December 23, 2019

"[T]he overwhelming majority of journalists at so-called mainstream outlets — national magazines, newspapers, public radio, the non-Fox television networks — really are doing their best to treat both parties fairly."

"In doing so, however, they often make an honest mistake: They equate balance with the midpoint between the two parties’ ideologies. Over the years, many press critics have pointed out one weakness of this approach: false equivalence, the refusal to consider the possibility that one side of an argument is simply (or mostly) right.... There’s also the possibility that both political parties have been wrong about something and that the solution, rather than being roughly halfway between their answers, is different from what either has been proposing.... The abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, labor rights, the New Deal, civil rights for black Americans, Reagan’s laissez-faire revolution and same-sex marriage all started outside the boundaries of what either party favored.... Political and economic journalism too often assumes otherwise and treats the center as inherently sensible.... [C]entrist bias... helps explain why the 2016 presidential debates focused more on the budget deficit, a topic of centrist zealotry, than climate change, almost certainly a bigger threat.... Sometimes, people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are right. Even when they’re not, they deserve the same skepticism that other politicians do — no less, no more."

From "How ‘Centrist Bias’ Hurts Sanders and Warren/The media has a bigger problem than liberal bias" by David Leonhardt (NYT).

Did the part of the quote that I put in the post title wreck your openness to this argument? One word in particular — "non-Fox." The entire assertion — "the overwhelming majority of journalists at so-called mainstream outlets... really are doing their best to treat both parties fairly" — strikes me as wrong. But to create a big group — national magazines, newspapers, public radio, and television networks — and then to exclude only Fox is a plain display of liberal bias. I can't watch any television news, because it's all biased. If all those "non-Fox" networks "really are doing their best," then "their best" is not good enough.

There is a worthy point in Leonhardt's column however, and I would take it further. If these news outlets really were to start giving us the best coverage of American political news, they would cut themselves off severely from any support for either party, not simply accept the way the issues are presented by the 2 parties and balance between the 2 sides. I'm not talking about whether the claim of balance is honest and accurate. I assume it's not. It's that these 2 parties — neither of which is impressively virtuous and competent — are allowed to define the substance and scope of the coverage.

Leonhardt seems mainly to want more supportive coverage for the further left Democratic candidates and more of a challenge to the bland middling candidates like Biden. He briefly acknowledges that the media underestimated Trump in 2016 (and Reagan in 1980) and attributes this to "centrist bias." But how did Trump win in spite of this intense bias against him? He was too extreme even to be taken seriously by the mainstream media. The media were content to accept Jeb Bush as about right for the GOP, similar to the way they're passing Joe Biden along uncritically. Trump broke through on his own. He turned the media bias against him into a positive force. I don't see Sanders and Warren doing that.

151 comments:

gilbar said...

[C]entrist bias... helps explain why the 2016 presidential debates focused more on the budget deficit, a topic of centrist zealotry, than climate change, almost certainly a bigger threat....
??????
I would think that in an article like this; that "climate change" would deserve the same skepticism that other politicians do — no less, no more."

But, I guess;that's 'cause i don't understand what exactly the writer is getting at?

gilbar said...

See?
The Real Reason WHY mainstream media treat President Trump like dirt ("worse than Hitler!")
is because they FOOLISHLY treat him with "false equivalence", the refusal to consider the possibility that one side of an argument is simply (or mostly) right..

President Trump (according to David Leonhardt) is falsely portrayed as "worse than Hitler!"
President Trump (according to David Leonhardt) is ACTUALLY EVEN WORSE THAN HITLER!!

Dan in Philly said...

The media is very balanced. They have simple leftists, far leftists, and over the cliff leftists to balance the pure socialists and communists in their organizations. They report (what they choose), you decide (what they tell you to).

Tregonsee said...

The standard Media/Academic spectrum: very Liberal, Liberal, somewhat Liberal, and right wing, bible thumping, gun toting, brown shirt wearing, Klansman.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Not always easy to tell in "real time" who is correct, so there is a simple solution. Look back, with the benefit of hindsight, over the past 4 years or so, and see which networks/individuals were the most accurate.

Unknown said...

They never stop upping the ante, do they?

Similar

Roberts says Judges are not partisan, they just do their best.

So what is the problem with Trump appointing all of them?

Life is so complicated it makes my head hurt.

YoungHegelian said...

Strange that Leonhardt assumes that the ideological exponents of the far Right shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt by the centrists as much the Left.

stevew said...

He's arguing for the ideal that journalists should adhere to impartial or neutral reporting, but what he really thinks they should be doing is issue advocacy. This latter condition is what they are engaged in and why I have to read so many different sources - and ignore many of the bigger ones - to get as clear an understanding of the truth as possible.

David Begley said...

This NYT writer is not just wrong, he is massively and objectively wrong. And the fact that this guy thinks this way is the exact problem. He thinks he’s being objective when he is biased and apparently doesn’t realize it.

If the press was doing its job it would be doing stories about Biden’s corruption in China and Ukraine. Also stories about what did Obama know about the spying on Trump. The government spying on Trump’s campaign and the FBI point shaving the Hillary email investigation are the biggest scandals in US political history.

“than climate change, almost certainly a bigger threat...” CAGW is a total and complete scam. Any educated person can figure that out.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The underlying premise is that journalists are qualified to determine what is "correct" and should be supported and what is "wrong" and must be resisted. In other words they should function as democrat operatives.

Never forget, journalists are stupid rich kids who couldn't get into law school.

whitney said...

Journalists are not the good guys and they never have been. It's something we have known since the beginning of newspapers shortly after the printing press was invented. They've had a rise in respectability because they teamed up with Hollywood and Hollywood made a bunch of movies about noble, brave journalists. And saying Hollywood is a cesspool is kind of a redundancy because actors have always been a group that you knew you had to keep away from decent society and your children. Actors and journalists getting prestige at the same time it's not a coincidence. They teamed up to promote each other and it has been enormously effective

Eric said...

