Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
The subtitle:
White farmers filed lawsuits to block a debt forgiveness initiative, but the Biden administration is still bearing the blame.
Is this post implying that the New York Times is creating a narrative. It sounds more like they are reporting on the fact that black Georgia farmers aren’t supporting Biden when they should.
"Black Farmers Should Be Supporting Biden, But they're Not Because of RepubliQan Fuckery" is an accurate title. "Black Farmers Are Mad At Biden" is not an accurate title.
The NYT is keenly aware of the difference. One of them creates the narrative that Biden is losing the black vote for the purpose of separating Biden from the black vote and one of them is accurate.
Good thing “Black Farmers Are Mad At Biden” was not even close to the title…
The point stands.
I’ll agree to disagree.
Fair enough. I have no doubt more examples are pouring out of the NYT even now.
I’m sure you do, but for some reason you attached yourself to a bad example.
...and for NO reason, you've decided to take it upon yourself to defend the fucking NYT. Why?!? Are you just a Trumper, reveling in their duplicity, or are you a moron?
If you want to bash the NYT, have at it, but don’t do it with the WRONG STORY. That just makes you and everybody with similar opinions (which likely includes me) look dumb. And it makes the NYT look right; completely undermining whatever your goal was.
What does cool to Biden mean to you? Cause to me it sounds like they're losing interest in him. Which is what the NYT was wanting it seems
Yeah, that’s exactly what the article is about. And the subtitle perfectly summarized it. Biden has done a lot for black farmers in Georgia, and white farmers have successfully blocked all that. And despite the fact that the white farmers have blocked it, Biden is taking taking the blame. That is what the NYT article is reporting on.
The guy I’m responding to said the headline was “black farmers are mad at Biden”. Which isn’t even to the same thing.
I think this meme is trying to say that the NYT is pushing a narrative that Biden should be blamed for this. But that’s not what the article is about. It is about the fact that Biden IS being blamed for this and that is unfair.
And if you are Biden, it’s important to know that your messaging on this specific issue has failed so far and you need to make sure that black farmers in Georgia know who exactly to blame.
They perceive that the article is bad for Biden so are attacking it. The reason it is bad for Biden is that it takes an albeit true story and frames it in the only possible negative way for him. Now that framing is still true but as far as that story goes it is weak and unnatural. As far as slights go it is a very weak attack. The fear is not that the piece will land a mortal blow but in the aggregate.
This isn't an easy piece to slap down as it is objectively 'true' and the barb is nuanced enough to be missed by a disinterested reader (the target audience for both the article and its rebuttal).
For the sake of mirroring the low-concept appetite of the disinterested reader they wish to reach, they have decided (seems automatic tbh) to go with a low-concept rebuttal. So they spin the story in such a way as to subtract its nuance so that the intent is easier to spot. In effect it is a strawman. Which to an interested reader, such as yourself, is counterproductive as the lie is obvious and unnecessary.
It’s a problem to call this article “framing”. This article is a “political analysis” story. It is not about the bill that Biden signed or the farmers that sued. It is about the political landscape going into the election. As such, there is only one way of analyzing this story. This one.
If I were a part of the Democratic Party, this story would be very informative to me and let me know where I need to better focus my efforts.
If you disagree and only want sunshine and rainbows stories, then fine. As I said before, we have to agree to disagree
It’s a problem to call this article “framing”. This article is a “political analysis” story.
All political analysis has a bias to it, intentional or not, framing is inescapable.
It is about the political landscape going into the election.
On the surface the story is about the disillusionment of a small fraction of tiny subsection of the populace of the US. But there are way more electorally significant aspects to the overarching story. So why focus on that particular grain of sand if the intention behind it isn't to aggregate bad news.
It's like a reporter writing a story focusing on you getting ticketed for having a faulty brake light but only giving cursory mention that the brake light was working until the cop rear-ended you while they were driving recklessly.
If I were a part of the Democratic Party, this story would be very informative to me
It's not nothing I'd hope but that 'very' is sweating under the load it is carrying.
If you disagree and only want sunshine and rainbows stories, then fine. As I said before, we have to agree to disagree
You have me all wrong there. My intention was only to describe a type of electoral mood manipulation that I felt was represented here. I'm from the UK (I have a limited amount of skin in the game) so my comments are more about a recognition of patterns I observe in election reporting here.
PS. I'm very happy to read investigative reporting that actually lands body blows. I feel that there are more substantive complaints to be made about Biden but the NYT won't necessarily make them because they align with their own hawkish center-right outlook.
So why focus on that particular grain of sand if the intention behind it isn't to aggregate bad news.
Fact is, Biden won in Georgia in 2020. He’s losing in all the polls in Georgia as of now. You can blame the NYT all you want, but they aren’t responsible for his performance in Georgia as of now.
This story is just a symptom of a larger problem. If you want to bury your head in the sand and act like there isn’t a larger problem, you can enjoy this 2016 rerun.
