"Election Subversion Efforts" is quite a phrase. You could discuss a lot of things and still deny that any of it was "subversion." But I presume the actual interviewers did not restrict themselves to such an extreme topic.
During her interview, Ms. Thomas, who goes by Ginni, repeated her assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from President Donald J. Trump, Mr. Thompson said, a belief she insisted upon in late 2020 as she pressured state legislators and the White House chief of staff to do more to try to invalidate the results....
I wouldn't call that "election subversion." If you believe the election was already subverted, then in pushing for more procedural paths, you're trying to un-subvert it. If you think the announced results are invalid, you're trying to get to the true results, not "invalidate the results." It's very hard to wade through these loaded terms. I wish the NYT would play it dead straight.
In her statement, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, Ms. Thomas called it “an ironclad rule” that she and Justice Thomas never speak about cases pending before the Supreme Court. “It is laughable for anyone who knows my husband to think I could influence his jurisprudence — the man is independent and stubborn, with strong character traits of independence and integrity,” she added....
And that's precisely what everyone knew she would say.
पोस्ट्स
१५६ टिप्पण्या:
"I wish the NYT would play it dead straight."
Me too.
And good health for all. Plenty of food everywhere. Rainbows without rain....
The NYT can't even write on a cooking topic without skewing it (left) political.
"I wish the NYT would play it dead straight."
if wishes were fishes.....
Althouse wrote: "It's very hard to wade through these loaded terms. I wish the NYT would play it dead straight."
Surprised now? That's been the establishment media's modus operandi since Obamacare was "deemed passed" circa 2010. Spin has overtaken facts so (self) destruction must follow.
"I wish the NYT would play it dead straight."
I wish a unicorn would wander into my backyard.
Let's see who gets their wishes fulfilled first.
I don't know why these high-profile people would agree to a private interview.
Have it out in the open and give the inquisitors hell...
I wish the NYT would play it dead straight.
And I wish the Detroit Lions would win a Super Bowl. (Looks like nobody's getting what they want today.)
I wish the NYT would play it dead straight.
But you're fine paying them not to.
Gee, what a surprise. The Kangaroo court leaked her testimony to the NYT. And they didn't play it straight! Nobody saw any of that coming.
I get sympathetic body dysmorphophobia just looking at that sack of cottage cheese and pimentos.
Note to IRS: audits are tantamount to subversion. Visits to insurrection.
gahrie said...
I wish the NYT would play it dead straight.
But you're fine paying them not to.
This.
"I wish the NYT would play it dead straight."
Just piling on. Lying liars lie and lie, Doo-Dah! Doo-Dah!
“I wish the NYT would play it dead straight.”
Bless your heart.
Who says the assertion is false?
The last place I’m looking to adjudicate the matter of the 2020 election is a partisan propaganda machine captured by the democrat party.
You don’t think they will do everything and anything to rid their grift of Orange man bad and to ram the climate religion down our gullets to include rigging an election?
Cue booming voice: The Narrative(tm).
Someone explain the difference between Ginni Thomas questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election and Hillary Clinton questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election (other than that Thomas did so to friends while Clinton did so to friends who also happened to be broadcast journalists).
An excerpt from The New York Times Style Manual :
[quote]
Any article about accusations that the USA's 2020 Presidential election was rigged must contain several of the following mandatory expressions:
* baseless
* debunked
* false
* lies
* a Big Lie
[end quote]
I sometimes wonder how often it happens that the reporter himself fails to include any such mandatory expressions in his submitted article and therefore an editor must insert the expressions before the article is approved for publication.
=======
Another excerpt from The New York Times Style Manual :
[quote]
Any article about accusations that a Russian election was rigged may not contain any of the following forbidden expressions:
* baseless
* debunked
* false
* lies
* a Big Lie
[end quote]
The NYT's is playing it straight. THEY are the propaganda arm of the Radical Progressive party. Anybody who thinks otherwise is foolish.
Playing it straight means the they would be fired and have to return the CIAs advance money.
NYT "curating" the news for us wouldn't be nearly so bad if every little podunk daily didn't follow their lead.
Attacking Ginni Thomas is a way to attack her husband and imply he is not fair in his rulings. This is part of the Democrat strategy to somehow get him off the Court.
“DNC-Media Pounces” would be a better more accurate headline.
"I wish the NYT would play it dead straight."
That's some serious wishful thinking right there.
You had to know you were going to get similar responses to the above quote.
I wish someone, anyone, in the media would play it straight. When was the last time you heard about allegations of fraud in 2020 that weren't portrayed as "false allegations"? ( Ms. Thomas reiterated her false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen...)
They are shamelessly desperate to prevent anyone from taking a serious look at the claim.
Ignoring the fact it's from the Times, and therefore totally predictable, the headline is a perfect example of question-begging.
"I wish the NYT would play it dead straight."
I'll take the bait. The NYT is "all in" for the left wing. The only issues are whether they are liars, ignoramuses, or both. If it weren't for the deplorable state of the American education system, it would be easy to go with the former, but evidence of ignorance is everywhere and impossible to ignore.
Bottom line: They can't play it straight.
And another thing...
"Ginni Thomas Denies Discussing Election Subversion Efforts With Her Husband."
Presumes there are election subversion efforts to discuss.
Professionalism in journalism is dead.
Ok, maybe I've gone too far on that one. Maybe they meant the election subversion efforts that she was opposing. I'd bet a year's pay that that's not what they meant, but it is a plausible reading of the sentence.
NYT = america's Pravda. All it needs its the "Hail to our great leader, Joe Biden" at the top.
BTW, the man who was 2nd in command (andrew wiessman) of the Mueller investigation, and of course "an honorable man", called Gina Thomas a Nazi last week, in writing.
Blowback from Mitt Romney and all the "reasonable conservatives"? zero.