One can hope that these media people would have the expertise (or seek it out) to independently evaluate the issues rather than presenting both sides' positions. Leonhardt doesn't seem to see this as a possibility.

Steven said...

Anybody who actually wanted media power to be used to fight climate change through carbon dioxide emissions would complain about the lack of positive coverage of nuclear power (statistically, the form of power with the fewest deaths per unit electricity generated) and the lack of negative coverage of opponents of nuclear power (like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the WWF, and other misanthrope lobbies the media lets mislabel themselves as "environmentalist").

Lurker21 said...

Much can be imagined about government and politics, but the window for what's possible and acceptable at any one time isn't so wide. Academics and opinionists are able to argue about a whole range of options running from complete laissez-faire capitalism to full-on socialism, but for most people, reality is somewhere in the middle. If you're in the business of arguing you can argue that that's wrong, but the argument is largely academic.

"Centrist bias" when it actually exists can claim that it is unbiased - that it splits the difference between two sides of the question. One could make an argument against "centrist bias" and in favor of all sides and positions and arguments being considered, but what would a media environment that gave a hearing to every conceivable point of view look like?

In practice, attacks on "centrist bias" mean demands for bias toward one's own side of the debate, as you can see in the article. Maybe without the sideswipe at FNC the writer could have had a wider audience and been taken more seriously, but he knows what his (narrower) audience wants, and he couldn't resist himself.

lane ranger said...

The left-wing bubble exists, but it degrades over time, and must be replenished. This article is part of the current replenishment of the bubble.

Wilbur said...

What Whitney said ...

Darrell said...

David Leonhardt is delusional.
But that makes him fit in with everyone else at the NYT. No bias there. Or at WaPo. Or ...

rhhardin said...

The so-called bias just follows the audience that will tune in. What fantasy does the audience want to tune in for, is what governs it.

Living in a fantasy is the goal.

Nobody wants hard news.

The biases in people are men vs women - systems analysis vs feelings.

If people won't watch, there's no news biz.

wendybar said...

I call BULLSHIT on that article. He doesn't see the bias, because he AGREES with it.

DavidD said...

I was willing to overlook the slam on Fox News but climate change as an existential threat? Really? C’mon.

West Texas Intermediate Crude said...

"Fairly" does not mean even-handedly, or neutrally. It means according to the way they believe things ought to be. Of course, same sex marriage is good, probably even better than man-woman marriage, so it should, must, be supported, or else (you can lose your job, your livelihood, your social standing). Did anyone ever lose anything for not supporting/participating in a man-woman marriage?).
Illegal immigration > legal. Fair.
Trans > gay >bi > questioning > straight. Fair.
Of course, Orange Man Bad. Fair coverage starts with that bedrock assumption. Now that we all agree on that, let's "Fairly" explain why OMB and what he did this week to confirm that OMB.
It's not neutrality that is cruel. Fair is cruel.

rhhardin said...

Fair, as in fair trial, means 50-50 odds of a guilty person getting off.

Chuck said...

Althouse, you could blog original source materials; Fiona Hill’s testimony; Gordon Sondland’s testimony; Michael Duffy’s email; Trump’s own wildly varied statements. Without any media bias.

But you choose to blog about opinion columnists writing about other opinion columnists writing about tv and radio opinion commentators.

When my local “Rush Limbaugh” station was running regular programming, my NPR station was running Congressional hearings live and unedited. Which do you think was providing more “filtered” information to listeners?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Journalists are not the good guys and they never have been.

Blaspheme! They've gone to J-School and are therefore qualified to be the moral arbitrators and scientific experts to which our society must bow.

tim in vermont said...

“he refusal to consider the possibility that one side of an argument is simply (or mostly) right....”

Maybe there job is to report what is said by all sides, present the arguments from all sides fairly and let the voters decide?

Naaah! They can’t give up their delusion that it is the media’s place to decide who is right and what should be reported negatively or positively. It’s the same with global warming, the better arguments win even when they are smothered by one-sided coverage, because media consumers can think.

tim in vermont said...

"But you *choose* to blog...”

And to paraphrase Joni Mitchell, she’s blogging “real good for free.” You get your opinion aired here, if you choose not to consider that Fiona Hill said that the whole Mueller thing was based on Russian disinformation, or that Putin considered fracking a threat to the Russian Federation or that Sondman changed his testimony, from what the Democrats fed to the media, under cross by Republicans, that’s not her fault that nobody here buys your crap except the lefties.

Amadeus 48 said...

The only thing that Trump was extreme about in 2016 was the thing that Althouse has identified as the thing that caused her to vote for Hillary: how weird he was. Trump has so far exceeded expectations that you really have to wonder what is real and what is phoney.

Trump does have a rap sheet of hucksterism, lame promotions, and sketchy business deals. I expected there would be a long and debilitating parade of financial victims. But I overlooked a couple of things: his critics would be so outraged by his election that they would spend three years spouting nonsense and attempting to cover up Obama’s sins, Trump would adhere to court decisions and take his arguments up the appeal chain, and most of Trump’s past financial victims would not be particularly sympathetic (banks and well heeled people who can fend for themselves).

Trump’s biggest weakness is his poor character. Hillary also suffers from her poor character, but her supporters engaged in denial and coverup. Trump’s supporters embraced their candidate while acknowledging his faults. Trump famously pointed out that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any support. No one who supports Trump cares about his baloney.

Meanwhile Barry and the awful Hillary got fitted with haloes.

