). then it's over.
oh god yes. a little worse every week. and then there are those extra fat fashion and style sections (not to mention those huge paid ad tomes on all the swell but much too expensive lawyers et al). my shoulders are held together with spit and paper clips, so every ounce matters.
I'm saying: the editors still working are too few to guard against bias and carelessness which can creep in unbeknown at times to the reporter/writer. I happened to me AT TIMES WHEN i GOT TOO WRAPPED UP IN A STORY TO LOOK AT IT COOL-LY FROM THE OUTSIDE. THERE'S NO GUN; THERE'S ALSO NO SHIE;LD.
In the last few months I've become convinced that both the NYT and WaPo are hoping Trump wins simply because it's great for clicks and subscriptions. The Post lost a huge amount of subscribers after the 2020 election when people quit breathlessly following the latest Trump stupidity. There is no other reason I can see for both papers to constantly find fault with Biden. I'm seriously considering canceling both. If it weren't for a few writers at both papers who I respect and follow I would have do so already. Garbage like the latest poll show how low the mainstream media has sunk.
I cancelled the NYT long ago during its promotion of the Iraq War through Judith Miller. Their coverage of "Hillary's emails" among others only confirmed my decision.
Agree. WTFO—- What the fuck, over???? According to a source in The Guardian (to which excellent news source I have just contributed), Trump possibly has phonemic paraphrasias—- a sign of serious cognitive decline in which you mumble a non-word that somewhat resembles a real one —- for example, “benefushes” for “beneficiaries.” His father had Alzheimer’s, and I think Trump is headed the same way. So either The Gray Lady is bending over backwards to be fair and nonpartisan— hello? Why now?—- or the political climate has changed at the Times. I get it—- it’s not a shill for liberals. It’s not the anti-Fox “News.” But for god’s sake, enough already! Biden is spry and alert at 81, as I’m told I am at 82. How about an opinion piece that points out that some people are old at 35 while others are still spry and alert at 90!?!?!
Many have said this already, but it’s worth repeating: if Biden were mumbling incoherently as Trump is doing, it would be page 1, above-the-fold news.
Ben Ferencz who at 27 served as a lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials presented closing arguments in a case in front of the International Court in The Hague, which he helped form, when he was in his late 90s.
And a wealth of experience to draw from that can only come with the tick of a clock.
Prosecuting Evil is a YouTube documentary about Ferencz's path through the trials. Some rough photos that anyone who is not Jewish should see. Incredible guy who couldn't understand why anyone would stop working. :)
Thank you for this link! Definitely proves that age is just a number. I am 72.5 years old but have many friends in their 80’s. They are active and vibrant and one doesn’t take any meds and is just now getting cataracts at the age of 85!
NYT is too busy trying to be both magisterial and progressive. You cannot Botox an Old Gray Lady, accessorize her new minidress with a designer kuffiyeh and not expect a mess.
The NYT pulled the same nonsense with Hillary Clinton when she was running for president. They did not like her and there was no pretense of even handed coverage. I find the arrogance and sense of entitlement of these self-styled fourth estate mandarins appalling. The Washington Post is not much better. We can expect daily negative “click-bait” headlines regarding the president. Well sourced Trump coverage is light or some BS attempt at light weight, puff piece ‘both sidism’. I cannot help but think they long for the old days when Trump as president was easy journalistic pickings. No effort required plus a daily front page color photo of Donald’s ghastly orange face. Meanwhile, I am running out of quality news sources.
Not only insanity but criminality and treachery and treason. He would literally kill a country that has been very, very good to him … as the justice system is continuing to be, bending over backwards to give this loathsome bottom feeder every break he needs.
I actually cancelled a few days ago. It's been 'neutral' on so many heavy subjects that require a heavy hand and trying to appear 'balanced' in the most unbalanced way. Almost as though the Times needs to flex its virtue muscle. I read their book section for free. The Times is neither left nor right - they are completely LOST.
“The Times on Sunday, however, had this headline ready for your morning coffee: ‘Majority of Biden’s 2020 Voters Now Say He’s Too Old to be Effective.’” Interestingly, that polling was in response to a question usually found in a partisan push poll ; in other words, a question worded to yield a desired response. The question contained the words “just too old” PUSHING respondents toward an affirmative answer which tje Times wanted. A parallel question: “Is P1135809 just too old” or “just too crazy” or “just too fascistic” should have been included to keep the pushing equal. Or, if the poll wanted to be taken seriously by anyone but the Times, it should have contained no push questions.
I get the NYT digital. 50 years ago I had the NYT Sunday delivered to me in Illinois, and loved it. The NYT today is different in its political slant. Now it doesn't even reflect the views of NYC residents.
I have followed the career of that mealy-mouthed David Brooks for all too long. All he has to offer is a nice smile, and oatmeal in print. He has been joined by his clones. As old Republicans wish for Reagan, I want the old NYT.
When he had his male menopause attack he became a shrill self-righteous preacher of virtue and that was probably the worst thing that could have happened to him.
He got religion and a younger wife, along with all kinds of stupid ideas that he is a wise man.
There was a story on the front "page" of NYTimes the other day entitled “What’s the Best Way to Clean Your Ears?”. The gist of the article was that you shouldn't put anything in your ears and, I kid you not, if you need your ears cleaned, go see a doctor. Zero useful information; you could find better advice on a BuzzFeed listicle.
Of all the compromised institutions in America, I find the Gray Lady's inexorable descent into click-bait hell the most depressing. I have fond memories of spending my Sunday mornings with her, as though in the company of a wise old aunt, greedily consuming her wisdom and curatorial authority. All I feel now, after clicking on what I should recognize as click-bait headlines, is shame. And don't even get me started on Maureen Fucking Dowd.
You are absolutely right. I've been noticing NYT's bias for quite a while. I became so annoyed that I canceled my subscription. I've noticed the same thing in the Washington Post and with various pundits on so called liberal news sources. I cannot understand it. What do these people think life will be like under Trump and his collection of groveling sycophants?
I think the clicks=dollars thing has them all blinded to the long view. Trump will NOT ignore established media. I don't think they quite realize what Trump will do to put the lid on dissent and criticism.
With his insecure ego and extremely thin skin, Drumpy has no tolerance whatsoever for either criticism or disagreement.
THANK YOU, Lucian. And I'm pleased that Salon gave you big above the digital fold coverage for this.
All the News that's Fit - to serve the overlords. WaPo is now owned by Bezos, I don't know enough about the top of the Times to grasp where this bias is coming from, and why its real purpose is in favoring rump. But it is all serving big money, you can bet on that, and the hideous reality is that old Joe, who is less than perfect, is trying to serve democracy, do what's right for the people, cancel usurious school debt, support the unions, and more that the Billionaires do not want. Face it; we are all peasants, this is not the America we once knew, there will be no Watergate and I've never felt so hopeless.
NO president is ever perfect! We elect ‘em, then we proceed to crucify ‘em. Joe is an old pro—- old in the sense of experienced. He’s diplomatic and progressive and sensible and —wait for it— presidential.
Ask any non-Trumper who also doesn’t like Biden to describe his or her perfect president. You’ll hear stammering and indecision, or some dreamy collection of attractive traits like good looks, great orator, and views that accord exactly with those of the person to whom the question was posed. This just in:THAT PERSON DOESN’T EXIST!
Exactly. I had an exchange with a young person not so long ago...and that person wanted candidates who were "more exciting".
I had to ask what she thought "more exciting" would look and/or sound like? She really couldn't articulate exactly what she meant, other than "younger". Sigh. Of course.
I was a bit annoyed because "exciting" and good policies and agendas do not, in my opinion, mix well.
And Maureen Dowd's column calling on Biden to use SOTU to announce he won't seek re-election b/c of age concerns is particularly egregious coming from a 72-year-old columnist with dyed red hair.
