This comment is off-topic. But it is heartening. I am a subscriber to The Guardian, and these are extracts from a message from the Editor this morning. I hope some American news outlets get on this same page:
“The media will play a crucial role in shaping the outcome of this election – and this time, journalists must get it right. I want to lay out for you how the Guardian approaches our coverage, as it differs from many organizations in the US media bubble.
“First, we are unafraid to say plainly that American democracy is facing a unique historic threat. Instead of obsessing about who’s up and who’s down, our journalists are acutely focused on the real stakes – the fact that fundamental human rights, our democracy and the fate of the planet are all on the line.
“We take this approach because it reflects our values and what we believe journalism is for in a democracy. With no billionaire owner or shareholders to please, we are fully editorially independent. That means we are not being pushed by anyone to amp up false scandals for clicks, or cover the election like a reality TV contest…
“We always strive to be fair, but we avoid the trap that befalls much US media: the tendency to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. Sometimes reporting truthfully means calling out the lies of powerful people and institutions – and making clear how misinformation and demagoguery can damage democracy.”
Well, Tom, you have convinced me that I need to subscribe to the Guardian to help support what sounds to be a truly fine paper! I am agonizing over whether to drop the NYT... am angry at their constant focus on Biden's age, but there is so much more to the paper than politics that the decision is hard to make. However, if they continue to be tone-deaf in these perilous times I'm gonna do it!
I dropped the NYT after the 2016 and picked up the Guardian, both the US and UK digital editions, shortly thereafter. No regrets. (I also subscribe to WaPo.) The Guardian has been very good on U.S. election coverage, and much better than U.S. news outlets on Israel-Palestine-Hamas. And the UK edition has greatly deepened my understanding of what's going on not only in the UK but in Europe in general.
Yes, it does, but far fewer than the Times, at least on the issues I follow most closely -- and I do want to subscribe to at least one national U.S. newspaper. What do you subscribe to (or follow regularly)? LA Times?
Good question. I think NYT is more likely to listen to their subscribers (vs non subcribers) if they continue to make noise about their election coverage. On the other hand money talks and people walking away is also a very effective statement.
This is why I subscribe to The Guardian. They have some great writers, and it's refreshing to read straightforward articles that don't have the hubris and hangups (ie Biden's age, ridiculously skewed headlines) that are so evident in U.S. media.
Dan Rather is an old hand journalist and former US news anchor. He has come up with some important points about covering politics in this social media age.
He says: “As democracy remains under siege, it has been frustrating to watch how the press covers politics these days.
I am reminded by lessons that came to me during the Nixon years as a CBS News correspondent, which I’ll add here:
1. Enough with Both-sides-ism
When one side lies intentionally and repeatedly, they are no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt. They should be held to account, right away. Do not simply repeat the narratives they spew.
2. Prioritize Live Fact-Checking
Rigorous and robust fact-checking is the best defense against misinformation, intentional lies, and deflection.
If Trump [or whoever] says the sky is green, the story isn’t that the sky is now green; the story is that the sky is still blue and Trump [or whoever] got it wrong.
3. Ask Lawmakers Hard Questions
Ask about the fundamental principles of democracy. Push them to go on the record that Biden won the 2020 election.
Ask if they support the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
This writing is not to offer any claim of knowing it all. Your correspondent has made his share of mistakes, but after more than seven decades I believe I have picked up a few useful guideposts.
Good journalism is always worth it. Our democracy depends on it.
Thank you Dan. I hope Biden takes the warnings from MI and MN seriously. My understanding is the people organizing the "uncommitted" campaign are doing so in good faith and want to support the president but really need him to move on this issue. I hope it works.
Here's why I can't "hire" Trump for the presidency.
Warren Buffett Says Integrity Is the No. 1 Trait to Hire For. Let's count Trump's "integrity" failures:
--Found liable for sexual abuse by a jury in federal court, and ordered to pay total financial settlements of over 81 million.