So the problem isn’t extreme centerism in the press. The problem is the unilateral skepticism of the press. Only Republicans are mendacious and bad. The only good Republicans acknowledge that the Democrats are largely right. According to the press, the only real and legitimate controversy is debating left, far left, and outright Commie, with the consensus settling around far left. The press are disgusting stooges of the worst part of the Democratic coalition.

Bah! Humbug!

Ralph L said...

If they treated Biden the same as the further left, it would make BO look bad, and we can't have that.

Amadeus 48 said...

Generally, human beings have done better when the weather is warmer.

Clyde said...

Leonhardt is from that Spock-with-a-beard alternate universe where the media tells the truth, isn’t he?

Ralph L said...

Trump and Reagan certainly benefited from the media believing they were so far out of the mainstream that giving them more notice would assure Dem victory.

Clyde said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllenS said...

NAZI

a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party

Let's get that straight news people. When politicians mention "their socialist ideas" you need to call them on it, but you won't, and we know why you won't.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Probably what would be best is that only journalists should be allowed to vote, except for the ones that work at Fox News and similar right-leaning outlets. Those people aren't really journalists anyway. That way the "right" people with the "correct' opinions would be in charge. Which is how it should be, since, as we all know, attending J-School qualifies you to pass judgement on all ethical, theological, and scientific matters. It's like being the Pope, except better.

tim in vermont said...

“The refusal to consider the possibility that one side of an argument is simply (or mostly) right....”

Or..... OR..... or the refusal to consider the possibility that one’s own side of the argument may be wrong...

tim maguire said...

The standard argument against centrism, that it amounts to telling the Nazis to just beat Jews and burn their homes, has some merit, but I have yet to see it used in any context other than that centrists should move further to the left and stop giving conservatives airtime. It is ultimately a disingenuous argument made by a manipulator.

rehajm said...

Right and wrong is a good governing principle. Making shit up so you win is not a good governing principle.

I see the problem as making mountains out of molehills and molehills out of mountains.

Hagar said...

They went to J-school because they did not know what else to do, it sounded nice, and they were promised there would be no math.

Admin said...

BLOOD DONATION | DONATE BLOOD SAVE LIVES | www.helpingera.in

Find Blood Donors from various locations of India. And also register as a Blood Donor and save lifes.

Website: http://www.helpingera.in

Find a BLOOD DONOR: http://www.helpingera.in/search.php

Please register yourself as a BLOOD DONOR: http://www.helpingera.in/register.php

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helpingera/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/helpingera.india/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/helpingera2019/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/HelpingEra/

Tags: blood donation in india, helping era, helpingera.in

ADMINISTRATOR said...

BLOOD DONATION | DONATE BLOOD SAVE LIVES | www.helpingera.in

Find Blood Donors from various locations of India. And also register as a Blood Donor and save lifes.

Website: http://www.helpingera.in

Find a BLOOD DONOR: http://www.helpingera.in/search.php

Please register yourself as a BLOOD DONOR: http://www.helpingera.in/register.php

Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helpingera/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/helpingera.india/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/helpingera2019/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/HelpingEra/

Tags: blood donation in india, helping era, helpingera.in

Temujin said...

Just plain hand slapping-on-head obtuse. These people cannot not find the light at the end of the tunnel because they refuse to simply turn around and look. They know what they know- period. Arrogance & ignorance are not ideal attributes of a Journalist!

tim in vermont said...

As a general principle, if maybe the Nazis had only beaten Jews and burned their homes, and the Commies had stuck to just raising taxes and say, making fiery speeches at Ukraine, instead of subjecting them to mass starvation...

Molly said...

"Fair but making honest mistakes." The challenge for that point of view is to find an equal number of examples, or one single example, in which the mistake redounded to Trump's benefit. Such as, "Our original story reported that Trump said there were good people on all sides of the debate over whether to remove Confederate statues. We now believe that Trump used the phrase 'good people on all sides' to refer to the debate over whether to incarcerate all non-whites in concentration camps."

rhhardin said...

White supremacists are good people too, perhaps in need of a conversation depending on how they are white supremacists.

A lot of white supremacists are blacks living in Africa, trying to make their way to white-run countries.

rhhardin said...

The journalistic question is what can you say to get an audience. You sell the audience eyeballs to advertisers. That's the business model.

If you want truth, talk to retired people. They can't be cancelled.

Leland said...

I see a lot of people call Trump extreme, but I haven't seen it.

As for the article; few people have discussed in public how the US became the only country to hit its Kyoto Protocol emissions target despite Bush opting out of the agreement. The solutions that improved the US didn't come from the strategies pushed in the Protocol. They came from a mix of reducing demand (more efficient products) and changing supply (move away from coal to natural gas pushed by oil companies competing against coal).

The US currently has one of the largest functioning Carbon Capture project in the world. It is running at a coal powered electrical plant in Texas. One of the reasons it is running and successful is because there is no regulation on the use of the CO2. NRG injects the CO2 into nearby producing reservoirs to improve oil and gas production. In the UK/EU, CO2 injection is allowed, but not for production purposes. Also, you have to prove that the CO2 is still in the ground (because CO2 has a price and if it goes missing, somebody has the pay), something that is not easy to do as the dimension of reservoirs are not really known. CO2 regulation in the UK/EU has them far behind the US in implementing this technology.

If the US were to implement the policies of the Paris Climate Accords, then we couldn't advance Carbon Capture as quickly as we have. Yet, we are called extreme with a negative connotation.

tim in vermont said...

I recently heard a WaPo reporter on NPR, well, when this Ukraine thing fist came up, saying that “this is like a marathon and we are almost to the end.” .

Tom T. said...

Notice that Chuck carefully did not say "Marie Yovanovitch's testimony," presumably because like all of us here, he knows that she perjured herself. And Chuck doesn't even try to defend what the columnist is saying.

stlcdr said...

The quote makes you think that they believe Fox is the only non-biased television-based news outlet.