And I expect it is true. In modern times no supreme court justice has faced the amount of lies and character slander that the Great Justice Thomas has. And through it all he has stayed completely true to his core beliefs.
Hoping the NYTimes will "play it straight" is like hoping for unicorns.
My wish is for the Republicans to win big majorities in the house and senate in November and then go after Biden, the DOJ and the FBI the way the dems go after Trump and republicans.
Wish in one hand ..
"a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times"
It's so commonplace no one even bothers to comment on the playbook employed to drive the narrative. Statement obtained in closed door meeting is immediately leaked to compliant democrat media comrade. Narrative is wrapped around the leaked statement with loaded terms demanded by rabid lefty audience.
It doesn't even matter what the statement says. The narrative wrapper indicates to the rabid lefty audience that it's precisely what a person who is obviously guilty of a vile crime would say when caught red-handed standing over the dead body of Democracy holding the murder weapon.
There has emerged a remarkable amount of evidence proving irregularities in the 2020 election that could have altered the outcome.
Ginni Thomas cannot know that it did, but the NYT cannot know that it didn't. By now, the weight of the evidence is on her side.
Billiebob, amen to that, but first I want ALL federal agents disarmed, except the Secret Service and the military. All, including the FBI.
"...I wish the NYT would play it dead straight.." Really? AA that ship has sailed decades ago.
Remember the NY Times came out and posted "Defund the Police". Just the other day they mentioned that it's "radical to defund the FBI?"
She broke her oath of office as a Justice's Wife:
"I believe in one Biden, Ruler of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, elected not selected ..."
During her interview, Ms. Thomas, who goes by Ginni, repeated her assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from President Donald J. Trump
That's AWESOME!! Ginni's got guts to tell the truth, and those lying piece of shit totalitarians on the J6 committee know she is telling the truth.
We are being governed by many evil people.
I wish the NYT would play it dead straight.
@Althouse, you and I are old enough to remember when the Times was even capable of playing it dead straight.
So far the number of confirmed dead from Hurricane Ian is 21. That’s tragic enough, but does the Times report that? Or do they continue to report the wild overestimate of the sheriff of Lee County that “hundreds are believed dead”?
As Althouse pointed, there are many "loaded terms" in the article. My "favorite", the one repeated ad nauseum, is the reference to false claims.
"In a closed-door interview with the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, Ms. Thomas reiterated her false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from President Donald J. Trump."
It is not up to the NYT or any real journalist to state her assertions are false. That's a question of fact left up to the reader. Are they trying to say she lies? "Oh, she knows the election was not stolen, but she says so anyway."
They can't just say, "repeated her assertion". Or "believes the election was stolen". No, she makes "false claims". What a corruption of language and journalism.
The NYT can't even write on a cooking topic without skewing it (left) political.
This is true. Twenty years ago I would say 'They have some interesting articles if you avoid the political stuff," but now it's all political.
"The recipe calls for egg whites (much of what this chef prepares is white, as is he)..."
We’ll, it’s the NYT…
We’ll, it’s the NYT…
My wish is for the Republicans to win big majorities in the house and senate in November and then go after Biden, the DOJ and the FBI the way the dems go after Trump and republicans.
I'd rather they do stuff that is popular for a change.
To be fair, the Times thought it was being restrained by not saying she repeated “The Big Lie”.
There was a crooked man-
Who walked a crooked mile…
America last for these guys.
The intense commitments that people attach to their ideological priors, and that drive media and internet political discourse, will persist until some as yet unknown event deprives those commitments of emotional satisfaction.
WW3 anyone?
As always, the real story is who leaked her statement and why. The only acknowledged that it had been “obtained.” Once again, they pretend to be a news source, but are really just a mouthpiece for the Democrats.
"I wish the NYT would play it dead straight."
I do too. No snark. Just a fact. A national newspaper that reported with both seriousness and fairness would be a true national asset. Same with a national television news network.
I recognize it is not easy to do given human nature, but it is obvious and regrettable that no one is making a seriously earnest effort.
I am surprised that they did not point out that the Thomases are well known to be campers. They even seem proud of the fact that when they go camping, they mingle with and actually talk to the common folk who camp with them.
How can people like this be allowed in government?
BURN THE WITCH!!!!
OTOH, they go camping in an RV so maybe that does not count.
John stop fascism vote republican Henry
"Surprised now?"
Where does that even come from? I hate the inference that I am surprised or just noticing something. You are insulting me.
"Bless your heart."
See? You have no basis for this. I should just reject comments in this category. Raise your game.
CJinPA said...
My wish is for the Republicans to win big majorities in the house and senate in November and then go after Biden, the DOJ and the FBI the way the dems go after Trump and republicans.
I'd rather they do stuff that is popular for a change.
It is possible for congress to do more than one thing at a time although with republicans in charge maybe not. At times it's hard to tell whose side they are playing for.
My wife and I will talk about our jobs, but neither of us tell the other how to do their job. I can't imagine a healthy and successful marriage in which that would occur.
As for the 2020 Election stolen; that the media consistently showed Biden in a positive light and Trump in a negative, with reality showing Biden incompetent in basic duties, is enough for me to agree the election was stolen. If Biden was challenged by the media, as almost any previous Presidential candidate was (as he was in previous elections), then Biden would not have won.
I think it is worth saying clearly and repeatedly that the NYT should play it straight. I think they do want that brand even as they also provide slanted material. I make it my thing to point out the slant and I've been doing that for nearly 20 years. When my readers don't get that that's what I'm doing and understand why I think what I am doing is valuable, I feel disappointed that you don't get me or you don't see the value of my continuing this project.
" I feel disappointed that you don't get me or you don't see the value of my continuing this project."
I think very few of your commenters don't get you or misunderstand your intent. I take the comments as coming from frustration with an intractable problem; the dishonesty of the NYT and media in general. I don't believe you should take it personally.
