Writes Margaret Sullivan, in "An ugly case of 'false balance' in the New York Times/The mainstream media is still getting it wrong about Trump" (Substack).
Sullivan was formerly the "public editor" at the NYT.
I disagree with her and appreciate when the NYT declines to indulge in the usual liberal-press assumption that Trump is too abnormal to be treated as the major-party candidate he plainly is... especially when the other party's candidate is quite abnormal in her own way. I wouldn't mind reading a newspaper that treated them both as abnormal to the extent that they are abnormal. But for that, I write my blog.
पोस्ट्स
८४ टिप्पण्या:
Abnormalizing Trump has been a democrat-media project from Nov 9, 2016. It's transparent, yet has been largely successful.
A useful bit of data: progs think of the NYT as providing "false balance" cuz it "normalizes" Trump.
"I would mind read[ing] a newspaper." I mind read the New York Times myself. A serendipitypo.
The left is saying that Trump isn't being demonized enough. Aside from the fact that their product has gone from hysterical to unreadable, this is the point where the doctrine becomes that of an imploding cult. Their pitch drives off anyone normal while holding appeal only to cult members.
Couldn't happen to better people.
While Trump was writing checks to democrats they (democrats) all thought he was quite normal. After announcing his run for president not so much.
Well, the media, especially the Harris friendly media, have a problem. They are in business and Harris isn't providing content for them make money off of. People have tired, of anonymous, heard from anonymous that Harris no longer believes a thing she believed right up until the anonymous realized it might hurt her chances.
If Harris remains "off-line" for the press, then a lot of journalists are going to see their career life light in the corner of their eye go into strobe mode indicating end of life approaching.
Really, if they want to make content, then they have to run things like when Sen Cotton called out the things the Harris/MSM acolyte attributed to Harris that Kamala Harris has not actually said or even issued a traceable PR document covering.
I read it like the funny pages oh you mean take it seriously
@robother
Sorry to put you through the ordeal of trying to understand a typo. Fixed now.
Is the Times anything but carlos slims etcha sketch
Anybody who downplayed Biden’s cognitive issues over the last four years should shut up.
Again, I think of my Greek friend ranting about Cyprus: "There are two sides to every story, my side and the WRONG side!"
Sullivan, like Paul Krugman, is so often wrong--and I share their politics, broadly speaking--that I wonder why they still have a platform.
Classic AA Trump clickbait
You're here.
+1 Rusty
I dismiss the both sidesism. Trump’s abnormality is manufactured by his detractors. The left hated Bush, Regan, Nixon with at least as much passion. Trump is normal…2FB if you don’t like him…
This line from the comments made me laugh out loud "The problem I see is that they don't hesitate to challenge Harris but they are afraid to challenge trump". Hard to see how they can challenge Harris when she won't talk to them. The comments were on the whole, delusional. Of course, so was the article. Somewhat interesting that there was zero pushback from any of the commentators. If that's a fair sample of left-wing blogs and substacks, the echo chamber is much stronger on that side of the aisle.
What is “normal” for the Sullivans of the world?
It takes a long time to reach the point where you can finally simply laugh at what they are doing. It helps to read a lot of history, and to think about history in terms of today. For instance, I had been reading this little book called "The Fall of Rome," in which the author pushes back on the claim that Rome "didn't fall, it just became more diverse," but that's not my point, my point is that when the Goths took over, they kept the forms of the Roman legal system, but they appointed Goths as judges, and when a Goth dragged a Roman into court before a Goth judge, sure enough, the Roman was always wrong! Not just that, but the only remedy seemed to seize a large portion of that Roman's wealth and award it to the plaintiff! Now, I know it seems like a stretch at first to apply this to anything we see in today's headlines, but if you ruminate on it long enough, cogitate on it, think about it, you might come up with a repetition of history in our own beloved City of New York.
Some of my liberal friends think that Trump winning would be a catharsis for the Democrats to change their modus operandi. Others think that if Don loses, the Republican party is going to implode.
By the way, after the Goths took over and did a "cargo cult" version of running the Roman Empire, the unrivaled manufacturing economy of Rome, which was the foundation of its military, simply collapsed too! Not like anything like that could happen with DEI!
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
If the vote-counters manage a repeat, I imagine something much greater than the Republican Party will be go up in smoke.
“if Don loses, the Republican party is going to implode.”
The Republican Party has imploded. If Trump loses the populist wing of the Republican Party will become stronger. In other words, there are no Trump Republicans who think (win or lose) we should be Democrat lite - which is what the Republican Party was for the past 30 years.
Is the sky purple on their world,
The New York Times had a headline yesterday claiming that "The Constitution Is Sacred. Is it Also Dangerous? One of the biggest threats to America's politics might be the country's founding document."
This is the kind of thing that starts a Civil War. They think they are going to sit on the sidelines and cover both sides of the War, selling advertising while enjoying healthy profits. It's like they don't understand that their newspaper is the battlefield upon which the war will be fought.
