The unreconstructed WASPS ;; always raiding others nests and carrying that ridiculous stupid uncultured idea of white and class privilege along with their hoity toity snob shenanigans; I know them and wonder about their tarnished souls.
Giving voice to a eugenics nut is not service to Americans. If elon musk checked African American and explained he was born in South Africa and is a naturalized citizen of America would Jordan Lasker get an article in the times? Why is there no box for Austrian American for Arnold Schwarzenegger to check? Eugenics a bad idea that just won't die.
Your final observation is wonderfully ironic. It is also one of the many reasons cited by Thurgood Marshall in his opinion striking down the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia.
Marshall went through every single argument ever advanced in favor of the death penalty and dismantled each one. Of course one of them was eugenics. In other words, when you kill a defendant, he can't procreate.
I've been a Times reader for seventy years and I believe the paper needs a masthead change from "All the News that's Fit to Print" to "All the Right-Wing Bias We Can Find." The Post is little better. What these people do best is paint lipstick on pigs.
So they make it sound equal, although it's more complicated. In direct donations and matching funds, Mamdani had the edge, but that isn't including outside groups who poured money into the race, such as the pro-Cuomo superPAC that broke spending records for a NYC mayoral race and spent about 3 times Mamdani's total — and that's just one SuperPAC. I'm sure there were others.
"Provoked sharply different reactions." JFC. The ultimate meaningless copout. Virtually everything these days "provokes sharply different reactions" in this divided country but that doesn't mean all of those reactions are credible, fact-based or made in good faith.
Maybe the NYT should be devoting this type of "investigative" energy to remind readers how about how Pam Bondi was entangled in the collapse of the Trump Foundation. For just a start. Not that the NYT paid much attention to the illegal activities and self-dealing of the Trump Foundation back in 2016 because they were too busy casting aspersions on the A-rated, still-doing-good Clinton Foundation that somewhere in about the 26th paragraph of each article said "There's no evidence of wrongdoing but the optics aren't good"—optics the NY Times was creating! According the the Columbia Journalism Review, FIVE TIMES more of these aspersion-casting articles about the Clinton Foundation than about the law-breaking Trump Foundation. FIVE TIMES. I'd better stop before I remember all the other things this "news" paper has done to piss me off. I'm still waiting for the flood of articles on Trump's obvious cognitive decline to equal those they did on Biden in a mere three weeks last summer.
Nicely done. I think I would quarrel only with the idea that source motives matter and should be disclosed. I get why you say that in this instance, but as general guidance I don't think it works. First, ascertaining a source's motives may not be possible, and it's often the case that people act for multiple reasons. Second, if it has no bearing on the veracity of the information who cares? And if there's reason to doubt veracity it's the doubts that need to be reported, not the source's motives. This story was disgraceful for the reasons you describe, and a principled editor wouldn't have run it at all, but source protection was the least of its problems, imho.
Good point. But to the extent that a source's motive can be ascertained, I think the reader deserves to know if they're being manipulated and why. It doesn't change the facts, but it could change the perception of the facts.
Nothing new. They've always had an elitist, condescending attitude towards minorities and women. I refuse to subscribe to crap like that. I'd rather pay $35 a month for the Philadelphia Inquirer,where voices of color are represented.
A shout-out for the investigative piece on the LA law enforcement activities. Superb, standard-setting reporting exposing actual events and eviscerating the falsehoods of official denials. It appears the NYT was willing to go fearlessly where the facts took them when it was 3,000 mi away. Use that piece as measuring stick for how to do journalism in Washington and your own backyard!
When Mamdani wins in spite of the best efforts of the NYT, the billionaires, the Democratic establishment and the combination of Schumer and Jeffries, it will be interesting to see how they all decide that they supported him all along...while subsequently doing all they can to thwart his agenda.
If elected, Mamdani will mess up some things because mayors always do, and because of his lack of administrative experience and his pie-in-the-sky, undeliverable ideas. He won't need them to thwart his agenda. But they will make it clear "Hey, WE never supported him." They will gloat. Because of that, they cannot be a credible source for honest appraisal of what he's doing right, what he's doing wrong, and what wasn't possible. They've forfeited any claim they have to making a clear-eyed assessment on the governance of their own city because this hit piece showed they're not neutral or objective. That's pretty sad.
Implicit here is commentary about the state of journalism itself. Trump himself may be providing an attention floor that drops after he does.
The unreconstructed WASPS ;; always raiding others nests and carrying that ridiculous stupid uncultured idea of white and class privilege along with their hoity toity snob shenanigans; I know them and wonder about their tarnished souls.
If the TImes is so rightwing, why does Trump, Fox News and the right keep attacking them?
You assume there there is a rational reason for any attacks by Trump, Fox News and the right wing nuts. There are not. They are simply sociopaths.