Fact is, Biden won in Georgia in 2020. He’s losing in all the polls in Georgia as of now.
And the article in question focuses on a granular detail that is too specific to give the NYT readership any reasonable understanding as to why that is. If it was the editorial intention to educate people then they should have composed a broader picture with polling of all the main subsections of voters and the relevant catalysts that impact them. But this is not what they are doing. They have picked this granular narrative because it it lends its self to the framing they want.
You can blame the NYT all you want
I would rather you see my opinions as a critical analysis of electoral media than specifically dumping on the NYT. Again, I'm from the UK I mainly read UK news I don't have a specific axe to grind with US media.
This story is just a symptom of a larger problem.
No disagreement here. However the particular choice of symptom is part of the framing for the newspaper's agenda.
If you want to bury your head in the sand and act like there isn’t a larger problem
If the NYT want to put out an article about the 'larger problem of disillusionment then maybe a more pertinent analysis would be of Biden's backing of Isreal. Or Biden's ageing (are the NYT pro-gerontocracy, probably not).
What has happened is they have scrolled down the list of diminishingly pertinent narratives till they found one that works the negative emotional engagement they do want.
you can enjoy this 2016 rerun.
Electing Trump is good for the far right around the world terrible for everyone else. Electing Biden is disappointing for the US as you could do better, and bad for Palestinians.
I don't envy your choices.
I would rather you see my opinions as a critical analysis of electoral media than specifically dumping on the NYT.
I see this and think it’s best to agree to disagree with your analysis.
Fair enough. Have a good day.
Because people are absolutely idiots. Not a race thing... Most people of all colors and creeds seem incapable of going more than surface deep on anything. I don't know when we dropped our critical thinking skills, but I know it will be the end of us. I think this is what Generations theory sort of predicts. We stop caring about facts, logic, etc. We just drive ourselves into hardship until things are so bad that we realize these things have value . That's my Strauss-Howe pitch of th day. Welcome to the worst part of the seculum.
It’s not about people being idiots, it’s about the NYT helping trump in any and every way possible.
Lots of 3rd parties are complicit. That's why critical thinking and understanding conscious and unconscious bias is so important. Third parties with agenda are and always will be present. The trick is getting people to understand article by article what is biased or propaganda and how to suss it out. At least the ability to be suspicious without the need to jump to being a full on conspiracy theorist. IDK, it's just so disappointing.
The trick is getting people to understand article by article what is biased or propaganda and how to suss it out.
Absolutely. Some variation of which has been promoted for 50 years. We’re very, very, very far behind.
Yeah, I am with you.
There are most likely more people now with sufficient critical skills than ever before as their existence is predicated on the opportunity for self education. The problem currently is that unbalanced aggregations of personal and corporate wealth are capable of yoking the zeitgeist to their ends so that most untethered minds are functionally insane when it comes to 'political' considerations. It may seem like there are less cognisant minds out there but the reality is that they are being drowned out more than ever by cynical manipulation.
I don't know if the majority of folks really ever had critical thinking skills to begin with. Can you name a time that's notable for most people being rationally critical? I sure can't.
Public school straight up discourages it. Has since before I was a kid.
When did the NYT turn Maga?
I can't quite pin it down, but somewhere around Biden winning in 2020 and the insurrection in 2021. They must have realized that their dying medium could only survive on sensational reporting - and what better to help that than ever more Trumpian antics?
Carlos Slim, one of the richest men in the world, buying lots of shares in 2011 and 2015 might have something to do with it too.
NYT isn't so much biased in terms of Democrats or Republicans. It's biased in terms of what stirs up the most shit for the sake of clicks.
A lot of news outlets have turned into just churning drama. I've noticed it this election cycle with NYT and CNN.
The NYT has been in the bag for the GOP since at least the 1960s.
Huh. Funny i remember posting something about not believing shit you read in the NYT and getting thoroughly scoured for it and yettttt
It takes some time for some people to come around and figure things out for themselves.
I saw a small number of folks posting early on that Israel's war on Gaza was a genocide and getting dragged HARD for it. I've lost count of how many people said I was an antisemite for being skeptical of Israel's official news releases because "Israel was just defending itself". Now Lemmy is majority pro-Palestine and recognizes the Palestinian genocide. Looks like a bunch of you were wrong...
Watching libs finally turn against the New York Crimes like
They published a fake news story about Palestinians committing mass rape and had awful reporting on trans issues that was literally cited in transphobic laws, and they responded to criticism of that by publishing an op-ed titled "In Defense of JK Rowling."
They have a long history of shit like that, lying and endangering vulnerable people in the process, but the trouble is, so do a lot of news outlets. It's why it's so important to investigate claims, trace sources, and think critically about information even when it's coming from a seemingly trustworthy source.
Yeah, that's a Blue Checkmark, that means the opposite of what it used to mean, I'm going to assume none of this happened, it's not like any of these people can be held accountable for lying to get clicks.