Tom T. said...

Perhaps the easiest way to see the silliness of Leonhardt's argument is to imagine how the media would be covering the current economy if a Democrat were in the White House.

Chuck said...

Tom T. said...
Notice that Chuck carefully did not say "Marie Yovanovitch's testimony," presumably because like all of us here, he knows that she perjured herself. And Chuck doesn't even try to defend what the columnist is saying.


No, that's wrong. I did not "carefully" exclude her. I could have mentioned a thousand other/additional original sources.

And a very big reason that I am constantly checking in with NPR is because they do such a beautiful job of things like this; publishing the full transcription of testimony from Marie Yovanovitch:

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776075849/read-former-ukraine-ambassador-yovanovitchs-testimony-to-congress

Original source material. That's what I am talking about. That's what I like to do. You can buy a copy of the Mueller Report, on Amazon, by using the Althouse portal. As I did.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Laughable. Leonhardt is selling his customers what they want to hear.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Chuck paid for the Mueller Report. Which you can download as a searchable PDF from the internet, for free.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

tim in vermont said...

"You can buy a copy of the Mueller Report, on Amazon,”

Presumably you are combing through it now making corrections based on what is now known from IG Horowitz’s report and Mueller’s own testimony that the inquisition had been run day to day by one of Hillary’s lawers, the guy who defended the person who obstructed Congress with "BleachBit and hammers.” You do know that is who ran the ‘Mueller' Report, and that lots and lots of stuff exculpatory to Trump was left out, right Chuck? It would be irresponsible to read that report without keeping up with the updates and corrections.

Here’s an idea for a book, an updated "Mueller Report” fully annotated with what is now known, for instance that Mfsud was not a Russian spy, but worked for the CIA, and that the only things in the dossier that were ever substantiated in any way were the parts that were already publicly known when it was assembled.

For instance it would include that the part about pee pee tapes was a drunken hypothetical offered in a bar, of the kinds of things that Putin could concievably have on Trump. And that the FBI lied about Carter Page, that kind of stuff.

tim in vermont said...

"Chuck paid for the Mueller Report.”

I thought Hillary paid for it through the DNC.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

Mainstream media derangement syndrome.

tim in vermont said...

Mueller could have done what the IG did and he had more power to do it than the IG, yet the Democrats running the investigation simply didn’t. The were incurious as to the origins of the investigations.

Chuck said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...
Chuck paid for the Mueller Report. Which you can download as a searchable PDF from the internet, for free.


I go deer hunting every fall in northern Michigan with some prominent Oakland County Republicans. I wanted to lay it on the coffee table in the lodge.

tim in vermont said...

"Mainstream media derangement syndrome.”

Yes. Keep your mind closed.... Never consider the arguments of the other side. The person most likely to be wrong is the person who never questions his own position.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Mainstream media derangement syndrome

I agree. The MSM displays it's derangement on a daily basis.

tim in vermont said...

" I wanted to lay it on the coffee table in the lodge.”

So next year it will be the IG report, right? ..... right?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

For instance it would include that the part about pee pee tapes was a drunken hypothetical offered in a bar

That was the part of the dossier that clued me into the fact that it was phony.

1) Trump is to smart to put himself in a compromising situation like that.
2) Trump wouldn't consider that revenge. In fact, only the lowliest of gamma males would conceive of that as revenge. When Trump wants revenge he runs for President, and wins.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

"No one knows what Mueller knows"

That one still cracks me up.

Robert Cook said...

”Journalists are not the good guys and they never have been.”

Sure they are and have been. They are essential to a functioning representative republic.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Our dedicated, trusted, reliable media whiffed on the Russia Collusion hoax at every opportunity. It was just an honest mistake. Just like their lack of any acknowledgment or self reflection on how they got it so wrong each. and. every. step. of. the. way.

Beasts of England said...

’I wanted to lay it on the coffee table in the lodge.’

Next to your lithium prescription?

Paco Wové said...

"Wild-eyed centrist zealot" sounds like a good commenter name. Maybe it's time for a change.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Seriously, Trump was supposed to have hired a couple of hookers to pee on a bed that Obama and Michelle had once slept on? An act that Obama and Michelle would have no knowledge of. And if they did learn about it, what then? They would look at Trump with even more disdain. Who thought of that? They should get help because they have issues they need to address.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

revenge
[rəˈvenj]
NOUN
the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands.
"other spurned wives have taken public revenge on their husbands"
synonyms:
vengeance · retribution · retaliation · reprisal · requital · recrimination ·

Fernandinande said...

the overwhelming majority of journalists at so-called mainstream outlets

... censor and lie as much as they can get away with.

Paco Wové said...

"They are essential to a functioning representative republic."

A free and independent press is essential. That does not mean every person and organization that claims to be a part of that entity is. And just because something is essential doesn't mean we've still got it.

Jupiter said...

Sorry, Dave, I can't understand you with that big dick in your mouth.

Paco Wové said...

"Mr. Jones, we have to remove that liver tumor."

"But, my liver is essential!"

Curious George said...

""[T]he overwhelming majority of journalists at so-called mainstream outlets — national magazines, newspapers, public radio, the non-Fox television networks — really are doing their best to treat both parties fairly.""

LOL

Curious George said...

The key part is "really are doing their best"

They can square the fact that they are intentionally failing against that.

mccullough said...

Oakland County Republicans.

What a joke.

Move to Detroit you fucking racists

Curious George said...

"I go deer hunting every fall in northern Michigan with some prominent Oakland County Republicans."

Somebody has to be the step n fetchit. I'm surprised they haven't shot you, you must make good coffee.

"When my local “Rush Limbaugh” station was running regular programming, my NPR station was running Congressional hearings live and unedited. Which do you think was providing more “filtered” information to listeners?"