There is an irony to the fact that the party that claims to support diversity is also the party who attacks the other side for being abnormal or weird.
I would argue that Harris is abby normal and is quite convincingly so.
“This is the kind of thing that starts a Civil War.”
Lighten up, Francis.
On some other site, the left ones were wailing about the press *normalizing Trump in search of ad revenue from clickbait. Well, who do you think is clicking on and reading/watching this stuff??? Certainly not conservatives.
*In lefty world, dropping all context of his speeches to make him seem crazy is "normalizing" him.
NYT commenters do frequently assail the paper for being too pro-Trump. The lack of self-awareness is stunning.
https://donsurber.substack.com/p/highlights-of-the-week-b97
Not to hate Trump sufficiently is to be Far-Right.
Whatever it is, it isn’t blue.
if you are a devout Times reader you will believe 100 ridiculous things a day
up is down, men are women, 'dogs and cats living together', mass hysteria
"there are no Trump Republicans who think (win or lose) we should be Democrat lite" Except Trump is old-Dem lite--no entitlement reform or serious debt reduction, tariffs and less free trade, play down pro-life/waffle on abortion, less aggressive foreign policy. What about Trumpism would 1990-ish Dick Gephardt dislike? Opposition to soak-the-rich, maybe, and right-leaning judge appointments. Anything else?
much like a devout Haaretz reader, you can take it with a grain of salt
Igna - Should Trump be locked up for saying that?
https://streetwiseprofessor.com/a-battle-of-economic-nitwits-arent-we-blessed/#comments you find trolls everywhere
During Trump's first term, the Washington Post was generally better than the New York Times -- more skeptical, if not exactly even handed. I can't find the specifics now, but I think there were some people who deliberately set out to prove the media was gullible about any anti-Trump story, and the New York Times fell for it, but Washington Post didn't.
Now, though, I feel like the positions are reversed. I blame . . not the execrable Taylor Lorenz, but rather, the broken institutional culture that led decision-makers to think bringing someone like her onboard would be a good idea. In the Trump years, that was the New York Times. And now it's the Washington Post.
Anyone who doesn't join the Two Minutes Hate with great vigor will be "othered."
How dare they normalize Trump!?
How dare the quoted author abnormalize half the nation. She doesn't see because she refuses to see, she refuses to listen. She's in the "Last Days of Pompeii" mode, not feeling the rumbles from an unquiet Vesuvius.
Donald Trump actually was president for four years and the country did pretty well. There is absolutely nothing one can point to regarding Kamala Harris that makes her a remotely credible candidate for that office. So who is being 'normalized?'
Sebastian said
“no entitlement reform or serious debt reduction, tariffs and less free trade, play down pro-life/waffle on abortion, less aggressive foreign policy. What about Trumpism would 1990-ish Dick Gephardt dislike?
For me, the border issue is the most important. Dick Gebhardt said he was against illegal immigration but for all practical purposes he was for it.
Donald Trump began the process to control our borders. And there were few other Republicans and no Democrats who supported him.
For me, I want our Presidents and the federal government to stay away from the abortion issue. It belongs with the states, and thanks to Trump, that’s where it is.
I dunno. When you've gotten around 50% of the votes twice in a row, I think you've already been "normalized." Acting as if he wasn't normalized might be the aberrant reaction.
No apology needed. You are just poetic enough to make one wonder: would that everyone mind-read the NYT.
Headline and first paragraph Babylon Bee worthy
Allright, knock it off you guys or Ima put you on time out.
Sebastian forgets that the Democrats are not the party of Gephart anymore.
Fortyfive percent or so of US citizens think Trump is normal--and that the writers at the New York Times are "weird"--to borrow a phrase from Kamala's emotional support critter.
Let's cut to the chase and go straight to the problem not addressed by the Times. If it were not for the three people Trump added to SCOTUS and those, like Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, paid for by the far-right so-called Christian nationalists and rent-seeking billionaires that pushed Donald to select JD for VP, Demented Trump would now be sitting on trial in court for his coup attack on January 6. Trump is only in the race because of these ideologues willing to alter the Constitution to serve a fascist agenda. Trump has survived thanks to the Supreme Court rulings; now he panics as he considers the possibility he can sink when the double-haters who wanted nothing to do with electing either old man as president now have only one very old man, who just happens to be a convicted felon and rapist, to eliminate.
writing checks = sucker is sucking up./ ass kissing > ok to normalize suckuper
run for President = demand to be ass kissed > abnormal
Somebody drop a net over this guy before he harms himself or others.
all I do since 1980 having read Atlas Shrugged in 1970's is remember Francisco "I came to watch the farce"
Nay, this shit you is crazy. .
"Hard to see how they can challenge Harris when she won't talk to them"
=================
THEIR asking Harris to talk to them is THE CHALLENGE! duh?!
Is this the new normal or the normal normal? Five minutes ago nothing from 2024 would have been considered normal normal.