The NYT has never played it straight. I have been watching it for 60 years and they have always been allied with the Dem party. Admittedly they are much worse now since they stopped even trying to show a modicum of balance by reporting things they might not like. I am constantly amazed at how the front page is now the editorial page. No pretense at all.
I get it, Ann. Keep up the good work!
Today's NYT think they would have stopped Hitler1!! When in fact back then they avoided criticizing him. His diplomats here would surely tell him and the Fuhrer has such an excitable temperament, you know.
I think it is worth saying clearly and repeatedly that the NYT should play it straight.
Why? How effective has that strategy been?
I think they do want that brand even as they also provide slanted material.
Of course..all liars want you to believe them.
I make it my thing to point out the slant and I've been doing that for nearly 20 years.
Except when you support and endorse the slant. See Sandmann and Kavanagh.
When my readers don't get that that's what I'm doing and understand why I think what I am doing is valuable, I feel disappointed that you don't get me or you don't see the value of my continuing this project.
When your readers see you continue to rely upon what you admit is a biased and slanted source for information, we feel disappointed that you don't see the value of punishing the slanted source and seeking out better sources.
What exactly is the value of continuing to support the dishonest reporting of the NYT? Have things gotten better or worse over the last twenty years of your "project"?
Meanwhile, and calling a spade a spade, newly minted republican poll worker caught attempting to subvert elections, https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/election-worker-facing-tampering-charges-michigan-gop-precinct-delegate
This blog is the extent of my knowledge of the NYT. Every time I see it on the sidewalk at my neighbor's house I am saddened that they undoubtably think they are getting high quality news.
Maybe I am just being naive...maybe they just like the echo chamber. As far as your wish, I don't think the NYT is interested in (and therefore incapable of) "playing it straight". Now what? Your wish will go ungranted. Will that change anything or is your coverage of the NYT due to nostalgia and ultimately "what I've chosen to do"? To me, those questions are more interesting than the wish.
"Ms. Thomas reiterated her false assertion...."
"Trump's lie that the election was stolen"
Can't the NYT, and many other news outlets, distinguish between a falsehood and an opinion? Some things are simply unprovable, and people are entitled to their opinions. They are not lies or false. It is acceptable to talk about Hilary's "lie" that the 2016 election was stolen without calling is a lie or false. This language should not be in a reputable news article.
Or has there been a comprehensive review of the 2020 election, tracking every change in voting procedures, tracking every social media posting, tracking every dollar spent, tracking every ballot, etc.? Until then, it is a lie to call Trump's or Ms Thomas' opinion a lie.
Sorry, but when Ginni Thomas in 2022 is still contacting state legislators to influence them to pick a new slate of electors, I think election subversion effort is an accurate description.
And of course she denies also trying to influence her bed mate. But given his sole dissent in a 2020 election case, is it a surprise she'd be suspected of not excluding him from her effort?
Althouse is feeling political dysmorphophobia over you people's cartoon characterization of her cruel neutrality.
I'm not as demanding as others here. There's no need for the New York Times to play it dead and straight. I'll be satisfied with one or the other. And I'll leave it to you all to guess which of the two I have a slight preference for - a velleity, to use a William F. Buckley word.
Ann Althouse said...
I think they do want that brand even as they also provide slanted material.
Well, geez, that's obvious. If they actually admitted their slant they would not only lose half their readership (one hopes) but also 99% of their influence.
What's also obvious is that they really don't care about actual truth or objectivity because this crap keeps happening over and over again, in the same direction (Walter Duranty was unavailable for comment). They just want the brand.
Ann --
FWIW I get what you are doing and very much appreciate it. While I share the contempt that many of my fellow commenters have toward the NYT, I agree that most of the snarky commentary on this thread offer little insightful or helpful. While I acknowledge that your criticisms of NYT coverage are unlikely to bear fruit, at least anytime soon, they are nonetheless trenchant and worth making. Please keep it up.
I'm so glad she hasn't changed her mind. My mind certainly hasn't been changed.
I mean Kamala read the teleprompter yesterday like Ron Burgundy, saying that the Republic of North Korea was our longtime ally. There's no way the American people voted for that incompetence.
How is it OK for this to be immediately leaked to the NYT?
Ann: I truly believe the NYT newsroom can no longer see their own slanted writing for what it is. They may acknowledge their own viewpoints, but I don't believe they can SEE how much they allow those viewpoints to slant their news section.
January 6th is a great example. It's standard for it to be called insurrection or armed insurrection. Here's what I see when I look up definitions:
Riot:
Verb - take part in a violent public disturbance.
Noun - a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.
Insurrection:
Adj - an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
...
I can understand the usage of the word under such a definition, but then revolts against police would be insurrection. Revolts against local governments across the nation, in 2020-2022, would be insurrection.
There is clear examples and evidence that some groups sought to use violence and riotous behavior on january 6th to express outrage, but I have yet to see any clear examples where an organized group sought to do more than stop the election certification. Stopping something is not the same as over-throwing the government and, to your point on Ginni, if you truly believe something was wrong and if you let it continue it will be far, far harder to undo....
But the Times can't present balanced pictures of such things, because to them balance would indicate there are two reasonable sides to an issue. And the left....and to many on the right...there are no longer reasons to consider both sides of an argument.
I miss my college Ethics class.....that professor could have an entire group of students arguing against their own positions and then switching back again in 10 minutes. He was an artist. Which is probably why he was fired for saying the wrong things to the wrong group of students.
I believe what the commenters are saying is that the NYT never plays it straight, while you seem to hold out hope that articles like this one are anomalies. At this point, I believe nothing that I read in the NYT regardless of subject. In fact, my default position is to assume that the opposite of whatever I read is true. So, for instance, Ginni Thomas is a patriot, and her husband is the smartest and most principled current Supreme Court Justice.