Rush. Because running the hearings live is just spreading the propaganda, Cuckboy. It's like running a Politburo meeting live.

mccullough said...

The NYT does a lot of “analysis.”

How much of it turns out to be wrong?

They’ve been beating the climate change drum a long time. They never go back to their Experts who made predictions that turned out to be wrong.


How about The Experts who said Trump’s Trade Wars we’re going to cause a Recession?

Why not follow up with them now and write stories about why they were wrong.

How about stories about how Trump Russian Collusion was wrong.

Where are there sources now?

Who at The NY Times is writing stories about Schiff’s “I’ve seen incontrovertible evidence that Trump collided with Russia.”

Where are the stories about how Schiff’s rebuttal memo to Nunes in 2018 was wrong?

The NY Times like the WaPo are assets of the Dems. They are useful idiots.

You get what you pay for.

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

For those who miss the old Walter Cronkite days, often ridiculed as "there are exactly two sides to every story," it is not bad that in a way there was only centrism with a liberal bias: should we move to what is obviously progress now, or is now not quite the right time? So a massive growth of the welfare state, for example, is probably good, but by all means let's hear about particularly wasteful agencies, etc.; if we maintain confidence in "progress," this will help to streamline it.
Trump has never really questioned the welfare state insofar as it helps Americans. He has never really spoken in favour of big spending cuts. He's not that kind of conservative. The only way he's conservative on social issues is that he wants conservative judges, and they might conceivably slow what progressives call progress on social issues. He's for a kind of nationalism that isn't necessarily right wing, yet it drives progressives crazy. The mere question whether a policy is good for a lot of Americans or not seems to drive them up the wall. I'm tempted to say actual evidence drives them up the wall.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Seriously, Trump was supposed to have hired a couple of hookers to pee on a bed that Obama and Michelle had once slept on? An act that Obama and Michelle would have no knowledge of. And if they did learn about it, what then? They would look at Trump with even more disdain. Who thought of that? They should get help because they have issues they need to address.”

Besides, Presidents typically don’t sleep with their wives that much while in office. That has probably been more of a problem for Republican Presidents and their wives since Nixon, than Democrat President’s (Excluding the Carters). The fact that the Obamas tended to take separate vacations, when he was President probably indicates that they followed that Dem trend. And the Clintons often not sleeping together may have facilitated Bill getting in trouble with Monica (not helped either by his staff hating his wife). Pure speculate, of course, but fun.

mccullough said...

An honest analysis of Climate Change would concede that China churns out so much C02 and will continue to do so that it is utterly pointless for the United States and Europe to bother reducing their CO2 output.

Greta should be on a junk to China

Ray - SoCal said...

The author is so anti Trump and GOP, that he considers the current coverage by the MSM to be fair. From Jan. of this year...


What are we waiting for?’: NYT columnist David Leonhardt calls for Trump’s immediate removal from office in scathing editorial - AlterNet

Guildofcannonballs said...

"Boehlert is a one-trick pony, endlessly repeating the same argument, that the liberal “mainstream” media is too nice to Republicans. You really have to be living in an alternative universe to believe, for example, that the New York Times is publishing “Republican talking points,” but in Boehlert’s mind, the only acceptable media coverage of politics would be nothing but press releases from the DNC. Boehlert denounces any “mainstream” news organization that ever treats Republicans as representing a legitimate point of view. Boehlert clearly desires to exercise the authority of a commissar in a totalitarian Ministry of Truth."

-https://theothermccain.com/2019/12/23/the-strange-career-of-eric-boehlert/

John henry said...

This, featuring Bob Woodward and Richard Nixon

https://youtu.be/pMxXQKJ1ygM

John Henry

CWJ said...

"Over the years, many press critics have pointed out one weakness of this approach: false equivalence, the refusal to consider the possibility that one side of an argument is simply (or mostly) right...."

This is the central conceit of the media; that they are both qualified and required to inform the public as to not only the news, but what is correct. They assume that people purchase their product for moral instruction. Since they view their product as both news and intermediation, they are blindsided whenever large segments of the population accept the news but reject the media's interpretation.

Who, what, where, when, and even why, contain no moral component as to what is "right." But the editorial page has consumed the front page, and scribblers like Leonhardt take as given that that is as it should be.

John henry said...

Blogger Chuck said...

Althouse, you could blog original source materials; Fiona Hill’s testimony; Gordon Sondland’s testimony; Michael Duffy’s email; Trump’s own wildly varied statements. Without any media bias.


Jeez, stop being such a Dick.

Her blog, she can blog about whatever she wants. For all your complaining about how terrible she is in her choice of topics, you are still here, every day, commenting in almost every thread.

She has tried to ban you. She has asked you to go away.

If you had a shred of human decency you would.

John Henry

John henry said...

Other than the dickhead, has our gracious hostess ever called any other commenter a "dick"?

Congratulations.

John Henry

John henry said...

Blogger Robert Cook said...

Sure they are and have been. They are essential to a functioning representative republic.

“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.” - Mark Twain

Good little fascist/progressive/socialists like you seem to enjoy being mis-informed.

It is hard sometimes to believe your levels of ignorance are real.

John Henry

Francisco D said...

Chuckles mentioned Gordon Sondland’s testimony;

Apparently he did not watch that testimony. I did.

Sondland made it clear that the only evidence for which he had direct knowledge was Trump saying let Zelensky do what he wants and that there was no quid pro quo. All else was rumor, presumption and hearsay.

It is so much easier to make shit up then it is to be intellectually honest, but that's our Chuckles. No wonder he failed as a lawyer. He does not have a fundamental grasp of due process and evidence.

Big Mike said...

The entire assertion — "the overwhelming majority of journalists at so-called mainstream outlets... really are doing their best to treat both parties fairly" — strikes me as wrong.

Strikes me that way, too.