--Settled & forced to shut down both his Trump University and Trump Foundation for misusing funds in the latter on his presidential campaign and conning students on the former. Paid millions in penalties on each.
--Order by a court to pay almost $500 million in his civil fraud lawsuit in NYC, Trump and the Trump Organization committed years of fraud by exaggerating the value of Trump’s assets and net worth on financial statements given to banks, insurers, and others.
--Facing four felony indictments and 91 criminal charge from violation of Georgia Rico Act to to subvert Trump’s 2020 election loss to four criminal counts related to the January 6 Capitol riot.
--Indicted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg on 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree related to attempts to conceal information and alleged unlawful activity before and after the 2016 election.
"Shouldn't the values we teach our children be those we see in our president?"
I am worried that Haley will eventually bend the knee and endorse Trump. "That guy I've spent the last 2 months calling an incompetent moron? Still Better than Biden so I'm endorsing him."
Voters tend to "come home" in the general election, and Haley, if she ultimately endorses Trump, will help Trump bring them home.
But there are exceptions: in 1968, Republicans abandoned Goldwater. In 1980, Democrats abandoned Carter, as they had in 1972 with McGovern, and in 1984 with Mondale. In 1992, Bush I mustered tepid support.
There are plenty of reasons for Trump to lose big electorally this year. I try to believe that the decent middle of the country is finally ready to reject the hypocrisy of the MAGA GOP.
I agree that she will eventually endorse Trump. She has shown many times that she has no strong ideals and will bend to political winds. I also take note of her comments that Biden is worse than Trump. She is definitely not to be trusted to help Dems.
For what it's worth, y'all....Virginia should be considered a light blue state (not purple), given that our state legislature is dominated by Democrats (both houses, thanks to our fall election) and both of our U.S. Senators are Democrats. Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) is the outlier--hence making us light blue! We'll see what happens in 2025 with a competitive pool of candidates for governor on the Dem side, which includes Abagail Spanberger. Hope NC will move in a similar direction....it's (past) time.
I’m a California voter and was really disheartened by how Adam Schiff knocked Porter and Lee out of the Senate race by funding his Republican opponent Steve Garvey (who was barely on anyone’s radar before Schiff’s coalition started boosting him). Schiff effectively cut out two great candidates, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee from making the final two, ensuring he would run against a Republican in the “top two” primary. Dan, how can we claim to be fighting for democracy and democratic values when some of the so-called leaders of that fight (which is def how Schiff positions himself) are using dark money to prop up chosen opponents against their own party… which feels pretty anti-democratic. I like both Lee and Porter but it’s really Porter who would have been in the final two without Schiff propping up Garvey.
I’m concerned that having Garvey on the ballot in November will bring out more Republican voters, which may impact some house races that we really need to win.
Schiff didn’t use dark money, did he? I believe he was open about the ads he paid for.
Just like Porter, he paid for ads that elevated a Republican to help his own chance of becoming Senator. Porter paid for ads that boosted MAGA Republican Eric Early and that painted Garvey as a moderate Republican (a characterization that will now help Garvey in November.)
As a fellow Californian, I’d personally much rather not have Democrats spend hundreds of millions of dollars fighting against each other in the next few months and instead have donors give to less known candidates who will need the funding to win.
And Schiff, with more votes than Porter and Lee combined (as of now by several hundred thousand votes) would seem to be the Democrat that Californians want most, so I don’t see some wrong having been committed. Just smart politics, just like Porter was doing. (Just like the smart politics Lee implemented when she and her allies tried to pressure Newsom into picking her as the temporary replacement for Feinstein, knowing it would boost her chances in the primary if he went along with her plan.)
Not surprisingly, the Times persistent anti-Biden bias is especially egregious in your coverage of yesterday's primaries.