Did she also deny beating her husband?
I just saw a NYT headline, "Putin illegally claims Ukrainian territory in belligerent speech." More bias! Now notice it everywhere!
We get that YOU get it, that the NYT doesn't play it straight, (and keep pointing it out) we just wish THEY would. It pathetic at this point, that any of those "journalists" still have jobs.
Ann, the snarky comments directed toward you are not only arrogant and insulting, they are also embarrassingly stupid. Some of us do get what you are doing and appreciate it. Please keep it up.
Ann, the snarky comments directed toward you are not only arrogant and insulting, they are also embarrassingly stupid. Some of us do get what you are doing and appreciate it. Please keep it up.
Ann, the snarky comments directed toward you are not only arrogant and insulting, they are also embarrassingly stupid. Some of us do get what you are doing and appreciate it. Please keep it up.
"Ann Althouse said...
I think it is worth saying clearly and repeatedly that the NYT should play it straight. I think they do want that brand even as they also provide slanted material. I make it my thing to point out the slant and I've been doing that for nearly 20 years. When my readers don't get that that's what I'm doing and understand why I think what I am doing is valuable, I feel disappointed that you don't get me or you don't see the value of my continuing this project."
Fair enough. You're right, they should. But they don't. And I think you're wrong, I think it's been a long time since they cared about their "brand." Their #1 goal is to support Democrats, brand be damned. The know that their readership is fine with that. You're the outlier.
You wish…..
I’m actually curious as to what part of this whole thing was “closed door”
It looks like not only was the door open, but also the windows, and every other possible means of information transmission.
Earnest Prole: "Someone explain the difference between Ginni Thomas questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election and Hillary Clinton questioning the legitimacy of the 2016 election"
Ginni Thomas is a republican.
Hillary is a New Soviet Democratical.
Therefore Ginni Thomas is GUILTY and Hillary is clean as a whistle.
The New Soviet Democratical Rules are quite easy to understand.
I wouldn't call that "election subversion." If you believe the election was already subverted, then in pushing for more procedural paths, you're trying to un-subvert it.
And a skunk, by any measure, can easily stink up your life.
Just because Ginni allows politics to override truth doesn't make what she is doing to support The Big Lie right. She offered no proof to the committee, weakly reasserting her false beliefs. She might well have said: "I've got you covered, Donald!"
Justice Thomas has always had my support in the past, but he has to back off from any imaginary controversies stirred up by his stupid wife who obviously is overwhelmed by her perception of power.
I get it. Maybe that's not apparent but I get it and thanks for doing what you do.
Your grateful but very infrequent poster but avid reader BillieBob.
Althouse said...
I feel disappointed that you don't get me or you don't see the value of my continuing this project.
I get it, and appreciate that you point out the obvious bias and slant. You're being a straight shooter. Perhaps just a little softer and more diplomatic about it than those of us who have accepted that it's all coordinated propaganda.
I can't read your mind, but assume you still believe there is some level of integrity and honesty somewhere in publications like the NYTs and Wash Post. You're also correct that the NYTs want "that brand" [unbiased]. However they want the brand, without living up to the brand.
Many of us, for good reason, have lost faith in all of it. Even the Milwaukee Journal is a propaganda rag. I just roll my eyes when I catch a headline near the check out counter at Kwik Trip.
Ann Althouse said...When my readers don't get that that's what I'm doing
Anytime you use even a little subtlety, some people will miss what you're doing. That's just the way it goes.
There are some posts I make that are so absurd I refuse to use the "/sarc" tag. I know that means some people will think I'm being serious and instruct me on the error of my ways, but still, I'm not going to break character and muddy the joke by actually telling people I'm joking.
Mind crimes and thought crimes are ruining the left's idea of DEMOCRACY!
When my readers don't get that that's what I'm doing
For a long time, I was one of the readers that didn't get it. Then two things helped. One was that short period where you podcasted reading your own blog. Verbal tone helped. More recently, you have been a bit more obvious in calling out exactly what is wrong, rather than what I would call "hoping we could pick it out too". Even when you don't, I still understand now what you are trying to do. However, understanding your posts is like trying to solve the NYT crossword puzzle. Some don't even attempt to solve it, others will try and fail, and a few will enjoy the experience. When I don't understand you, I feel that you are treating us like your students, while many of us are not that caliber or at least inclined to think in such a way. That's not to say you should want people lacking such caliber or uninclined to think as you do.
When you do it too much, you also become the thing you do. If the goal is to salvage ideas like freedom of speech and expression, liberal ideals from the postmodern and activist Left, I wish you well. That institution is pretty well-captured, as our most humanities departments and many bureaucratic organizations.
This is not good because the pursuit of truth becomes lost, our institutions become about 'oughts' and the moralizing of activists within ideological frameworks, all competing for power (these are people you definitely don't want in actual power)
It was always baked-in to feminism to some extent, which is why I'd never call myself a feminist and denigrate what I am within such a framework.
I've tried to lay-out the depths of the problem (the rationalist/irrationalist cycle, the Will and Will to Power lineage, the New Atheist error, the postmodern world we're moving into for a while...etc)
I wonder if the game you're playing is exactly what you think it is. :).
Maybe also branch out into some other outlets in pursuit of the liberal ideals? Or is where all the action is what really matters?
As to the value of your continuing this project…
The question you should be asking yourself is why, when you provide a completely open forum with the end objective being cruel neutrality are 90+% of the commentators right of center.
I would conjecture that it’s because the number of virtual spaces where left of center dialogue is allowed outnumber your blog by more than 10:1
As to the “bless your heart” comment, they’re just having some fun. Don’t take it too seriously.
Where there aren't ideological zealots and loud voices playing dumb games at the Times, there are a few morons and quite a few cowards (the rule rather than the exception in most orgs). I'm sure there are quite a few reasonable people, and a few actual liberals, but how much good are you doing them, or your readers reading them?