Trump-haters dream up shit to rationalize their hate, which is an unworthy emotion. The hate came first, but they are reluctant to own it. To do so would expose some old-fashioned class snobbery which allows them to be contemptuous of the workers and peasants. It's false to accuse them of Communism, when Feudalism is more to the point.
Will no one relieve this burden?
"gadfly" has no idea of what fascism is.
I'm stealing that.
OK then, Sebastian. Who is the ideal Republican? Right now it's Trump vs. Kamala. Even if Trump was out of the picture--which realistic candidate or potential candidate supports entitlement reform , actual free trade, tax reform? (I'm not so sure what you mean about "less aggressive foreign policy," because I and-I think--a whole bunch of Republicans are in favor of less aggressive foreign policy).
Maybe they should try whatever it is they have in mind on some other country besides the most free and successful country in the history of the world, before they start screwing with our founding document.
Oh, right, they already did that, and every other country they tried it on is a complete disaster.
No, thank you.
...............LOL. What a demento.
Being a "normal" politician isn't a badge of honor. It means ignoring pressing issues, saying obvious lies, and embracing and promoting national decline.
The Biden presidency isn't more "normal" than Trump's was, and the "chaos" of the Trump years is preferable to the chaos of Biden's America.
I was trying to find a link using Google, and failed. But at one point the NY Slimes published a piece saying that West Point Cadets have no sense of humor. As a former Midshipman- I can attest that they do, but... What did the Cadets do in response? They made a big banner- IIRC out of bedsheets - "A newspaper that has no comics says we have no sense of humor!"
Pretty good jab at the paper, or so I think.
Normalization is a tool only granted to the cultural hegemon. The fact that nobody would ever talk about normalizing Margaret Sullivan or the NYT, MSNBC etc. tells you all you need to know about who really holds cultural power.
Once they've destroyed Trump, they will know that they can destroy anyone.
Forgot the link for those of you who aren't aware because AFAIK this is taught in exactly zero political science or social studies courses anywhere in the USA. It's a dangerous piece of knowledge. https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens
I have seen and I can tell you everything is NOT beautiful.
Gadfly. Before you go off on a rant about the Constitution you should maybe study it first. That way you won't look like an idiot.
"I'm afraid of being called liberal." -- No editor or reporter ever
"Editors and reporters, with a few exceptions, really don’t see the problem as they normalize Trump."
"Nor do they appear to listen to valid criticism.
Dear Margaret Sullivan, until such time as you have valid criticism to offer, you can't make that claim.
And demands that teh press not report the truth, because reporting the truth makes you unhappy, is not in fact a valid criticism
Readering cannot deal with the truth. At least not intelligently.
Sebastion is a Bush wing republican.
Nobody cares about you people anymore. All 100 or so of you.
Ah, my current favorite pet phrase of the psychotic media, “normalize.”Seems like just yesterday they were insisting in their lockstepping way that the Trump-Vance team was weird.
The NYT news staff of the 1950s and 1960s would have reported aggressively on Biden's corruption and the other jackals would have followed their lead. Biden would never have been a candidate for President again and, given the scope of his family's corruption, were it possible to have pulled that off in those days, he would have been dropped even in Delaware.
The NYT columnists of the 1950s and '60s would have sized up Kamala Harris accurately and she would have zero traction for the switcheroo play she is currently riding.
The NYT of that era was willing to pursue most Democrats for wrongdoing. It was a more honest, or less dishonest newspaper, as a whole. And it took its role of reporting seriously.
These people are a different breed. Margaret Sullivan's piece was the parody. Bluenoses brown-nosing one another.
This is what it looks like when people submerse themselves in leftist bullshit.
And some folks seem to believe that these same groups would not do the exact same thing to basically any Republican. They did it to McCain and Romney as well. It's just that, well, people LIKE Trump (as oppose to tolerate McCain and Romney) so they have had to spend close to a decade doing this.
Note to Sullivan: A former President of the US is ALREADY normalized.
Only coup that has occurred this century was the one that put Kamala in as Dem nominee this year.
Not necessarily. The press covered up FDR's health issues intensely. Ditto JFK and his assorted maladies. And both were quite relevant topics to discuss.
this perp is obviously mentally
challenged' "Trump on Fox News bragged that his poll numbers go up every time he’s indicted.
“Whoever heard, you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election, where you have every right to do it, you get indicted, and your poll numbers go up,” he said. Sounds like a true confession there are NO RIGHTS to interfere in a presidential election, it is illegal. The women are coming to send this perp packing. :(
Yes, JFK (and the rest of the Kennedys) was the example for why I specified "most Democrats." They did have their favorites. But I think the flat-out crookedness of Joe Biden would not have been acceptable to them; they were still serious people. It is only a hypothetical but I read that newspaper almost daily and remember the tenor of Reston, Wicker, Lewis, Baker et al. They were casual or serious liberals in their various ways, but I don't think they would have been taken in by two-bit players like the current Democratic ticket.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा