politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
So let’s recap
Biden BOMBED the debate
NYT printed a bunch of stories (like, more than they have and more frequently than on any other single topic for years including the insurrection) about how this was an objective disaster for Biden and there was no possible way he could win now
Polls came out, showing anywhere from 0 to 2 points of loss of support even after an absolutely historic fuckup
Polls investigating why that is, for some reason, are kind of hard to find, our media preferring to run weird slanted polls where they ask more or less “Why did Biden fuck up so bad and do you really want to continue to support him now?”. But the few of them that can be found investigating the more data driven issue report voters saying, more or less, that sure Biden is old but his opponent is an angry malicious liar who is an objective catastrophe for the country and that’s more important to me
So then after all that, the NYT runs a story today saying here’s what the Democrats don’t understand, the voters are influenced by style, not substance. If the Democrats want to stop being wrong about everything and losing they need to understand that.
Do I have my summary correct?
You missed the part where news organizations are not a singular monolith but rather composed of numerous individuals that don't all feel/think the same way let alone hold the same opinions in an op-ed.
You're not wrong. It is however notable that the NYT's editorial stance on Biden's performance and place in the Democratic strategy was a monolith, and one that was misaligned with both the voters' opinions and the objective reality, up until a couple of days ago possibly in my opinion because word of some level of lost subscribers started reaching back up to the monolith's office.
I really agree with both of you here. While there was an article or two posted with the opposite narrative, the NYT used their editorial discretion in a fairly flagrant way on this issue. It stood in stark contrast to other issues that they have gone out of their way to keep a neutral stance on as an overall paper (which I applaud). I'm not opposed to the newsroom, editorial team, or contributing writers having a stance unlike mine. I'm not the type to say "fuck all the media" all the time and think they're generally diverse groups of professionals trying their best and sometimes failing. The fact that the NYT op-ed page and front page were just plastered in a single perspective though, without an opposing narrative, was just really blatant on this issue.
I was one of those canceled subs. I canceled WaPo after their disastrous leadership developments too. I'm basically running on cables and international outlets now, which is a real shame because I like to read other perspectives presented well, which the op-ed teams at those agencies are capable of doing.
Yeah. It's a shame. I feel like the vast majority of the staff in both places are competent professionals laboring away in a profession that's badly badly needed, and badly badly under attack, in this country, and it feels unfair to shit on their work product when as far as I can tell the bulk of the problems are coming down from above them and they probably dislike them a lot more intensely than I do.
At the same time, you can't just ignore it, if some organization is trying to support the fascist winning the election. Fuck the NYT until further notice is my feeling. WaPo has been writing a couple of weird as hell stories too (e.g. Trump is going to save NATO), but I still have my subscription to them.