I'm curious. I still think it is some good, and I do benefit to some extent.
A lot of this logic is baked-in liberalism-as-method and the modern/postmodern arts scene. Which is why the Dylan thing is...for me....er....I appreciate the honesty, but that's so 60's and at the heart of quite a few problems.
But that's how I'm approaching things. Good luck.
As to her claim of not discussing the 2020 election with her Justice husband, even I have a tough time believing that.
The NYT never really played it straight, but there was a time the bias was at least chiefly an accident of its siloed community, as Bernard Goldberg explained in his 2001 best-seller "Bias." Now it is plainly embarrassingly intentional. I applaud Ann's efforts to hold them to account. It is healthy.
"I wish the NYT would play it dead straight."
Probably better add "humor" to your tags then.
They are shamelessly desperate to prevent anyone from taking a serious look at the claim.
They are obviously not Hamlet scholars or else they would notice how similar their assertions are to "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
You are correct Professor. Your voice carrys a lot of clout. This is always my first stop of the day. Keep up the great work.
I would say to Ginni Thomas
“ People always win elections in the middle of the night after polls close.
Happens all of the time.”
dissonance - definition
NOUN
1) A harsh, disagreeable combination of sounds; discord.
2) Lack of agreement, consistency, or harmony; conflict: "In Vietnam, reality fell away and dissonance between claim and fact filled the void" (Michael Janeway).
3) Music: A combination of tones contextually considered to suggest unrelieved tension and require resolution.
Comment:
Considering (2), this also applies to thoughts and actions.
In the first, a belief system becomes challenged by new facts, as reality has a habit of ultimately winning. This condition is self-referent and the disharmony stays with oneself.
In the second, the initiator of an idea may in fact be espousing a different idea by choice of actions or words. This condition involves others who do not agree with what is actually espoused and the claimant cannot see that the original error does not belong to the crowd.
Besides being deceitful, the NYT headline: "Ginni Thomas Denies Discussing Election Subversion Efforts With Her Husband" is simply sloppy writing. If asked the question in this manner, she could truthfully answer "no" even if she discussed "election efforts" with him - believing that they were not "subversion" efforts. Why not simply play it straight with the truthful headline "Ginni Thomas Denies Discussing Election Voting Issues With Her Husband"?
But they are perfectly straight with us on everything else.
tim maguire said...
I wish someone, anyone, in the media would play it straight. When was the last time you heard about allegations of fraud in 2020 that weren't portrayed as "false allegations"? ( Ms. Thomas reiterated her false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen...)
They are shamelessly desperate to prevent anyone from taking a serious look at the claim.
*************
I agree entirely. How the FUCK does the NYT know for certainty that all the claims about rigged elections in different states are "false"?
Aren't some states still grappling with the issues?
Isn't this kangaroo committee claiming it's trying to get to the facts?
Or has it just assumed they knew them before the first time they met.
Its' like the various pimply "fact checkers" who presume to correct statements that are a matter of disagreement or contention uttered by experts in their fields. PhDs and MDs, the whole lot of them....right? All capable of finding factual and logical errors...
Journalism id DEAD in America.
The NYT playing it straight? Isn't that a homophobic term to use now?
We understand the service you provide in teaching us about the NYT’s twisting of reality for their Globalist masters. Good job, Professor. We highly value your working for us ever day.
"Ms. Thomas, who goes by Ginni, repeated her assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from President Donald J. Trump."
It is not enough for the New York Times to falsely assert that Joe Biden won the election fair and square.
You must be made to falsely assert that too. And they will not quit until you do.
THERE ARE FIVE LIGHTS. SAY IT.
--- I make it my thing to point out the slant and I've been doing that for nearly 20 years. When my readers don't get that that's what I'm doing and understand why I think what I am doing is valuable, I feel disappointed that you don't get me or you don't see the value of my continuing this project. [Ann Althouse]
So now many commenters are saying they DO get it and they love you.
I don't get it. Why is the NYT your project? I thought your blog, involving your thoughts on any topic that attracts your attention, was your project.
You rely heavily on NYT. You "call them out" rarely. If NYT publishing was your project, why isn't it part of the title of your blog"?
You can tell your commenters, so many of them, that they are wrong or stupid or foolish or mean for finding your flat statement about NYT playing it straight ridiculous. Or you can consider that there is a message in the many comments, of many different tones of voice, reacting to that statement of yours.
I think they are reacting to it because it is so dog-bites-man. The NYT is evolving like any other institution or corporation, and they have evolved in one direction, to the left. Their brand is most definitely NOT trying to tell it straight. Their staff specifically talks about their obligation "as journalists" to treat Trump, his followers, and conservatives generally, as wrong at a minumum, and probably evil. That is NYT's crusade.
Instead of characterizing many commenters, all reacting to the same particular statement, as not getting you, you might want to respect their intelligence enough to wonder if the truth is that they DO get you. Your dependence on NYT is a weak part of the blog, to me, not some important component of your project. These comments on this post reflect a belief that you are awfully far behind the times on NYT. What you wish for is something that hasn't been the case for several decades.
Nevertheless, I read here and comment regularly. From my very limited, far-outside perspective, your project is intact and healthy, as far as I can tell. It would be better -- IMO -- with less NYT and Wapo because they are both distorters of news and propagandists. Thus their articles start out all akimbo, and it is a struggle to untwist their pretzel logic and get to the meat of the subject.
gadfly said...Just because Ginni allows politics to override truth doesn't make what she is doing to support The Big Lie.
As people here repeatedly point out, and you repeatedly determinedly avoid recognizing--calling something "The Big Lie" doesn't make it a big lie. It's a charge that has to be proven. The media (with your obvious encouragement) are trying to skip that step and simply declare it a lie absent the bother of showing that it's a lie.