It's that these 2 parties — neither of which is impressively virtuous and competent — are allowed to define the substance and scope of the coverage.

And perhaps neither is “impressively virtuous and competent,” but one of the parties strikes me as being substantially less competent and substantially more corrupt than the other.

John henry said...

Blogger mccullough said...

An honest analysis of Climate Change would concede that China churns out so much C02 and will continue to do so that it is utterly pointless for the United States and Europe to bother reducing their CO2 output.

Yet we (USA) do it anyway.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=36953

John Henry

Drago said...

LLR-lefty Chuck goes hunting with real republicans in the same way John Kerry asks if he can "get me a huntin' license here" and Li'l Tomahawk Warren televises herself drinking a beer.

Precisely the same way.

Precisely.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Two questions for Leonhardt: What are you smoking, and where can I get some?

I do agree with Our Hostess' point, in principle. Fat chance we'll ever see it happen. Questionable whether it is even possible.

Drago said...

Francisco: "It is so much easier to make shit up then it is to be intellectually honest, but that's our Chuckles."

LLR-lefty Chuck also pushed the hoax dossier hard as well as Adam Schiff-ty's made up transcript of Trumps call.

LLR-lefty Chuck also defended the now exposed hoax Schiff-ty memo while simultaneously attacking the now proven true Nunes Memo.

You might ask yourself whether or not it is true that LLR-lefty Chuck has defended and boosted every single dem/lefty talking point for the last 4 years while simultaneously attacking any individual or group that pushes back against the dems during that same period.

It is, of course, completely true.

Completely.

And its a good thing that everyone can see this clearly now.

TJM said...

Denial runs deep in this loon. Most of us have recognized long ago that the media consists of Dem operatives with bylines. One example should suffice: if a Democrat commits a crime, it is the old game of "name that party." If a Republican commits a crime, the story is run on the first page, with party identification either in the headline or the first sentence. I rest my case.

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Seriously, Trump was supposed to have hired a couple of hookers to pee on a bed that Obama and Michelle had once slept on? An act that Obama and Michelle would have no knowledge of. And if they did learn about it, what then?

Don't think too hard about it. It's a stupid story and only means anything to someone who believes that Barak Obama was the second coming of Jesus Christ.

(Like a great many in the media did and do.)

Howard said...

How soon we forget. The MSM was in cahoots with the DNC to defeat Sanders and anoint Hillary rodham Clinton as The heir apparent to the White House.

Anonymous said...

Their best isn't only 'not good enough', it isn't worth a wet fart.

Anyway, Leonhardt completely misses the problem. I don't care if you're left or right - report the facts. Rumors that are harmful to Republicans are reported, facts that are harmful to Democrats are ignored, or when they can't be ignored, dismissed as 'debunked'. Facts that are harmful to a lefty narrative are elided.

bagoh20 said...

"the overwhelming majority of journalists at so-called mainstream outlets"

are Democrats, have never voted for a Republican, hate Trump, believed and pushed every wrong narrative of thee last 3 years about him, never spend any time with people that disagree with them, and believe their job is to change the world.

But, I'm sure they are very fair and balanced.

William said...

I think it's fair to say that the Catholic Church did an execrable job in policing its scandals. I don't think the media, especially broadcast journalism, will do an especially good job in policing theirs. I don't think they're even at a point where they're willing to admit that there are any scandals......Only a teeny-weeny fraction of novelists are moved to write books detailing what swell people their parents were. An even smaller fraction of journalists are moved to write articles detailing the triumphs of capitalism and the deficits of socialism. I don't know that much about global warming but my feeling is that those coal powered plants that China is building at a record pace probably have more to do with global warming that President Trump's wanton use of plastic straws at his Mar A Lago estates.....One of the really terrible ideas of the twentieth century were collective farms. Tens of millions of people died in the most sordid conditions imaginable. There hasn't been a lot more reporting about the dangers of fracking than of the dangers of collective farms.

John henry said...


Blogger Howard said...

How soon we forget. The MSM was in cahoots with the DNC to defeat Sanders and anoint Hillary rodham Clinton as The heir apparent to the White House.

IN fairness to the DNC, why whould they have let Bernie Sanders run as a Democrat at all? He has never been a Democrat, has always made much noise about never being a Democrat, never fund raised or campaigned or aided the party in any way at all.

Bernie running on a Democrat ticket is as ludicrous as my dog running as a Democrat and I don't even have a dog!

John Henry

Michael K said...


Blogger Howard said...

How soon we forget. The MSM was in cahoots with the DNC to defeat Sanders and anoint Hillary rodham Clinton as The heir apparent to the White House.


Sutton's Law at work.

Charles Krauthammer was the one who said Roger Ailes found a "niche market" with 50% of the population for Fox News.

Anonymous said...

"They are essential to a functioning representative republic."

Cook, don't you regularly claim that our republic doesn't function properly? I know I've seen you argue that our intelligence services are out of control. Wouldn't you agree that they were largely given a free pass by the majority of our news media during the Obama years?

Howard said...

I'm surprised John Henry it sounds like you are defending the Deep state. I guess because it helps your political ends that you can justify that lapse in moral fortitude

chuck said...

Trump made his own wind, Sanders is stuck in the doldrums and Warren trims her sail to take advantage of the slightest breeze.

Ken B said...

The Republican Party was *founded* as an explicitly anti slavery party.

rcocean said...

What Lies! That you attribute Leonhart or the NYT even a shred of intellectual honesty and good faith is ridiculous. They're left wing hack, Unpaid DNC contributors and they have been for years. They're just more open in their bias because of the internet, and because the entire Establishment, not just the Democrat wing, hates Trump.

They've been lying about Trump and pushing such Fake news, even the biggest Dumbo's can now understand how leftwing they ar.

Amadeus 48 said...

