A New York Times reporter was asked why they consistently frame things as bad for Biden but never bad for Trump.
A New York Times reporter was asked why they consistently frame things as bad for Biden but never bad for Trump.
Hello, ElPlywood. Thanks for participating, and I appreciate your passion! I'll try to answer the first few here as best as I can. 1 Why do you...
"I think what you're reacting to is that, at the moment, Biden is an unpopular president seeking a second term while Trump is a popular figure inside his party who is winning primary races. I wouldn't necessarily compare the two."
Credit to @JoshuaHolland
You're viewing a single thread.
Why do you guys consistently frame things as bad for Biden but never bad for Trump?
And your reply was to frame things that exact way. You're acting as though you're just reporting the "view from nowhere" or something but you're not. You're talking about two unpopular politicians, and yet when Trump came up you only spoke about his popularity within his own base.
The old "let me disprove your point by proving your point" technique.
Yeah.
I mean, the one point towards fairness: It's clear that that's actually how he sees it. If he were trying to engineer some boost for Trump by cleverly slanting his coverage, then he would have obfuscated it with how he answered this question. His answer shows that he clearly just believes that's how the world is: Trump is popular, Biden is unpopular, and they need to accurately reflect that in their political coverage and there are no other relevant objective facts that should impact that decision.
Which is not like I'm trying to insult him personally for that being how he sees it, but it does mean he has no business being a journalist. If you tend to freeze up under stress, then no shame about it, but it means you can't fly an airplane for a living.
I think you’re misunderstanding his point. Biden is facing the difficult task of governing a divided country. Trump is looking to consolidate power within his own party. One of these tasks is a historic, perhaps insurmountable challenge, and the other is routine. Even from a completely neutral perspective, this means you will report on more failures by Biden and more successes for Trump.
I personally don’t find this “the media is so mean to Biden!” narrative any more compelling than when Trump was claiming the same thing as president. The media has always been critical of those in power and this is a healthy part of our democratic system.
I mean, if they were reporting on Biden's progress in governing through that lens, and Trump's progress in the election, then I could see validity to what you're saying as the reason why. But that's not the case -- they're reporting the election in those unequal terms.
One great example is the little nugget contained in his answer, where Trump is "winning primary races" and that's a notable point about his popularity. Biden's won 86% of the primary popular vote. Trump's won 72% of the primary popular vote. Every single person who follows political news knows that there's a little revolt of uncommitted voters because of Biden's support for Israel. How many people know about 30+% of voters in Republican primaries saying that they won't necessarily support the eventual nominee in November? That's very unusual, and clearly a bigger story on exactly the same subject, and it'd be worth diving into the reasons behind it because they would uncover some objective things underlying their decisions that would be great to report on. Yet somehow it gets less press than the uncommitted voters making problems for Biden (which, obviously, are also an important story to report on.)
I personally don’t find this “the media is so mean to Biden!” narrative any more compelling than when Trump was claiming the same thing as president. The media has always been critical of those in power and this is a healthy part of our democratic system.
I mean, every president in modern history has whined about how the press is being mean to them (usually with some validity). It's part of the job. But it doesn't mean that careful analysis of "is the press coverage actually slanted" suddenly turns into an automatically wrong thing.
A lot of media coverage, especially in elections has to do with expectations. Biden is an incumbent facing no real opposition in the primary. Trump had real opposition, and there was a chance he would lose. You could argue he’s a semi-incumbent but I don’t think the media views him that way. Reporting on his overcoming this obstacle is naturally going to look a little more positive. In contrast, Biden has little to no chance of losing but has somehow managed to create major opposition to his candidacy anyway. This is noteworthy.
The non-committed vote is an unusual event and it ties into an important issue: the US government’s ongoing material support for ethnic cleansing in Gaza. I think it would be quite bizarre if this did not get coverage.
I am not saying that arguments of bias are automatically wrong, but as you say they have been (falsely, I think) repeated by every president. It’s going to take some compelling evidence and argumentation to overcome my natural skepticism of this idea. So far, I haven’t seen any real case be made. Not to mention that I think there is generally a greater danger in coverage of the powerful that is too positive as compared to too negative. See right-wing media’s fawning Trump coverage for an example.