Peter - any 72-year-old woman whose hair is not gray or white has dyed hair. Mine is now purple.
My sisters dye their hair. I'm fine with it, as long as people don't take a swipe at someone else's age. Maureen Dowd is obsessed with destroying Biden at the expense of democracy, and it's vanity. He reminds her that she's not far behind on the scrap heap.
So vote for the redheaded candidate? CRAZY!!!
I tried to go natural, once in my 50’s where my neighbor (less than 10years younger) was mistaken for my daughter. Then again during Covid years. I found it liberating…until…my college pal thought I resembled one of the nuns we had in college in the 1960s! Like Trump, I will go to my grave with blonde hair. But not the worst comb-over on earth, or a red tie to my knees. And…Hopefully… much later than he!
Chemicals are bad
LOL. Plus, Cal Lash's concern about the chemicals he thinks you're using may not know that you studied at Brandeis the use of eggplant as a hypoallergenic dye. [Insert crazy laughing emoji here.]
I know a shitload of Brandeis grads, but they were all English majors. some of the best times I had in college were the weekends I spent visiting Brandeis. although there WAS one weekend at Bennington....
Another Brandesian here?
In the wayback of the school's history, just you and me.
what year?
I was kicked out of Brandeis in 1960, collateral damage six months after federal and state cops searched a student friend's off-campus apartment , where I'd bunked for a few days, and found dread Marijuana, use of which my pal had offered me and I'd declined, mostly out of fear: I loved jazz, so I "knew" -- from the examples of Bird, Lady Day, Chet Baker, so many others -- what "muggles" would *inevitably* lead to.
The real, real, real victim --- and gah-damn , today's "religious" Right, led by Clarence Thomas, apparently thinks this was part of what made America Great --- was my friend's girlfriend. The cops found her diaphragm at his apartment. We heard the deal was that Brandeis kicked her out immediately and sent her home to New York, in exchange for which she wasn't prosecuted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for illegal possession of a contraceptive device.
I'm 72 and can't imagine wanting to dye my hair. What a hassle! What an expense! One of my grandmothers did, the other didn't. My mother didn't either. I do wonder if straight women are more likely to dye their hair than lesbians -- does anyone know of any studies or at least fact-based stories on this?
I cannot think of who would want and finance such a study. Clairol? And then, of course, what to do with the results?
Clairol? Seriously? This would be about how women are influenced by social standards of beauty and acceptability and what they're trying to achieve when they make choices about hair, dress, etc. Also about how this changes over time.
MoDo has had a hardon for Democrats since she couldn't get a date with JFK.
And was dumped by several other Dems back in the Nineties.
"Date?" Is that an even-more-polite word for bonking? Ms. Dowd is good-looking now. I'm not a betting man (cliche apology) but if she could have gotten proximity to JFK, I suspect his legendary priapism would have taken care of things. Go on the web, search "Princess Grace + JFK" then images, and you will be a photo of the princess at the White House giving JFK a look that would have fogged his glasses, if he was wearing them.
I'm thinking of the pic in which JFK is OBVIOUSLY looking down the front of a very young Nancy Pelosi's dress.
actually, until a few months ago (when her bullshit started to stink), I would have been very happy for a "date" with Ms. Dowd. but I'm the one in my group of friends of whom it was said that I'd gladly be intimate with a long, scary reptile.
You can file this under, two lecherous geezers walked up to a photographic light table.
I believe the photo you're referring to shows Nancy D'Alesandro, probably 21 or 22, looking at the camera with a deer in the headlights stare. Her dress is dark and covers her from shoulder to bottom hem. Moreover, a fairly high rez version of that photo shows the edges of President JFK's pupils looking...at her face.
There's *another* photo you can find on the web, JFK, the President, talking to Nancy's dad, Thomas, with Nancy's mom looking proudly at her husband. Nancy, far left, is clearly, um, entranced by JFK -- if not at the same steamy level as the Princess.
My bona fides in this, uh, area, are two years as West Coast editor of Playboy, where, as you know, boob-staring was the original foundation of the corporate structure.