Joe Biden received 85-90% of the Democratic vote across all states. Donald Trump received from as low as 40% in Minn to 51% in N. Carolina and in the 70% range for most states. Yet the Times describes the comparative results as an overwhelming victory for Trump and only talks about how "unpopular" and "too old" Joe Biden is. In reality and thankfully, Trump has serious problems going forward.
Millions of your long time subscribers wonder when the Times moved from being an objective news service to an advocacy group for the re-election of Trump even more bias than FOX which makes no claims to objectivity.
It's truly shameful and sad to see the decline of a formerly great news organization. Perhaps, your favored candidate had it right in 2017, describing the Times as the"FAILING NEW YORK TIMES!"
Merrill Weingrod
401-480-8003
Please express your thoughts to these Times journalists:
I agree. The Times hasn't been hiding it for awhile. Maybe Murdoch has made an offer to acquire the Times and everyone is auditioning for a new job! In any case, assuming anyone is reading mail from readers, it's worth keeping up the criticism.
Hmmm... Murdoch already has the WSJ and the Post, he's got NYC covered as a market and his brand of democratic deconstruction would take years to swing the Times' readership like the WSJ's...
Nah, I'm going with the NYT is just openly biased as fuck and does not care what we think anymore.
So, which camp of ruthless fascist billionaires are you in? Red or Blue?
As much as it would be horrific to watch Trump send the DOJ after media figures in his second term, there’s a small part of me that will think that these NYT ghouls made their own bed when they end up facing sedition charges under Trumps justice department.
The NYTimes has produced really good "insider" coverage of Trump, including reporting by Maggie Haberman about Trump's plan to institute a 16 week abortion ban and other craziness coming out of Mar-a-lago.
Maggie Haberman's coverage of Trump during his Presidency was excellent. She probably knows him better than anyone at the Times. I was surprised to see her recently piling onto the Times' anti-Biden campaign by using Nate Cohn's biased polling data.
Welp, just heard Haley thread the needle between endorsing Trump and not endorsing Trump.
Even though it's not entirely what we hoped for, it's a far sight better than what we've seen out of nearly every other Republican with a platform, and radically better than her fellow South Carolinians' submissive urination every time Trump comes up. Each day that she has not endorsed is a good day.
Okay, now that we are officially into the general election campaign, here's my question. Biden can and should talk about Trump as a threat to our democracy. But apparently he can't tell us why Trump is a threat, because that would be commenting on all the criminal trials. So how can he explain the whole threat to democracy thing?.
Why would Biden or anyone else have to comment on the trials to demonstrate why Trump is a threat to our democracy? It's also worth noting that it's not just Trump, or even primarily Trump, that's a threat to our democracy. It's the whole GOP, along with the Christian nationalist movement. A good look at "Project 2025," which dubs itself the "Presidential Transition Project," helps get the point across, without ever even mentioning the trials.
Question: What percentage of Minnesota voters voted "no preference" or the equivalent in previous presidential elections? After the Michigan primary, the Bulwark put the 13+% uncommitted Democratic vote in context by pointing out that in 2012, the uncommitted vote was 10+%, without any campaign to get people to vote that way.
How about previous presidential elections? The Bulwark probably picked 2012 because it wasn't a high-pressure election: Obama was the incumbent and Romney was credible, whether you agreed with him or not. In 2020 the stakes were a lot higher.
This comment is off-topic. But it is heartening. I am a subscriber to The Guardian, and these are extracts from a message from the Editor this morning. I hope some American news outlets get on this same page:
“The media will play a crucial role in shaping the outcome of this election – and this time, journalists must get it right. I want to lay out for you how the Guardian approaches our coverage, as it differs from many organizations in the US media bubble.
“First, we are unafraid to say plainly that American democracy is facing a unique historic threat. Instead of obsessing about who’s up and who’s down, our journalists are acutely focused on the real stakes – the fact that fundamental human rights, our democracy and the fate of the planet are all on the line.