It's equally routine for Biden to be campaigning as an incumbent and due to his competition is age is also routine at this point. While Trump is actively currying favor with fascists (Orban, Putin) and trying to overthrow democracy. Which is objectively a massive new development in the history of America. The fact they aren't covering it like this shows inherent bias.
Being the oldest president in history is by definition not routine. I know people like to point out that Trump is almost as old, but 4 years is significant at these ages.
I think there has been coverage of Trump’s autocratic tendencies so I’m not sure what you mean by that part.
Except Trump isnt overwhelmingly popular within his own party. Yes it's a strong majority within the GOP but its not a stranglehold. Nicki Haley was getting a consistent 40-45% of the GOP voters.
That’s not in line with the polling I’ve seen. Where did you get that number?
GOP Primaries.
Only two states where she won over 40% so far, Vermont and Utah. Those two are definitely not representative of the Republican electorate as a whole. In national poll averages she has never broken 20%. That is a significant faction but her defeat was never in doubt to careful observers.
How it will affect the general election is a more interesting question.
And DC.
And Iowa
And South Carolina.
And New Hampshire.All places where Trump had less than 60% of the GOP vote
I was answering where they got the numbers, thank you for confirming which states.
Your own wording softens the blow too much, imho. How is it "fairness" to point out that he may or may not have been lying (you seem to think not but... how can you tell, really? after all: his answers were prepared in advance, thus the fact that they were not inconsistent is not a surprise?)
Also, even if like you say he is massive unintelligent, he still collects a paycheck to do the job - how then is he not a liar, either way? When people get into a plane, it is with the expectation that the "pilot" knows how to fly the plane. Then, if someone passes themselves off as one, how is that not a lie?
There are so many more ways than one to be incorrect. For example, just b/c they don't slant the coverage as much overtly towards Trump does not mean that it is unbiased for it to have been slanted away from Biden.
The job of a newspaper is to tell the unvarnished Truth. Whether it fails to do so for reasons of profit, or b/c of Russian interference, or they are merely unintelligent, or whatever - does it matter? Whether it is a "lie" (and that fact demonstrable in a court of law) or not, it is not the Truth, and thus fails the criteria of being "news", and remains mere opinion instead.
Yeah, I mostly agree. I wasn't trying to give the guy a free pass -- just saying that really the fault lies with whoever gave him the job in the first place or told him that's an ok way for a journalist to behave.
But yes, the way he describes looking at political coverage is gross journalistic malpractice and people should be telling him that (or giving him a different role in society if he really insists that how he's doing it is the way.)
The problem here is with his editor. They shouldn’t let that kind of latent bias slip through.
The editorial job has likely shifted, as so many other things, from being the best and holding up a moral code intrinsic to the position, to making money for the shareholders.
The Jack Welch style of enshitification is getting stronger everyday.
I mean, we do hold leadership to a different, higher standard, that much is true. But is this man not the foremost world-class expert authority aka leader of his own life at least? And if not him, irt to that super narrow niche, then who else would be considered the leader of his own life?
Imagine if you will a scenario of a Doctor on television, let us call him Oz, who gives patently false advice that literally gets people actually killed. It is not okay for the TV station to air whatever film was handed to them, but how does that absolve the responsibility of this Doctor Oz from his own measure of responsibility, one may even say culpability (or perhaps criminal liability?) in this whole affair?
Again, there is more than one way to be incorrect, and by extension they both were partners in this crime against journalistic integrity.
Dude, the other day I was reading some rag because there was nothing else to do in the train... One article was just Trump's agenda without any commentary. How is that news if you don't put it in perspective and with the context that Trump barely reached any of his goals in the first term. Unbelievable.
There was someone here who posted an RNC press release, and was like, "it's news that they said that", and was all upset that we told them it was just propaganda, and that an article about it might be news if it contextualized and fact-checked it. A lot of people don't understand the difference between 'news' as a colloquialism meaning, "new information", and 'news' as journalistic reporting that has certain standards and requirements.