About your confession that you were known among your friends as someone whose physical affection could extend to the class reptilia (TMI?), remember comedian Lenny Bruce's sadly accurate line that "men will f**k mud."
you made me laugh (as did Joe Biden a bit earlier, god bless him), so good on you.
to be sure (in my own defense of the once-young me), the lighter (and much nicer) version of what my friends would say was "shit, Levine, you think EVERYONE is beautiful."
Hmmm...that certainly WAS a sultry look, if ever there was one.
Wow I can believe that.
the arithmetic doesn't work out...assuming you were being at least half-serious. she was about eleven when JFK got shot.
but, more seriously, what the fuck is wrong with her? admittedly, I liked her snarkiness when Bush was being the stupidest president in history (up to that point).now, of course, if you're rating stupid presidents in terms of the Monopoly Board (why you would do so eludes me for the moment, except that I like the metaphor), Bush is, say, Atlantic Avenue whereas TFF is Baltic (or Mediterranean).
every day, I have a battle with myself over 1) whether to go to the lobby to pick up my copy of the NYT and, later, 2) whether or not to cancel my subscription with a nasty letter. the most offensive section is, of course, the "Opinion" section. that piece yesterday by Nancy Reagan's whomever was especially obscene. my sense is tha they're hedging their bets because they know that if Biden wins, they're fine but if TFF wins and is REALLY pissed off at them, Maggie Haberman (don't even get me started on her putz dad Clyde) will lose her "access." or something like that.
Regarding MoDo, sarcasm doesn't usually require clarification. Sure, she only wished she could have boinked JFK, all of the other Dems she either did or wished shoe could have boinked, on the other hand...
And to quote, @JoyceWhiteVance
"Big picture: it still boggles my mind that Clarence Thomas participated in the 14th Amendment case & will apparently do so in the presidential immunity appeal too and that there hasn't been sustained outrage over this."
This is astonishing and stands out on the outrage meter even in the face of so many atrocious acts. How in the hell is he still on the court? A better question for me, since I really don't know, is what it would take to impeach or in any way force him off the court? It's too late for Biden to stack the court, which has been suggested from day one of his presidency. I cannot even look at Thomaas and his smirking arrogance. I hate to even mention the old Joe Biden's role in this, how poorly he treated Anita Hill; the problems didn't begin today. And re-electing Biden is our only hope, but the uninformed are buying the crap that's printed, it's no longer all the news that's fit to print. At least the MAGA morons do not, I assume, read the Times.
The theory is Thomas (and Alito) are hoping for a Trump return, so they can retire and make big money, and Trump can select 2 new young conservative's from the Federalist to lock in the court for the next 25 years
Ugh
Please NO
I hope to heck Alito and Thomas get deeply, deeply disappointed. Trump shall NOT get another chance to load up the already rotting, smelly Court with more stinkers. Trump, Alito and Thomas can all go to hell together and give Lucifer a headache.
so much for sleeping tonight...
I hope he does stack the court if we win both houses!
That would be the best of all worlds cause I can’t see any other way you’re gonna rein those corrupt fuckers in but that’s a big if. And they’ve gotten very used to the largeosse, so they would certainly not leave voluntarily
I think there is outrage aplenty, but Thomas lives in the rarified atmosphere--mostly isolated from public (or official) opinion--of the very corrupt and rotting Stench Court. We can be as outraged as we please--it doesn't affect Clarence and Ginni. Yet.
Once 'The Grey Lady, for a while now, the Whore of Babylon."
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
if I knew how to do those emojis, I'd have repeated Marlene's.
👍🏼 If you need help wotb thst, let me know, David!
*with that*
It's very clear that they want a Trump presidency at the expense of democracy, the Constitution, even our precious 1st Amendment. Why? Because like Trump, NYT gets to play the victim when the Administration goes on the warpath against them. Maybe Little Arthur thinks he'll be spared when Stephen Miller comes for CNN and MSNBC.