“We take this approach because it reflects our values and what we believe journalism is for in a democracy. With no billionaire owner or shareholders to please, we are fully editorially independent. That means we are not being pushed by anyone to amp up false scandals for clicks, or cover the election like a reality TV contest…
“We always strive to be fair, but we avoid the trap that befalls much US media: the tendency to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. Sometimes reporting truthfully means calling out the lies of powerful people and institutions – and making clear how misinformation and demagoguery can damage democracy.”
Well, Tom, you have convinced me that I need to subscribe to the Guardian to help support what sounds to be a truly fine paper! I am agonizing over whether to drop the NYT... am angry at their constant focus on Biden's age, but there is so much more to the paper than politics that the decision is hard to make. However, if they continue to be tone-deaf in these perilous times I'm gonna do it!
I dropped the NYT after the 2016 and picked up the Guardian, both the US and UK digital editions, shortly thereafter. No regrets. (I also subscribe to WaPo.) The Guardian has been very good on U.S. election coverage, and much better than U.S. news outlets on Israel-Palestine-Hamas. And the UK edition has greatly deepened my understanding of what's going on not only in the UK but in Europe in general.
wapo has its own serious problems now.That is the one of the three we dropped.
Yes, it does, but far fewer than the Times, at least on the issues I follow most closely -- and I do want to subscribe to at least one national U.S. newspaper. What do you subscribe to (or follow regularly)? LA Times?
Good question. I think NYT is more likely to listen to their subscribers (vs non subcribers) if they continue to make noise about their election coverage. On the other hand money talks and people walking away is also a very effective statement.
No. Read the publisher’s recent remarks. They consider the criticism to be proof they are doing it right.
Have to disagree with that one.
The NYT has passed some kind of Rubicon, they are not hiding it now.
Shit's crazy, dude.
I don’t claim to know the answer just giving some thoughts. I’m not a subscriber anyway. But I do find myself not clicking their links anymore.
This is why I subscribe to The Guardian. They have some great writers, and it's refreshing to read straightforward articles that don't have the hubris and hangups (ie Biden's age, ridiculously skewed headlines) that are so evident in U.S. media.
Dan Rather is an old hand journalist and former US news anchor. He has come up with some important points about covering politics in this social media age.
He says: “As democracy remains under siege, it has been frustrating to watch how the press covers politics these days.
I am reminded by lessons that came to me during the Nixon years as a CBS News correspondent, which I’ll add here:
1. Enough with Both-sides-ism
When one side lies intentionally and repeatedly, they are no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt. They should be held to account, right away. Do not simply repeat the narratives they spew.
2. Prioritize Live Fact-Checking
Rigorous and robust fact-checking is the best defense against misinformation, intentional lies, and deflection.
If Trump [or whoever] says the sky is green, the story isn’t that the sky is now green; the story is that the sky is still blue and Trump [or whoever] got it wrong.
3. Ask Lawmakers Hard Questions
Ask about the fundamental principles of democracy. Push them to go on the record that Biden won the 2020 election.
Ask if they support the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
This writing is not to offer any claim of knowing it all. Your correspondent has made his share of mistakes, but after more than seven decades I believe I have picked up a few useful guideposts.
Good journalism is always worth it. Our democracy depends on it.
Thanks for sharing this.
Thank you Dan. I hope Biden takes the warnings from MI and MN seriously. My understanding is the people organizing the "uncommitted" campaign are doing so in good faith and want to support the president but really need him to move on this issue. I hope it works.
Here's why I can't "hire" Trump for the presidency.
Warren Buffett Says Integrity Is the No. 1 Trait to Hire For. Let's count Trump's "integrity" failures:
--Found liable for sexual abuse by a jury in federal court, and ordered to pay total financial settlements of over 81 million.
--Settled & forced to shut down both his Trump University and Trump Foundation for misusing funds in the latter on his presidential campaign and conning students on the former. Paid millions in penalties on each.
