For some individual reporters, it's an age-old attempt to sound "balanced" and also to not lose their "sources" on either "side" and also because they love a good back-and-forth controversy. If only many could lift heads from sand and be brave enough to call a crime a crime. Thank you to Press Watch!
Todays NYT obit on Herbert Gans,eminent sociologist, has several insights on US news. E.g., "in “Democracy and the News” (2003), he argued that traditional journalism and an informed citizenry had been weakened by proliferating internet and cable news outlets, the growth of big corporations and special interest groups, and media monoliths obsessed with profits. He prescribed greater newsroom diversity and stiffer walls between editorial and business sides of news organizations."
Seems obvious that NYT & WaPo and others are run by corporate boards & many republicans. They want Profit! NOW! Not next quarter, much less next year. And tRumps antics, belligerence & illegality sells eyeballs on web sites. (Bezos admitted to such long ago.) Yes, I've stopped paying for them some time ago & support various Substack sites, but that really is insufficient. Back to postcards to encourage voting.
They whiff because that is the business model of their trump aligned bosses. Their prescribed template for covering trump & co proscribes covering the regime as a criminal enterprise. Refusing to call something illegal unless it been specifically litigated in a court of law provides a knowingly fallacious basis for holding back - which is precisely what they want to do. They are not stupid. Corp/legacy/ mainstream media obey in advance because they want to obey in advance. They continue to be a poorly disguised propaganda arm of the trump regime. Thank you for calling them out and please continue to do so.
Would this Wales’ proposed law help at all? Not that it could be set in motion here. I’m pretty sure this from The Guardian.
Seven days to clarify, correct or retract a statement of fact if challenged. Or choose to defend it in court.”
That’s it. No censorship. Just a legal obligation for politicians to correct the record—or stand by it, under legal scrutiny.
This mechanism, currently moving through the legislative process in Wales, does something vital: it reintroduces consequence into political speech. Not for opinions, but for facts. The difference is crucial. Politicians remain free to argue, spin, and debate. But if they claim a hospital has closed, a crime rate has surged, or a rival is guilty of fraud, they must be prepared to prove it—or retract it.
The beauty of this system lies in its balance. It’s not a gag order. It’s a fact-check with teeth. And in doing so, it helps restore the essential currency of any democracy: trust. Because without facts there can be no truth and without truth there can be no trust. The Welsh legislation directly counters the real crime of aspiring autocrats… destruction of public trust through the denial of facts
"And common sense tells us that what Trump is doing, time and time again, is illegal. That’s essential context for our readers and viewers. Denying it to them is journalistic malpractice."
Many ignorant people think they're using "common sense" when they're really just disguising their ignorance. Political journalists, of course, have no recourse to this rationalization. If they want to see what real common sense looks like, they should read this article...
The Banks got really big believing that they were too big to fail and they were right. The government stepped in and provided capital to help them stay solvent. The surprise was that it turned out they were also too big to jail. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act RICO was created to prosecute organized crime. Trump is trying to create a criminal organization that is too big to jail. The German army defeated the Maginot Line by going around it. Trumps used a Blitzkrieg attack of the laws protecting the government departments hopping his criminal organization can become too big to jail.
I can't speak for Dan, but my guess is that in the case of the WaPo, he would point you to the hefty donations by Jeff Bezos to Trump (and appearance at the inaugural) and Bezos' interference in the opinion page in favor of trump. Those acts of subservience indicate that Bezos is to some degree a vassal of Trump.
The NYT does not seem to have the same relationship with Trump. The Times has long had extraordinarily close relations with the American government, in cases (like the Iraq War) serving as a conduit for government disinformation. The Times represents an extreme case of access journalism, whereby the Times swaps favorable coverage in exchange for access. In addition, favorable coverage protects the Times to some degree from direct attacks by Trump.
And, as Dan has pointed out tirelessly, the headlines somehow always present Trump's position as somehow in the realm of normal when they are rather obviously not. Maybe there's an understanding between Trump and Arthur Sulzberger. No one really knows.
For some individual reporters, it's an age-old attempt to sound "balanced" and also to not lose their "sources" on either "side" and also because they love a good back-and-forth controversy. If only many could lift heads from sand and be brave enough to call a crime a crime. Thank you to Press Watch!