Giving voice to a eugenics nut is not service to Americans. If elon musk checked African American and explained he was born in South Africa and is a naturalized citizen of America would Jordan Lasker get an article in the times? Why is there no box for Austrian American for Arnold Schwarzenegger to check? Eugenics a bad idea that just won't die.
Your final observation is wonderfully ironic. It is also one of the many reasons cited by Thurgood Marshall in his opinion striking down the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia.
Combining eugenics with capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment.
Marshall went through every single argument ever advanced in favor of the death penalty and dismantled each one. Of course one of them was eugenics. In other words, when you kill a defendant, he can't procreate.
I've been a Times reader for seventy years and I believe the paper needs a masthead change from "All the News that's Fit to Print" to "All the Right-Wing Bias We Can Find." The Post is little better. What these people do best is paint lipstick on pigs.
Ever since the primary results were announced, Sulzberger has been on a tear to smear Mamdani.
Wait for the kindergarten revelations.
Big money is supposed to prevail but not this time around.
NY Times: "Money Pours in for Cuomo and Mamdani."
So they make it sound equal, although it's more complicated. In direct donations and matching funds, Mamdani had the edge, but that isn't including outside groups who poured money into the race, such as the pro-Cuomo superPAC that broke spending records for a NYC mayoral race and spent about 3 times Mamdani's total — and that's just one SuperPAC. I'm sure there were others.
“All the clicks that are fit to bait.”
The crosswords are also very good.
"Provoked sharply different reactions." JFC. The ultimate meaningless copout. Virtually everything these days "provokes sharply different reactions" in this divided country but that doesn't mean all of those reactions are credible, fact-based or made in good faith.
Maybe the NYT should be devoting this type of "investigative" energy to remind readers how about how Pam Bondi was entangled in the collapse of the Trump Foundation. For just a start. Not that the NYT paid much attention to the illegal activities and self-dealing of the Trump Foundation back in 2016 because they were too busy casting aspersions on the A-rated, still-doing-good Clinton Foundation that somewhere in about the 26th paragraph of each article said "There's no evidence of wrongdoing but the optics aren't good"—optics the NY Times was creating! According the the Columbia Journalism Review, FIVE TIMES more of these aspersion-casting articles about the Clinton Foundation than about the law-breaking Trump Foundation. FIVE TIMES. I'd better stop before I remember all the other things this "news" paper has done to piss me off. I'm still waiting for the flood of articles on Trump's obvious cognitive decline to equal those they did on Biden in a mere three weeks last summer.
Nicely done. I think I would quarrel only with the idea that source motives matter and should be disclosed. I get why you say that in this instance, but as general guidance I don't think it works. First, ascertaining a source's motives may not be possible, and it's often the case that people act for multiple reasons. Second, if it has no bearing on the veracity of the information who cares? And if there's reason to doubt veracity it's the doubts that need to be reported, not the source's motives. This story was disgraceful for the reasons you describe, and a principled editor wouldn't have run it at all, but source protection was the least of its problems, imho.
Good point. But to the extent that a source's motive can be ascertained, I think the reader deserves to know if they're being manipulated and why. It doesn't change the facts, but it could change the perception of the facts.
Nothing new. They've always had an elitist, condescending attitude towards minorities and women. I refuse to subscribe to crap like that. I'd rather pay $35 a month for the Philadelphia Inquirer,where voices of color are represented.
Important, disturbing piece!
Thank you for this Dan.
A shout-out for the investigative piece on the LA law enforcement activities. Superb, standard-setting reporting exposing actual events and eviscerating the falsehoods of official denials. It appears the NYT was willing to go fearlessly where the facts took them when it was 3,000 mi away. Use that piece as measuring stick for how to do journalism in Washington and your own backyard!
You are presumably talking about this? https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/americas/100000010259036/los-angeles-protests-lapd-violence.html
I agree!
Yep. Ferocious, calm and methodical. Innovative journalism ✳️✅
👏👏👏👏👏
When Mamdani wins in spite of the best efforts of the NYT, the billionaires, the Democratic establishment and the combination of Schumer and Jeffries, it will be interesting to see how they all decide that they supported him all along...while subsequently doing all they can to thwart his agenda.
If elected, Mamdani will mess up some things because mayors always do, and because of his lack of administrative experience and his pie-in-the-sky, undeliverable ideas. He won't need them to thwart his agenda. But they will make it clear "Hey, WE never supported him." They will gloat. Because of that, they cannot be a credible source for honest appraisal of what he's doing right, what he's doing wrong, and what wasn't possible. They've forfeited any claim they have to making a clear-eyed assessment on the governance of their own city because this hit piece showed they're not neutral or objective. That's pretty sad.
I canceled my NYTimes subscription a few months ago. Thank you for this.