--Order by a court to pay almost $500 million in his civil fraud lawsuit in NYC, Trump and the Trump Organization committed years of fraud by exaggerating the value of Trump’s assets and net worth on financial statements given to banks, insurers, and others.
--Facing four felony indictments and 91 criminal charge from violation of Georgia Rico Act to to subvert Trump’s 2020 election loss to four criminal counts related to the January 6 Capitol riot.
--Indicted by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg on 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree related to attempts to conceal information and alleged unlawful activity before and after the 2016 election.
"Shouldn't the values we teach our children be those we see in our president?"
I am worried that Haley will eventually bend the knee and endorse Trump. "That guy I've spent the last 2 months calling an incompetent moron? Still Better than Biden so I'm endorsing him."
Voters tend to "come home" in the general election, and Haley, if she ultimately endorses Trump, will help Trump bring them home.
But there are exceptions: in 1968, Republicans abandoned Goldwater. In 1980, Democrats abandoned Carter, as they had in 1972 with McGovern, and in 1984 with Mondale. In 1992, Bush I mustered tepid support.
There are plenty of reasons for Trump to lose big electorally this year. I try to believe that the decent middle of the country is finally ready to reject the hypocrisy of the MAGA GOP.
Agree with this worry. If 57 years on this blob have taught me anything, it is “Don’t trust Republicans”
I agree that she will eventually endorse Trump. She has shown many times that she has no strong ideals and will bend to political winds. I also take note of her comments that Biden is worse than Trump. She is definitely not to be trusted to help Dems.
For what it's worth, y'all....Virginia should be considered a light blue state (not purple), given that our state legislature is dominated by Democrats (both houses, thanks to our fall election) and both of our U.S. Senators are Democrats. Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) is the outlier--hence making us light blue! We'll see what happens in 2025 with a competitive pool of candidates for governor on the Dem side, which includes Abagail Spanberger. Hope NC will move in a similar direction....it's (past) time.
I’m a California voter and was really disheartened by how Adam Schiff knocked Porter and Lee out of the Senate race by funding his Republican opponent Steve Garvey (who was barely on anyone’s radar before Schiff’s coalition started boosting him). Schiff effectively cut out two great candidates, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee from making the final two, ensuring he would run against a Republican in the “top two” primary. Dan, how can we claim to be fighting for democracy and democratic values when some of the so-called leaders of that fight (which is def how Schiff positions himself) are using dark money to prop up chosen opponents against their own party… which feels pretty anti-democratic. I like both Lee and Porter but it’s really Porter who would have been in the final two without Schiff propping up Garvey.
I’m concerned that having Garvey on the ballot in November will bring out more Republican voters, which may impact some house races that we really need to win.
Yup! It was a pretty calculated and selfish move.
Schiff didn’t use dark money, did he? I believe he was open about the ads he paid for.
Just like Porter, he paid for ads that elevated a Republican to help his own chance of becoming Senator. Porter paid for ads that boosted MAGA Republican Eric Early and that painted Garvey as a moderate Republican (a characterization that will now help Garvey in November.)
As a fellow Californian, I’d personally much rather not have Democrats spend hundreds of millions of dollars fighting against each other in the next few months and instead have donors give to less known candidates who will need the funding to win.
And Schiff, with more votes than Porter and Lee combined (as of now by several hundred thousand votes) would seem to be the Democrat that Californians want most, so I don’t see some wrong having been committed. Just smart politics, just like Porter was doing. (Just like the smart politics Lee implemented when she and her allies tried to pressure Newsom into picking her as the temporary replacement for Feinstein, knowing it would boost her chances in the primary if he went along with her plan.)
would love to see Dan write about this. upsetting.
Not surprisingly, the Times persistent anti-Biden bias is especially egregious in your coverage of yesterday's primaries.
Joe Biden received 85-90% of the Democratic vote across all states. Donald Trump received from as low as 40% in Minn to 51% in N. Carolina and in the 70% range for most states. Yet the Times describes the comparative results as an overwhelming victory for Trump and only talks about how "unpopular" and "too old" Joe Biden is. In reality and thankfully, Trump has serious problems going forward.