The rest of us are interested in the evidence that it's a lie (given all the evidence that it could actually be true) and have to wonder, given the determination of so many on the left to simply skip that step, whether there actually is any evidence that it's a lie.
In short, saying it's so doesn't make it so.
>> . . . a belief she insisted upon in late 2020 as she pressured state legislators and the White House chief of staff to do more to try to invalidate the results....>>
Just as a matter of curiosity, what is the leverage available to the spouses of Supreme Court justices that enables them to "pressure" state legislators and White House chiefs of staff? Doesn't "persuade" seem a more apt word in the context being discussed? And isn't the right to seek to persuade protected by the First Amendment?
"I think it is worth saying clearly and repeatedly that the NYT should play it straight."
You're a paying customer of the NYT. And you're a paying customer for a reason. You know what you're paying for. Of course you have every right to criticize the "products" you feel need to be improved.
"Did she also deny beating her husband?"
Actually, she basically admitted it. When they asked if she had stopped, she said "No".
Yet another case of frog and scorpion.
I think it is worth saying clearly and repeatedly that the NYT should play it straight.
Most of the rest of us think the Times passed the point well over a decade ago where they care very much what you, or any other reader no matter how influential, thinks about the matter. I don’t think I’m alone in believing that their news organization gives us two options: drink their Kool-Aid or drop your subscription. When I wrote upthread that the reporters and editors of the Times may no longer even be capable of playing it straight l, that was not meant as hyperbole.
I think they do want that brand even as they also provide slanted material.
It’s my belief that they’ll take that brand if someone who remembers their glory days and wants to believe that deep down inside there’s an honest newspaper that could yet resurrect itself., but to them their brand is that they put out “The Narrative” so that other leftie have their talking points and understand what the politically correct perspective is this week. For example last week the politically correct view was that hospitals do not perform “gender affirmative” surgeries on underage minors and they never did. This week the politically correct perspective is that of course hospitals mutilate underage children, and that’s a gooood thing. How would the lefty proletariats know that without the Times and the Post to tell them?
I make it my thing to point out the slant and I've been doing that for nearly 20 years.
With respect, not always. Sometimes you seem to this reader to have drunk the Kool-Aid, much to my distress and the distress of other commentators.
"I wish the NYT would play it dead straight."
What does that even mean? I rather imagine that, by their lights, they are playing it dead straight. They are comporting themselves in accordance with the ethical standards they believe are relevant. They are lying the good lie. If you ask them, "Are you telling the truth?", they will say "Yes, of course. All the news that's fit to print!". Because the good lie works better if it is believed. They are in a war. They are good soldiers. They are firing their guns. Do you expect them to point their guns at their own side half the time?
Okay, _don't_ "bless your heart.
You're entitled to your opinion. And it's your blog.
I don't think the NYTimes wants their brand to be as you describe it. They think conservatives are evil and slant the news to portray that as the truth and being snarky to your belief in that is being very, very reserved.
Manners do matter, tho.
MarcusB THEOLDMAN
It’s the same mind tricks that they use to bamboozle us into wars. Loaded language only will be allowed and anybody trying to parse it to infer some version of real events will be branded a traitor.
Look both ways before crossing. Who doesn't love the professor in her?
Denial.
Diversity of color or dignity and agency?
A baby. No, a fetus, a viral entity, a carbon carcinogen that identifies as a human life. Vaccine. Stat!
Global cooling... warming... climate change. Undeniable.
Woman. Feminine woman. Feminine woman by Nature "=" feminized male through surgical, medical, or psychiatric simulation.
More holocaust deniers.
Ann Althouse said...
"I think it is worth saying clearly and repeatedly that the NYT should play it straight. I think they do want that brand even as they also provide slanted material. I make it my thing to point out the slant and I've been doing that for nearly 20 years. When my readers don't get that that's what I'm doing and understand why I think what I am doing is valuable, I feel disappointed that you don't get me or you don't see the value of my continuing this project."
I agree and I thank you. I would hope that any organization that asserts to be reporting the news does so honestly and without bias. But Alas. That isn't to be. The NYT has been riding on its reputation for some time now. Don't get me started on that High School Newspaper.
When my readers don't get that that's what I'm doing and understand why I think what I am doing is valuable, I feel disappointed that you don't get me or you don't see the value of my continuing this project.
I think it is valuable, primarily because you are not a Republican partisan or Trump supporter. Your calling out the NYT has more impact because of that, just as, say, Dershowitz's criticism of the Mar-a-Lago raid and his defense of Lindell carry more weight than would Sydney Powell's.
Been saying this for nearly two years now.
If we really wanted to overthrow the election, we would've done it.
The good news is that these attacks on Justice Thomas will probably go no further. He is well respected by the other Justices, and his wife is, no doubt, well known to them. Even CJ Robert’s probably sees by now that this was an attack on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in particular, and the Judiciary in general. Nothing could delegitimize the DOJ and it’s prosecutor and investigators in the eyes of the Judiciary more than waging war on the senior Justice on the Supreme Court.
C'mon man, Walter Duranty got a Pulitzer for reporting in Ukraine! They're SOLID!
"Election Subversion Efforts" is quite a phrase.
Yep
it quite accurately describes what the Democrats did in 2020 to election laws.
What they're upset about is opposition to their "Election Subversion Efforts"
I wouldn't call that "election subversion." If you believe the election was already subverted, then in pushing for more procedural paths, you're trying to un-subvert it. If you think the announced results are invalid, you're trying to get to the true results, not "invalidate the results." It's very hard to wade through these loaded terms. I wish the NYT would play it dead straight.
An honest NYT would be an eitherly different NYT than the one that's ever existed.
See Duranty, Walter
"I would conjecture that it’s because the number of virtual spaces where left of center dialogue is allowed outnumber your blog by more than 10:1."
