It seems to me most people don't read anything beyond the headline. So the message they get is Trump winning against disinformation ABOUT Trump, not the other way around.
And, as Parker has reported, the headlines seem to be a battle between two wolves, one who wants to be informative and another who desperately wants to appear non-partisan
As I said to some friends the other day: you cannot be non-partisan at this point -- trying to be non-partisan has become a political choice to not call out fascism, and that is not a good look; claiming to "ignore" politics or "not get involved" is a political choice to not call out fascism. That is how fascism wins -- "Well, it's not affecting me... (yet)". That's privilege, plain and simple.
Amen, that hectoring those who work at major media outlets does work.
If it didn't, why would the Right have been doing it for 40+ years?
The fact that the Left, Center, and other groups are now finally beginning to "work the refs" almost as hard as the Right is a huge part of why many at the top of media orgs like the NYTimes & Washington Post are pissed at much of the rest of the media right now.
One reason his crazy fascist statements sink beneath the waves after a day or two is that there's ZERO follow-up with the communities that would be affected. Trump says he wants to deport millions? Send your reporters out, day after day, interviewing people who'd be facing deportation, church leaders, community leaders on the impact. Trump says he wants to fire tens of thousands of federal employees? Sounds like we need to send a reporter out to an air-traffic control tower and a dozen other federal agencies to assess the impact of that, right? Trump recommends cops shoot shoplifters? Maybe a couple of stories interviewing police departments around the country, retailers, what do they think about this idea?
But that's, you know, HARD work. I get tired just thinking of it. Is Biden still old? Let's just go with that.
"Trump Hurries to Catch Biden in Race for Campaign Money" could be put more simply and accurately as "Biden far ahead in campaign cash" (Biden has $150 million cash on hand, Trump has less than $30 million). But then the subject would be Biden and not Trump, right? I'm sure they've done research on this, making Trump the subject of the headline garners more clicks.
One simple test that I like: "How would they say it on the sports pages?" In the race for a division title, one team is 12 games ahead of another, would the headline be "____ hurries to catch up"? Of course not.
If the situation was reversed and Trump had five times as much cash as Biden, would the headline be "Biden Hurries to Catch Up"? Or would it be "Trump Crushing Biden"?
Also, the Trump campaign has refused to release its February numbers, so how do we know he's "catching up" at all? Because we're the fuckin' New York Times, that's how, we can always spin up a story that makes Trump look like a winner.
I have definitely had the experience of people complaining "You people don't ever cover Topic X" within an hour of just having finished a story on Topic X (and it's a bipartisan phenomenon).
But you're absolutely right that the Times, for example, definitely rides certain stories for weeks ("Republicans tell us Joe Biden continues to be old") and gets certain stories out of the way with as little fuss as possible ("We got some of Donald Trump's tax information and it turns out he blew through his massive inheritance almost immediately and has been dancing as fast as he can to appear rich ever since"). And there is nothing wrong with complaining about that.
I wonder how many people read the NYT front page these days. I get my NYT articles via the app, which does some sort of algorithmic thing, and via social media.
I get my NYT "fix" via MSN News (app/Bing) and it tends to surface the most click-bait-y articles -- which are all about Trump, not Biden -- so mostly ignore NYT stories because of that. The algorithms have made what news we get through aggregators much worse.
I agree with you. I watch less news - local and National - as it doesn’t address the most important events or does so in a 20 sec blip that does not capture the scope of the issue. I find I am much more often searching out stories on my own. I know the billionaire class owns much of the media and I am cynical enough to believe it is purposeful.
It seems to me most people don't read anything beyond the headline. So the message they get is Trump winning against disinformation ABOUT Trump, not the other way around.
And, as Parker has reported, the headlines seem to be a battle between two wolves, one who wants to be informative and another who desperately wants to appear non-partisan
As I said to some friends the other day: you cannot be non-partisan at this point -- trying to be non-partisan has become a political choice to not call out fascism, and that is not a good look; claiming to "ignore" politics or "not get involved" is a political choice to not call out fascism. That is how fascism wins -- "Well, it's not affecting me... (yet)". That's privilege, plain and simple.
Amen, that hectoring those who work at major media outlets does work.
If it didn't, why would the Right have been doing it for 40+ years?
The fact that the Left, Center, and other groups are now finally beginning to "work the refs" almost as hard as the Right is a huge part of why many at the top of media orgs like the NYTimes & Washington Post are pissed at much of the rest of the media right now.
Keep workin' the refs, good folks.
One reason his crazy fascist statements sink beneath the waves after a day or two is that there's ZERO follow-up with the communities that would be affected. Trump says he wants to deport millions? Send your reporters out, day after day, interviewing people who'd be facing deportation, church leaders, community leaders on the impact. Trump says he wants to fire tens of thousands of federal employees? Sounds like we need to send a reporter out to an air-traffic control tower and a dozen other federal agencies to assess the impact of that, right? Trump recommends cops shoot shoplifters? Maybe a couple of stories interviewing police departments around the country, retailers, what do they think about this idea?
But that's, you know, HARD work. I get tired just thinking of it. Is Biden still old? Let's just go with that.
Yeah, that's a pet peeve. Are there really more migrants now than usual? If so, what is going on in their native countries to make it so?
"Trump Hurries to Catch Biden in Race for Campaign Money" could be put more simply and accurately as "Biden far ahead in campaign cash" (Biden has $150 million cash on hand, Trump has less than $30 million). But then the subject would be Biden and not Trump, right? I'm sure they've done research on this, making Trump the subject of the headline garners more clicks.
One simple test that I like: "How would they say it on the sports pages?" In the race for a division title, one team is 12 games ahead of another, would the headline be "____ hurries to catch up"? Of course not.
If the situation was reversed and Trump had five times as much cash as Biden, would the headline be "Biden Hurries to Catch Up"? Or would it be "Trump Crushing Biden"?
Also, the Trump campaign has refused to release its February numbers, so how do we know he's "catching up" at all? Because we're the fuckin' New York Times, that's how, we can always spin up a story that makes Trump look like a winner.
I have definitely had the experience of people complaining "You people don't ever cover Topic X" within an hour of just having finished a story on Topic X (and it's a bipartisan phenomenon).
But you're absolutely right that the Times, for example, definitely rides certain stories for weeks ("Republicans tell us Joe Biden continues to be old") and gets certain stories out of the way with as little fuss as possible ("We got some of Donald Trump's tax information and it turns out he blew through his massive inheritance almost immediately and has been dancing as fast as he can to appear rich ever since"). And there is nothing wrong with complaining about that.
I always enjoy when someone will claim MSM isn't covering something and link to an MSM story about said thing.
I wonder how many people read the NYT front page these days. I get my NYT articles via the app, which does some sort of algorithmic thing, and via social media.
I get my NYT "fix" via MSN News (app/Bing) and it tends to surface the most click-bait-y articles -- which are all about Trump, not Biden -- so mostly ignore NYT stories because of that. The algorithms have made what news we get through aggregators much worse.
I agree with you. I watch less news - local and National - as it doesn’t address the most important events or does so in a 20 sec blip that does not capture the scope of the issue. I find I am much more often searching out stories on my own. I know the billionaire class owns much of the media and I am cynical enough to believe it is purposeful.