NYT is learning from the Washington Post's financial stumbles in the Biden era: Trump = $
They know we "need" the Times as an institution, yet they feel no obligation to behave as an unbiased one. The cynicism is astounding.
They want to be a kingmaker and not lose readers. Same bargain Fox News made--access to the no longer President in return for pumping out divisive emotionally laden propaganda.
I was told of an internal memo after Trump decided not to start his own cable service... to double down on Trump's views. My friend resigned from Fox where he did legal compliance.) Though some NY Times' reporting is important and unbiased, ie their Bucha investigation, for example, it's called the New Orc Times for a reason among Ukraine supporters. Russian active measures split democratic society, exploit old strains of American isolationism like before WWII, eclipse Biden and Ukraine. The virus infects Congress, media, social media, drifting to fascism etcetera. You are covering it and it's not new but such a horrible concern when the bulwarks begin leaking. Why no coverage of the agents who died after Trump's leaks?
As a former NYT correspondent, I can only agree in triple with your concerns about Times coverage. Scores of excellent editors have been let go in recent years; there is a "Biden is too old" slant as you suggest to many stories and headlines; carelessness is almost a page-by-page event. I read the paper edition each morning (in Miami) and the overall experience can be most annoying. Add to that the absurdly sophomoric graphic layouts of the once-wonderful Sunday Magazine, and you can lament that what the Times was it ain't any longer. Sad and bad for the USA.
And one Ross Douthat who writes "I am a victim" columns 3 times a week Or "I have a religious solution for everything." The dimwit gets roasted in the comments after every column. I know I've taken many shots at him. In a transparent attempt at bothsiderism I don't (and many others) do not need pearl clutching dispatches from the evangelical, regressive right wing catholic front.
Douthat is a must miss.
Along with Thomas Friedman.
Krugman has slipped as well.
Still Laughing at your opening line
Thanks Joan. No kcufing cable for moi since 9:00 a.m.
have you noticed that Douthat spends at least three-quarters of every column clearing his throat? then he manages a topic sentence (when he's as good as he gets, which is not very, not ever). then it's over.
fuck him.
Excelllent comment.
thank you most kindly.
Yeah this past Sunday Mag was about big pants and what they tell us about ourselves!
And they are still stuffing those giant color real estate sections of waterfront mansions in the Sunday paper!
oh god yes. a little worse every week. and then there are those extra fat fashion and style sections (not to mention those huge paid ad tomes on all the swell but much too expensive lawyers et al). my shoulders are held together with spit and paper clips, so every ounce matters.
Outlier though.
eye roll
OY!!
The layout pales next to the articles in their Sunday magazine. Which are mostly outstanding.
Skip Opinion, but the series they undertake are excellent.
Agree on articles.
I also really like David Marchese's interviews.
yes, yes, yes. but I actually LIKE the new-ish magazine. what's become utterly worthless is the Book Review.
So, Barnard, what you’re saying is that these replacement editors are holding a proverbial gun to reporters heads?
I'm saying: the editors still working are too few to guard against bias and carelessness which can creep in unbeknown at times to the reporter/writer. I happened to me AT TIMES WHEN i GOT TOO WRAPPED UP IN A STORY TO LOOK AT IT COOL-LY FROM THE OUTSIDE. THERE'S NO GUN; THERE'S ALSO NO SHIE;LD.
Ugh ugh UGH!
In the last few months I've become convinced that both the NYT and WaPo are hoping Trump wins simply because it's great for clicks and subscriptions. The Post lost a huge amount of subscribers after the 2020 election when people quit breathlessly following the latest Trump stupidity. There is no other reason I can see for both papers to constantly find fault with Biden. I'm seriously considering canceling both. If it weren't for a few writers at both papers who I respect and follow I would have do so already. Garbage like the latest poll show how low the mainstream media has sunk.
Already cancelled NYT, and when my 99cents/month deal runs out, will be cancelling Wapo as well.
I cancelled the NYT long ago during its promotion of the Iraq War through Judith Miller. Their coverage of "Hillary's emails" among others only confirmed my decision.
Add the Boston Globe to the recycle bin.
I've already done NYT and WAPO is next!
Agree. WTFO—- What the fuck, over???? According to a source in The Guardian (to which excellent news source I have just contributed), Trump possibly has phonemic paraphrasias—- a sign of serious cognitive decline in which you mumble a non-word that somewhat resembles a real one —- for example, “benefushes” for “beneficiaries.” His father had Alzheimer’s, and I think Trump is headed the same way. So either The Gray Lady is bending over backwards to be fair and nonpartisan— hello? Why now?—- or the political climate has changed at the Times. I get it—- it’s not a shill for liberals. It’s not the anti-Fox “News.” But for god’s sake, enough already! Biden is spry and alert at 81, as I’m told I am at 82. How about an opinion piece that points out that some people are old at 35 while others are still spry and alert at 90!?!?!
Many have said this already, but it’s worth repeating: if Biden were mumbling incoherently as Trump is doing, it would be page 1, above-the-fold news.
I’m canceling my online NYT subscription.
Correcting my comment above: it’s phonemic paraphasias ( not “paraphrasias”).
Ben Ferencz who at 27 served as a lead prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials presented closing arguments in a case in front of the International Court in The Hague, which he helped form, when he was in his late 90s.
Case closed about generalizing age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Ferencz
Great example. Thanks. My brother at 91 is still an avid reader with an intact memory and no sign that I can divine of mental impairment.
And a wealth of experience to draw from that can only come with the tick of a clock.
Prosecuting Evil is a YouTube documentary about Ferencz's path through the trials. Some rough photos that anyone who is not Jewish should see. Incredible guy who couldn't understand why anyone would stop working. :)
Thank you for this link! Definitely proves that age is just a number. I am 72.5 years old but have many friends in their 80’s. They are active and vibrant and one doesn’t take any meds and is just now getting cataracts at the age of 85!
NYT is too busy trying to be both magisterial and progressive. You cannot Botox an Old Gray Lady, accessorize her new minidress with a designer kuffiyeh and not expect a mess.
Wonderful comment, Susan!
[Insert crying/laughing emoji here]. The only thing you left out of your fashion analysis is the bikini underpants labelled "JUICY" on the tush side.
🤣🤣
We laughed out loud at your snarky response …
The NYT pulled the same nonsense with Hillary Clinton when she was running for president. They did not like her and there was no pretense of even handed coverage. I find the arrogance and sense of entitlement of these self-styled fourth estate mandarins appalling. The Washington Post is not much better. We can expect daily negative “click-bait” headlines regarding the president. Well sourced Trump coverage is light or some BS attempt at light weight, puff piece ‘both sidism’. I cannot help but think they long for the old days when Trump as president was easy journalistic pickings. No effort required plus a daily front page color photo of Donald’s ghastly orange face. Meanwhile, I am running out of quality news sources.
There can’t be “both sidism” when there aren’t 2 sides. There is the side of Biden’s success, and the multiple sides of Trump’s insanity.
Not only insanity but criminality and treachery and treason. He would literally kill a country that has been very, very good to him … as the justice system is continuing to be, bending over backwards to give this loathsome bottom feeder every break he needs.
Absolutely ALL of what you said!
And lest we forget, a million Americans dead because of his non-handling of Covid. He only wants to keep his ass out of prison - his only way out.
I actually cancelled a few days ago. It's been 'neutral' on so many heavy subjects that require a heavy hand and trying to appear 'balanced' in the most unbalanced way. Almost as though the Times needs to flex its virtue muscle. I read their book section for free. The Times is neither left nor right - they are completely LOST.
But I like the Games! Wordle, Connections, Spelling Bee, the Crosswords. But for actual news, I read the Guardian.
I agree! The crossword is great!