Interesting. I would have said that it's because on this blog, the level of commentary, and the erudition of the commenters, is such that most Leftists find it an uphill slog. But you're saying it's a purely statistical phenomenon. I have to ask, where are all these virtual spaces that don't allow me to comment? You would think I would stumble into one from time to time. Are we talking Salon? Mother Jones? That Greek thingie?
I wish the NYT would play it dead straight.
that statement makes my eye twitch
The NYT is far from perfect and can be legitimately criticized from many angles and of course every source of information should be read with a skeptical eye. Having said that, it's interesting that in all these comments no one recommends sources of news that are more objective and less biased.
"The New Soviet Democratical Rules are quite easy to understand"
Indeed
History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
103 - George Orwell - 1984
"I wish the NYT would play it dead straight."
That ship sailed a loooooong time ago.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I think it is worth saying clearly and repeatedly that the NYT should play it straight. I think they do want that brand even as they also provide slanted material. I make it my thing to point out the slant and I've been doing that for nearly 20 years. When my readers don't get that that's what I'm doing and understand why I think what I am doing is valuable, I feel disappointed that you don't get me or you don't see the value of my continuing this project.
I get it Ann but I hate to say it but your plea just sounds naïve at this juncture.
I wanted straight news back in the 80's even though I didn't like Reagan and leaned left on most things. I noticed early on all the celebrated journalists like Dan Rather et.al. would always lean more heavily against Republicans. Yeah, they would report on Democratic foibles too - if they got brazen enough - but every Republican was treated as an enemy at nearly all times.
At some point I concluded this would never change, whether due to self-selection into journalism, or journalism schools or whatever other reason you can name.
And of course it's so much gotten worse. Was that because I "gave up", or is that due to the choices of those now reporting the news?
Most of us get you Ann, so despair not.
As for your "reliance" on the NYT and WaPo, I assume your frequent links and comments are driven by a couple of factors:
1. These have been historically regarded as the country's "papers of record," so reading them and posting links to them illustrates how and what the dominant print media is covering as the issues and stories of the day. This can be quite instructive as to what narratives are being put forth.
2. You do a wonderful job of identifying the biases and subtle (and not so subtle) ways in which these two publications attempt to set and shape the national narrative, invariably to the benefit of one particular political party.
Brava! Keep up the good work. Your blog is on my daily short list.
You cannot post a video to YouTube asserting that the 2020 election was stolen.
You can post a video to YouTube asserting that the earth is flat.
The first is "misinformation". The second is up for debate.
Maybe it's like seeing a beloved parent gradually fall into an ugly form of alcoholism in which they become a lying, hateful, evil shadow of their former selves.
It's difficult because you just don't want to believe that creature saying those terrible things about you and Mama is really the Daddy who loved and supported you all those years and you wish he would stop and be nice again. But it's him. That's who he is now.
Justifications, rationalizations and a defensive posture help one cope, a little. But reality sucks sometimes.
So we should be sympathetic as the Professor deals with the suck. Althouse is a national treasure and you meanies are gonna make her cry.
Stop it.
>>I think it is worth saying clearly and repeatedly that the NYT should play it straight. I think they do want that brand even as they also provide slanted material.
The NYT is a business. They have made a business decision to appeal to a particular market segment, and not to others. They have a brand, and that brand carries certain assumptions along with it.
Playing it straight is not part of their brand. Appealing to their loyal customer base is. Assuring their customers that their world view is correct is how they keep their upscale market segment, and thus their high end advertisers.
is 'denies' = fails to admit = ?admission denier?
I make it my thing to point out the slant
==========
opportunity here to patent something like 'slant dial' that can be put up alongside sundial while nuancing carpe diem
"Having said that, it's interesting that in all these comments no one recommends sources of news that are more objective and less biased."
Well, there's Pravda, and Isvestia, to name a couple.
Democrats used to hang black men for being with white women, so the NYT is showing a little growth there. It's the thought that counts.
"insurrection". Election "subversion" Undermining the integrity of the election process. Anti-government. Deniers.
"The FBI should investigate these people!" The DOJ should prosecute them!" "They must be silenced!"
Do these people have any idea how much they sound like the dreaded "authority" of their fabled youth?
Whatever happened to "Question Authority?"
I went to J school as a grad student and took all the core classes...the story is that newspapers were every bit as rabidly partisan as they are now, until the advent of the wire services during the Civil War.
Then the supposedly objective "AP style" came into vogue. More likely bias was better disguised.
So what we see now is just a reversion to mean.
Overseer Howard remains very very angry that a white woman dared to marry a smart black man that refused to stay on the New Soviet Democratical plantation.
Tough break Howie.
And you Martha's Vinyard-type whitebreadies are losing the brown people too.
Another tough break.
And the Asians seem genuinely angry about your democratical racist policies that keep them out of the best universities.
And everyone is ticked about the inflation and recession you claim dont exist.
Looks like some soul-searching is in order for you.
If it makes you feel better, think of it as a maoist struggle session. You guys love those things.
As I've posted here before, Ginni Lamp was in my law school class at Creighton. I personally know her to be a person of high integrity.
These libs are trying to attack her integrity and character. They also want to get at her husband. And as we know, the Left never quits.
I'll always be grateful to the both of them. The high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas opened my eyes to the cruelty and dishonesty of the Left. I switched parties and I'm glad I did.
Having said that, it's interesting that in all these comments no one recommends sources of news that are more objective and less biased.
Tucker Carlson is an excellent source of information that you don't want hear. There are others, like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi who used to be on the left but the Democrats have left them behind so they seem on the right now.
They are in too deep to play it straight now. Current employees were probably too partisan to view things any other way even before the paper hired them.
Play it straight and is there really a story? "Ginnie Thomas doesn't trust the election results and thinks Trump won and wants states to question the returns and investigate" is sort of a ho-hum story. It's the "falsely," the "without evidence" and the "Big Lie" that make it a story.
Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Jamie Raskin, Maxine Waters, Howard Dean, Stacey Abrams, Nancy Pelosi, Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren all questioned election results. It's the indignation and the anger that someone would dare express such doubts that makes the story, and if you don't bring that, there's not much of a story.
I think you are doing this like a law professor setting something out for a class. The commenters aren't law students and go off down their own paths. I doubt they will discuss the topics that way. It does keep things lively.
newspapers were every bit as rabidly partisan as they are now, until the advent of the wire services during the Civil War
As someone said above, no pretense at all. Let everyone know whose side they're on. Make their propaganda as blatant as possible. A few will escape the bubble.
"I think it is worth saying clearly and repeatedly that the NYT should play it straight. I think they do want that brand even as they also provide slanted material. I make it my thing to point out the slant and I've been doing that for nearly 20 years. When my readers don't get that that's what I'm doing and understand why I think what I am doing is valuable, I feel disappointed that you don't get me or you don't see the value of my continuing this project."
You are rather better than most of your peers and certainly your colleagues. That isn't the point. You post lot of NYT stuff. ALL of it is slanted. Every last article. Even the pro abortion stuff. Even the pro LGBTQ stuff that you support to a certain small degree.
So suggesting that THIS is too much...well, it is all too much. We have no faith in any of it.
It's very hard to wade through these loaded terms. I wish the NYT would play it dead straight.
The headline is misleading in that it buries the lede, the section where election subversion is discussed.
The interview ended months of negotiations between the committee and Ms. Thomas over her testimony. The committee’s investigators had grown particularly interested in her communications with John Eastman...
...Ms. Thomas exchanged text messages with Mr. Meadows, the White House chief of staff, in which she urged him to challenge Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in the 2020 election, which she called a “heist,” and indicated that she had reached out to Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, about Mr. Trump’s efforts to use the courts to keep himself in power. She even suggested the lawyer who should be put in charge of that effort.
Ms. Thomas also pressed lawmakers in several states to fight the results of the election.
But it was Ms. Thomas’s interactions with Mr. Eastman, a conservative lawyer who pushed Vice President Mike Pence to block or delay the certification of Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2021, that have most interested investigators.
“She’s a witness,” Mr. Thompson said Thursday. “We didn’t accuse her of anything.”
The panel obtained at least one email between Ms. Thomas and Mr. Eastman after a federal judge ordered Mr. Eastman to turn over documents to the panel from the period after the November 2020 election when he was meeting with conservative groups to discuss fighting the election results.
That same judge has said it is “more likely than not” that Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman committed two felonies as part of the effort, including conspiracy to defraud the American people.
It's been demonstrated that people working in the news business vote Democrat by 9 to 1 majority.
Expecting even handedness from that bunch is just naive. Ignore it and be uninformed, or read it and be misinformed.
Your wish is naive and childlike. That you take “bless your heart” as an insult is evidence you realize it is as well.
Raise YOUR game.
I think it's important that the New York Times reporters stay in New York so they can pick the crops.
Justice Thomas is not going to be their "boy," so they go after her.
Heywood Rice excerpts the following:
The panel obtained at least one email between Ms. Thomas and Mr. Eastman after a federal judge ordered Mr. Eastman to turn over documents to the panel from the period after the November 2020 election when he was meeting with conservative groups to discuss fighting the election results.
That same judge has said it is “more likely than not” that Mr. Trump and Mr. Eastman committed two felonies as part of the effort, including conspiracy to defraud the American people.
... and says that this is the buried lede - I'm assuming HR means the judge's statement about Trump's "more than likely" felonies.
But I'd take it a different way. This judge has gone on record as having made up his or her mind about Trump's guilt in advance of trial. If we take Ginni Thomas's being called as a "witness" as at least in part an attack (yet another attack) on Justice Thomas's judicial temperament, then it seems to me that the (or one) buried lede is that another judge's clearly poor judicial temperament is what they're hanging their hats on.
Of course there's also the question of whether you're committing "fraud" if you actually believe what you're saying is true and what you're doing is necessary in order for the truth to come out. You can use that justification to excuse a lot of bad action, undoubtedly. We've seen environmental activists, for instance, using it to justify spiking trees, putting loggers' lives in danger in order to stop logging in what they believed to be endangered habitat. But in those cases, it seems to me, the action was clearly criminal in itself regardless of "good intent."
In the case of anyone with any clout urging Pence to resist seating the electors, for instance, don't you think that determination is harder to make? Let's even postulate that simply to try to challenge election results, pace Gore, is a crime. Is it still a crime if you fail?
It's important to recognize — if you're interested in reading this blog — that I am choosing to write *about* slant. Note the "propaganda" tag. Telling me it's slanted is telling me you don't understand my project. If you don't *like* my project, why read this blog?
In any event, there is no unslanted place, and the NYT is so big that what it does matters in a way that other places don't. It reaches a lot of people and it has a lot of breadth, so I can find many interesting topics, which is another thing that I'm doing with this blog.
At some point, someone decided to play wag the dog with the news. It caught on. When was that? How did it happen? It retrospect, I’m sure we will say ‘it’s always been that way’. I don’t think so, but since our minds are bent to recent history, we are blind to what happened long (sic) ago.
It's illegal to think or say the left are liars and cheaters.
Heywood Rice said...
The NYT is far from perfect and can be legitimately criticized from many angles and of course every source of information should be read with a skeptical eye. Having said that, it's interesting that in all these comments no one recommends sources of news that are more objective and less biased.
Just about anything is less biased than the WaPo or NYT
But they pretty much all suck
If you want anything approaching honest news, go to blogs.
Start with Instapundit and Ace of Spaces and Althouse
Yeah, and I wish I had married Cheryl Ladd. Ain't gonna happen. Same with NYT.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा