Re USA Today, I have to say that their online articles pop up in my Bing News feed every morning and they often have the straightest take on a given subject. And I don’t mean that to be damning with faint praise— They’re articles are clear and to the point and free from bias which does not imply they engage in bothsiderism. If something is objectively bad or stupid it is reported as such.
They are, in other words, one of the few mainstream newspapers not worthy of this thread’s scorn. Their editorial front has been very critical of Trump in a very sensible manner as well, presented from a thoroughly neutral ( as opposed to liberal) point of view. It always makes me happy to think about the sort of person who would read the print version reading the straight truth. It makes me sad to think that this will no longer be laying in hotels across the country.
rei
1736
What is wrong with “liberal?” Progressive values are objectively good. False equivalence Flat earthism and rabid tea party alt right “conservatism” belongs with ancient history.
Well, you’ll be happy to read that’s precisely what USA Today will now be focusing on. The scorn you notice in this thread is for the print edition, which pretty much only has people who have lobbies as subscribers.
Oh, no, I was referring to the general scorn this thread rightly holds for the state of mainstream media. USA Today, by playing it so straight rarely gets played and they are rarely too clever for their own good. Sad to say, I have more respect for their reporting than the New York Times at this point.
Aside from people in hotel lobbies, I think the only other group of people that read the print edition are retirees in Florida. Which is perhaps a shame as it turns out.
A tale of two headlines.
A WaPo headline right now: In admitting then denying quid pro quo, Mulvaney turns harsh spotlight on himself
A NYT headline right now: Defiant Mulvaney Rides Out Storm Over His Ukraine Comments
CraigM
1740
So @Strollen when you asked why I had such a low opinion of mainstream media, including the NYT?
This shit right here. Fuck the NYT and their equivocation.
Cue Bret Stephens column: Nothing makes these liberals happy! First they complain that we’re paying too much attention to Hillary’s emails, now they demand that we pay more attention to them!
I’m must be dense but I don’t understand the issue with reporting.
But Thursday’s briefing in the White House press room was a prize winner in “the annals of disastrous appearances by White House chiefs of staff,” according to Christopher Whipple, author of “The Gatekeepers: How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency.”
That’s pretty strong statement, no comparison to something that Leon Panetta did. What’s the equivocation?
One of Mr. Trump’s most reliable allies, the Fox News host Sean Hannity, assailed Mr. Mulvaney on his radio show on Thursday as “idiotic” and “dumb,” saying he “didn’t know what he was talking about.”
Mr. Whipple said that Mr. Mulvaney’s defiant defense of the president told a larger story about how the president’s staff had largely come to enable, rather than check, his impulses.
“I think the senior advisers in the White House, led by Mulvaney, have become a cult,” he said. “To the extent there’s any discernible defense or strategy here, it seems to be, ‘There’s no defense — so let’s pretend it’s normal.’”
.
Now I understand the complaint about burying the clearing of Hillary on page 16. (It was a front page story on WaPo though at least the electronic edition).
I also read the WaPo story, what specifically didn’t you like about it?
Oh, if the complaint is that NY Times has shitty headline writers, I’ll grant you that.
They’ve always had bad headline writers, hell the NY Post has always written pithier headlines than the NY Times.
But journalist don’t have any control over the headlines I’m actually not sure who does have control over the NY Times headlines.
Oghier
1746
The NYT has some excellent reporters. The issue with them is 90% about the editorial board’s decisions and headlines.
CraigM
1747
Yup, precisely this. The choice of framing is often so poor I can’t but think it is an intentional choice.
That specific headline? It primes the viewer with the notion of Mulvaney as some strong and bold actor.
There’s a reason ‘dems in dissaray’ is a meme here, its because the media and their shitty framing on every single issue.
Ok, this makes sense. I honestly don’t think it is bad as you say. It is rare story where I pay at the headlines and don’t read at least 1/2 of article. Also for the most part, I belief that most news feeds, local newspaper that reprint NY Times article use their own headlines, so outside of direct NY time subscribers I don’t think it has that big of an impact. However, I’m sure that I’m not typical on the depth of news I consume, and that headline business is conjecture on my part… Sot I’ll leave that I agree with you and Oghier, the NY Times has shitty headline writers.
I can’t speak for CraigM, but the reason I found the headline notable is that the accurate summary of Mulvaney’s comments is Mulvaney shoots self, Trump in foot.
Spinning that as him “defiantly” “riding out a storm” is absurd, especially as the White House was already trying to back it out hours later - i.e. Mulvaney failed to ride out the storm, and yet the headline claims exactly the opposite.
That’s good. You obviously are over qualified to be a NYTimes headline writer.
rowe33
1751
What an amazing headline this would be.
Those two are on about the same intellectual level.
Also, the ‘whistleblower’ was just reporting what DJT has already admitted. Jordan/ Gaetz have no business holding office, and Pirro should just busy herself drinking rum and cokes at her local Queens shithole bar.
This is not the norm. One of the first things I was taught in my journalism training was that 95% of readers only read the headline, and 95% of those that read further only read the first paragraph.