Todays NYT obit on Herbert Gans,eminent sociologist, has several insights on US news. E.g., "in “Democracy and the News” (2003), he argued that traditional journalism and an informed citizenry had been weakened by proliferating internet and cable news outlets, the growth of big corporations and special interest groups, and media monoliths obsessed with profits. He prescribed greater newsroom diversity and stiffer walls between editorial and business sides of news organizations."
Seems obvious that NYT & WaPo and others are run by corporate boards & many republicans. They want Profit! NOW! Not next quarter, much less next year. And tRumps antics, belligerence & illegality sells eyeballs on web sites. (Bezos admitted to such long ago.) Yes, I've stopped paying for them some time ago & support various Substack sites, but that really is insufficient. Back to postcards to encourage voting.
They whiff because that is the business model of their trump aligned bosses. Their prescribed template for covering trump & co proscribes covering the regime as a criminal enterprise. Refusing to call something illegal unless it been specifically litigated in a court of law provides a knowingly fallacious basis for holding back - which is precisely what they want to do. They are not stupid. Corp/legacy/ mainstream media obey in advance because they want to obey in advance. They continue to be a poorly disguised propaganda arm of the trump regime. Thank you for calling them out and please continue to do so.
Would this Wales’ proposed law help at all? Not that it could be set in motion here. I’m pretty sure this from The Guardian.
Seven days to clarify, correct or retract a statement of fact if challenged. Or choose to defend it in court.”
That’s it. No censorship. Just a legal obligation for politicians to correct the record—or stand by it, under legal scrutiny.
This mechanism, currently moving through the legislative process in Wales, does something vital: it reintroduces consequence into political speech. Not for opinions, but for facts. The difference is crucial. Politicians remain free to argue, spin, and debate. But if they claim a hospital has closed, a crime rate has surged, or a rival is guilty of fraud, they must be prepared to prove it—or retract it.
The beauty of this system lies in its balance. It’s not a gag order. It’s a fact-check with teeth. And in doing so, it helps restore the essential currency of any democracy: trust. Because without facts there can be no truth and without truth there can be no trust. The Welsh legislation directly counters the real crime of aspiring autocrats… destruction of public trust through the denial of facts
"And common sense tells us that what Trump is doing, time and time again, is illegal. That’s essential context for our readers and viewers. Denying it to them is journalistic malpractice."
Many ignorant people think they're using "common sense" when they're really just disguising their ignorance. Political journalists, of course, have no recourse to this rationalization. If they want to see what real common sense looks like, they should read this article...
The Banks got really big believing that they were too big to fail and they were right. The government stepped in and provided capital to help them stay solvent. The surprise was that it turned out they were also too big to jail. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act RICO was created to prosecute organized crime. Trump is trying to create a criminal organization that is too big to jail. The German army defeated the Maginot Line by going around it. Trumps used a Blitzkrieg attack of the laws protecting the government departments hopping his criminal organization can become too big to jail.
Too much like work.
And of course their editors might not like speaking the outright truth and editors jobs can be controlled by corporate.
what is your feedback regarding this
reluctance to be forthright from NY Times, WAPO, and others?
I can't speak for Dan, but my guess is that in the case of the WaPo, he would point you to the hefty donations by Jeff Bezos to Trump (and appearance at the inaugural) and Bezos' interference in the opinion page in favor of trump. Those acts of subservience indicate that Bezos is to some degree a vassal of Trump.
The NYT does not seem to have the same relationship with Trump. The Times has long had extraordinarily close relations with the American government, in cases (like the Iraq War) serving as a conduit for government disinformation. The Times represents an extreme case of access journalism, whereby the Times swaps favorable coverage in exchange for access. In addition, favorable coverage protects the Times to some degree from direct attacks by Trump.
Some of his attacks resemble WWE Wrestlemania, like his attack on Maggie Hagerman. She has, for example, used him as a source as a "senior WH official" (people.com/politics/president-trump-poses-anonymous-source-book-claims/), an example of access journalism.
And, as Dan has pointed out tirelessly, the headlines somehow always present Trump's position as somehow in the realm of normal when they are rather obviously not. Maybe there's an understanding between Trump and Arthur Sulzberger. No one really knows.