“The Times on Sunday, however, had this headline ready for your morning coffee: ‘Majority of Biden’s 2020 Voters Now Say He’s Too Old to be Effective.’” Interestingly, that polling was in response to a question usually found in a partisan push poll ; in other words, a question worded to yield a desired response. The question contained the words “just too old” PUSHING respondents toward an affirmative answer which tje Times wanted. A parallel question: “Is P1135809 just too old” or “just too crazy” or “just too fascistic” should have been included to keep the pushing equal. Or, if the poll wanted to be taken seriously by anyone but the Times, it should have contained no push questions.
Absolutely right.
Are they in the tank for the Mango Mamzer?
Yes - and the next question should have been, would you vote for him anyway?
Wow - do I agree with this !!!! This last week of headlines has left me completely disillusioned!
I get the NYT digital. 50 years ago I had the NYT Sunday delivered to me in Illinois, and loved it. The NYT today is different in its political slant. Now it doesn't even reflect the views of NYC residents.
I have followed the career of that mealy-mouthed David Brooks for all too long. All he has to offer is a nice smile, and oatmeal in print. He has been joined by his clones. As old Republicans wish for Reagan, I want the old NYT.
Those days are gone, Rich. Adjust your sail.
Cannot stomach David Brooks!
When he had his male menopause attack he became a shrill self-righteous preacher of virtue and that was probably the worst thing that could have happened to him.
He got religion and a younger wife, along with all kinds of stupid ideas that he is a wise man.
There was a story on the front "page" of NYTimes the other day entitled “What’s the Best Way to Clean Your Ears?”. The gist of the article was that you shouldn't put anything in your ears and, I kid you not, if you need your ears cleaned, go see a doctor. Zero useful information; you could find better advice on a BuzzFeed listicle.
Of all the compromised institutions in America, I find the Gray Lady's inexorable descent into click-bait hell the most depressing. I have fond memories of spending my Sunday mornings with her, as though in the company of a wise old aunt, greedily consuming her wisdom and curatorial authority. All I feel now, after clicking on what I should recognize as click-bait headlines, is shame. And don't even get me started on Maureen Fucking Dowd.
You are absolutely right. I've been noticing NYT's bias for quite a while. I became so annoyed that I canceled my subscription. I've noticed the same thing in the Washington Post and with various pundits on so called liberal news sources. I cannot understand it. What do these people think life will be like under Trump and his collection of groveling sycophants?
I think the clicks=dollars thing has them all blinded to the long view. Trump will NOT ignore established media. I don't think they quite realize what Trump will do to put the lid on dissent and criticism.
With his insecure ego and extremely thin skin, Drumpy has no tolerance whatsoever for either criticism or disagreement.
THANK YOU, Lucian. And I'm pleased that Salon gave you big above the digital fold coverage for this.
All the News that's Fit - to serve the overlords. WaPo is now owned by Bezos, I don't know enough about the top of the Times to grasp where this bias is coming from, and why its real purpose is in favoring rump. But it is all serving big money, you can bet on that, and the hideous reality is that old Joe, who is less than perfect, is trying to serve democracy, do what's right for the people, cancel usurious school debt, support the unions, and more that the Billionaires do not want. Face it; we are all peasants, this is not the America we once knew, there will be no Watergate and I've never felt so hopeless.
NO president is ever perfect! We elect ‘em, then we proceed to crucify ‘em. Joe is an old pro—- old in the sense of experienced. He’s diplomatic and progressive and sensible and —wait for it— presidential.
Ask any non-Trumper who also doesn’t like Biden to describe his or her perfect president. You’ll hear stammering and indecision, or some dreamy collection of attractive traits like good looks, great orator, and views that accord exactly with those of the person to whom the question was posed. This just in:THAT PERSON DOESN’T EXIST!
Exactly. I had an exchange with a young person not so long ago...and that person wanted candidates who were "more exciting".
I had to ask what she thought "more exciting" would look and/or sound like? She really couldn't articulate exactly what she meant, other than "younger". Sigh. Of course.
I was a bit annoyed because "exciting" and good policies and agendas do not, in my opinion, mix well.