It sounds like Leonhardt realizes that what they are doing isn't working.

"I got a fever, and the prescription is more cowbell!"

rcocean said...

If want to see how biased they are, go watch a Pelosi press conference. One softball question after another. That's why when one reporter asked her if she "hated trump", Pelosi went bat-shit crazy. How dare someone ask her a challenging question! You'll notice ZERO reporters followed up on her tirade whereas with the R's - its one constant debate and gotcha question after another.

Tom T. said...

"Original source material. That's what I am talking about."

You know who else tells people to "read the transcript," right?

rcocean said...

Fox News, no matter how many liberals like Chris Wallace, or moderate reporters it has, will be labeled "Right wing" by the NYT and Wapo. That's all part of their shtick. Fox News on the right, and MSNBC is on the left, and the right in the middle are the centrist news outlets like NBC/ABC/CBS/PBS/NYT/Wapo. Its a joke.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Well, that settles that!

Big Mike said...

"[T]he overwhelming majority of journalists at so-called mainstream outlets — national magazines, newspapers, public radio, the non-Fox television networks — really are doing their best to treat both parties fairly."

You know, the more I think about it the more I think he’s right. If you assume their best is pretty bad.

Big Mike said...

I ‘m old enough to remember Southern bigots from the 1960s, and David Leonhardt is saying what they said then, except he’s asserting that he’s not biased against conservatives and Christians, whereas the Southern bigots used essentially the same verbiage to assert that they weren’t really biased against colored people.

Howard said...

The bottom line is you people need to actually do the work to become part of the MSM and change it from the inside out. Standing on that sidelines kibitzing and complaining but the game is not being played fair when you in fact or not playing the game. Typical drama queen excuses

Yancey Ward said...

Do you think Leonhardt really believes that sentence, or does he know it is untrue?

Drago said...

Howard: "I'm surprised John Henry it sounds like you are defending the Deep state."

Half the left tells us the "deep state" is fiction and a conspiracy.

The other half of the leftists/LLR-leftists tell us the deep state is the most important thing force protecting our democracy from Trump.

Which group are you in at this moment Howard? (notice how I ask the question because the lefties/LLR-lefties reserve the right to switch their positions every 15 minutes if that is necessary to advance that moments talking point)

Sal said...

He turned the media bias against him into a positive force.

I've always thought that Trump won the GOP nomination specifically because he fought the media. I think many people's biggest frustration with this society is a lack of honest, unbiased news.

Drago said...

Howard (circa 2019, US): "The bottom line is you people need to actually do the work to become part of the MSM and change it from the inside out."

Howard to Soviet dissidents (circa 1980, Soviet Union): The bottom line is you people need to actually do the work to become part of the Politburo and change it from the inside out.

Yancey Ward said...

"The bottom line is you people need to actually do the work to become part of the MSM and change it from the inside out."

There is truth to this, but not in the way you seem to think, Howard. The strategy, organic, that is being employed is to simply mock it and be unmoved by it. In other words, there is no need to change it from the inside out, we are just letting it destroy itself, and it is a doing a good job of that.

Yancey Ward said...

There was a commenter on Kevin Drum's blog back in the mid oughts named CMDicely who used to argue that the media, including the NYTimes was right wing. The commenter clearly had an IQ in the mid 100s, but really did seem to believe what he was writing about the media.

Yancey Ward said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Original Mike said...

""[T]he overwhelming majority of journalists at so-called mainstream outlets — national magazines, newspapers, public radio, the non-Fox television networks — really are doing their best to treat both parties fairly.""

Yeah, pull the other one …

Skeptical Voter said...

Ah Leonhardt. Time to repeat my favorite Kinky Friedman song lyric, "They come to see what they want to see, but they never come to know."

That NYT writer, as is the case with most of his fellows, is going to go into his grave still an ignorant being. (Since I'm "woke" I won't say "man". I have to leave room for Maureen Dowd.)

Caligula said...

What Leonhardt is calling for is Marcuse's "repressive tolerance."

Earnest Prole said...

95 percent of journalists are Democrats. Try to imagine the author making this same dopey argument if 95 percent were Republican.

Jim at said...

How DARE you call us biased, you hate-filled, right-wing, Nazi scum!

George said...

Leonhardt's extrême bias makes me puke.

He is not worthy of a journalist's role - even at the NYT

Howard said...

Drago is so deeply buried in his trumpism he believes we are living in the USSR. It's a free country, time to man up and quit your bitching. 90% of anything is showing up. You people have chooses not to appear in the journalism arena. You essentially are asking liberals to do your job for you. How pathetic

Drago said...

Howard: "Drago is so deeply buried in his trumpism he believes we are living in the USSR."

LOL

Howard can't even keep up with the rest of his dem pals talking points.

Dude, according to you guys, its Trump and his supporters that are in cahoots with Putin as he tries to rebuild the Soviet Union!!

Can't you even keep track of the lies you've been telling for 3+ years?

Try harder Howard.

Darkisland said...

Feelgood story of the day:

These Reporters Lost Their Jobs. Here Are the Stories They Couldn’t Tell.
By
AMY HARMONSarah MervoshNicholas Bogel-Burroughs
nytimes.com

Amid a crisis in local news, eight journalists who left newsrooms in 2019 reflect on the stories left in their notebooks. Photographers who also lost their jobs captured them on their former beats.

They were experts on New Orleans public schools and Oregon state politics. They shared the news when a popular high school basketball player in Colorado returned to the court after a knee injury, and they helped solve the mystery of a City Hall cake vandalism in Texas.

{snip}



Now they will be able to learn to code and become productive citizens.

John "card carrying member of the media AND productive citizen" Henry

Darkisland said...


Blogger Howard said...

I'm surprised John Henry it sounds like you are defending the Deep state.

I don't think I am. I am a foe of the deep state. But I have no idea which of several notes in this tread you have in mind. That makes it hard to respond.

Perhaps you could elaborate?

John Henry

Darkisland said...

Worst Russian mole ever:


U.S. Sanctions Halt Work on Russia’s Gas Pipeline to Europe

The pause comes hours after President Trump signed a bill targeting entities working on the project

The $10.5 billion Nord Stream 2 will run parallel to the existing Nord Stream pipeline and double the capacity for gas shipped directly from Russia to Germany. Photo: Alexander Demianchuk/Zuma Press
By Bojan Pancevski

Updated Dec. 21, 2019 11:13 am ET

BERLIN—U.S. sanctions have temporarily stopped the construction of a pipeline that is set to increase the flow of natural gas directly from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea.

The sanctions would target all businesses and individuals participating in the construction of the pipeline and would effectively cut off those companies from doing business in the U.S. or with U.S.-linked companies.


PDJT signed the sanctions Thursday. Today is Monday. Some people talk, some make things happen.

If the Germans want to make themselves reliant on Russian gas, we should not stop them. This does not stop them. It merely stops US companies from helping them.

Still not sure it is a great move on our part but it certainly helps give lie to the people who think PDJT is a Russian ally.

John Henry

Howard said...

John Henry:IN fairness to the DNC, why whould they have let Bernie Sanders run as a Democrat at all?

This statement implies to me that you support a powerful party operation like the DNC who is the political organization for the Deep state to be able to unilaterally eliminate a lawful and viable populist candidate. Sounds like you're defending the Deep state to me

Howard said...

Drago twists and turns until he becomes the snake eating itself. I guess that's what it takes to maintain a minimal self-esteem while being denial of your status as a Mark in Trump's con

Drago said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drago said...

Howard spends an interesting amount of time speaking about the self-esteem of others. Well, that and weird sexual proclivities.

I'm sure those 2 subject areas are not related for him in any way.........

This is Howards default mode as he rarely is in command of any actual factual information.

narciso said...

well I included deep stater john schindler's review of how the security services regard merkel, who seems indebted to former stasi operative, who runs the pipeland, much of this story is spelled out in alex Dryden's series, beginning with red to black in 2008,

narciso said...

Leonhardt is supposed to be an economics correspondent, facts not in evidence, the times has touted O'Rourke, then harris, most recently warren, with booker and buttigeg being given some space, in between,

narciso said...

but they explicitly downplay gabbards appeal, and she's along for 4/5th of their agenda, it's a poser,

Darkisland said...

Blogger Howard said...

This statement implies to me that you support a powerful party operation like the DNC who is the political organization for the Deep state to be able to unilaterally eliminate a lawful and viable populist candidate. Sounds like you're defending the Deep state to me

No, the Demmies certainly have no right to eliminate Bernie as a candidate. If I believed that, you would be right about me supporting the deep state.

Bernie can run as a candidate for president and NOBODY should try to stop him.

But he has never been a Democrat, he has always been, loudly and proudly an "independent" from his days as mayor until present. The Democrats, apparently, have no say in who runs under their banner. I was a registered candidate in 2016 as a Democrat.

Should the party have supported Bernie, me and Hilary equally? Bernie never supported the party, why should the party support him?

That is not a rhetorical question, BTW. I'd be interested to hear why any political party should provide any support for any tom Chuck or Harry who shows up and claims to run under their banner while still claiming to be independent.

Any thoughts, Howard?

If Bernie wants to run, he should run as an independent as he has been all his political career.

If he wants to run as a Demmie, I guess he legally can. If I ran the party, the official position would be to ignore him.

John Henry

Michael K said...

Howard said...
Drago is so deeply buried in his trumpism he believes we are living in the USSR.


No, it is your side that is trying to introduce USSR methods, such as psychiatrists opining on persons they have never met.

Good luck on getting your conspiracy theories accepted as truth, at least outside the beltway.

Birkel said...

Howard takes the strong form anti-freedom-of-association argument.

As an advocate of individual freedom, I must allow people who wish to come together to further their own ends that space. What I cannot abide is the willingness of some to impose their will onto others. The problem is not Democratics. The problem is their preferred policies.

Free people.
Free markets.
Controlled borders.

Howard said...

Well John, we all saw the results of the DNC shitcanning the Bernie Bros and giving them to Trump. The DNC failed by favoring Hillary.

Howard said...

You're right Drago, I'm just jealous of the overflowing confidence of the truly ignorant.

Achilles said...

The nature of bias is the purveyor of bias is not aware of their bias.

But then again people that read the NYT's are even more stupid than the people who write the NYT's.

Achilles said...

Howard said...
Drago twists and turns until he becomes the snake eating itself. I guess that's what it takes to maintain a minimal self-esteem while being denial of your status as a Mark in Trump's con

Trump is trying to control our borders, reduce DC regulations, renegotiate globalist trade deals in our favor, and end stupid DC wars.

So far what has he delivered for us?

Lower taxes on the working class.
Lowest unemployment in decades.
The first actual wage growth in decades.
Meaningful progress on the border. The wall is being built and illegal immigration is down.
Manufacturing jobs are returning.
Everything about the economy is good for us.

But yeah we are just his marks in a con game according to Howard. Nobody could possibly understand why we support him.

Howard is just a fucking idiot.

Nichevo said...

rhhardin said...
The journalistic question is what can you say to get an audience. You sell the audience eyeballs to advertisers. That's the business model.

If you want truth, talk to retired people. They can't be cancelled.

12/23/19, 6:52 AM


You're retired, aren't you? You lie every time you claim that media distortions are caused only by the profit motive.

Paco Wové said...

Amidst everything else going wrong in the dystopian hellhole of Trump's America, new we must brace for a wave of unchecked cake vandalism.