Millions of your long time subscribers wonder when the Times moved from being an objective news service to an advocacy group for the re-election of Trump even more bias than FOX which makes no claims to objectivity.
It's truly shameful and sad to see the decline of a formerly great news organization. Perhaps, your favored candidate had it right in 2017, describing the Times as the"FAILING NEW YORK TIMES!"
Merrill Weingrod
401-480-8003
Please express your thoughts to these Times journalists:
Joe.kahn@nytimes.com
nate.cohn@nytimes.com
maggie.haberman@nytimes.com
shane.goldmacher@nytimes.com
Ruth.Igielnik@nytimes.com
david.halbfinger@nytimes.com
Sorry Merrill, your efforts are likely just baying at the moon.
Like I posted below, the NYT has passed some kind of Rubicon, they are not hiding it now.
I agree. The Times hasn't been hiding it for awhile. Maybe Murdoch has made an offer to acquire the Times and everyone is auditioning for a new job! In any case, assuming anyone is reading mail from readers, it's worth keeping up the criticism.
Hmmm... Murdoch already has the WSJ and the Post, he's got NYC covered as a market and his brand of democratic deconstruction would take years to swing the Times' readership like the WSJ's...
Nah, I'm going with the NYT is just openly biased as fuck and does not care what we think anymore.
So, which camp of ruthless fascist billionaires are you in? Red or Blue?
As much as it would be horrific to watch Trump send the DOJ after media figures in his second term, there’s a small part of me that will think that these NYT ghouls made their own bed when they end up facing sedition charges under Trumps justice department.
The NYTimes has produced really good "insider" coverage of Trump, including reporting by Maggie Haberman about Trump's plan to institute a 16 week abortion ban and other craziness coming out of Mar-a-lago.
Maggie Haberman's coverage of Trump during his Presidency was excellent. She probably knows him better than anyone at the Times. I was surprised to see her recently piling onto the Times' anti-Biden campaign by using Nate Cohn's biased polling data.
Welp, just heard Haley thread the needle between endorsing Trump and not endorsing Trump.
Even though it's not entirely what we hoped for, it's a far sight better than what we've seen out of nearly every other Republican with a platform, and radically better than her fellow South Carolinians' submissive urination every time Trump comes up. Each day that she has not endorsed is a good day.
Okay, now that we are officially into the general election campaign, here's my question. Biden can and should talk about Trump as a threat to our democracy. But apparently he can't tell us why Trump is a threat, because that would be commenting on all the criminal trials. So how can he explain the whole threat to democracy thing?.
Why would Biden or anyone else have to comment on the trials to demonstrate why Trump is a threat to our democracy? It's also worth noting that it's not just Trump, or even primarily Trump, that's a threat to our democracy. It's the whole GOP, along with the Christian nationalist movement. A good look at "Project 2025," which dubs itself the "Presidential Transition Project," helps get the point across, without ever even mentioning the trials.
Jason Palmer of American Samoa, I salute you. Full Citizenship by birthright for Pacific Islanders!!! Fuck yeah!
Here is a handy link to the California Democrat Party Primary Official Voter Information Guide:
https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/candidates/president/president-dem-cand-statements.htm
For fun, the Candidates offered to California by name:
Dean Phillips
Armando Perez-Serrato
Marianne Williamson
Gabriel Cornejo
Eban Cambridge
President R. Boddie
Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Stephen Lyons
One of these things is not like the others, one of these things is not the same....
Look at the Primary Ballot information given and just try to choose anyone other than Biden.
What a fucking catastrophe of "choice".
EDIT: That is a managed choice. That is persuasion architecture at its finest and that is the very thing people are screaming about.
Question: What percentage of Minnesota voters voted "no preference" or the equivalent in previous presidential elections? After the Michigan primary, the Bulwark put the 13+% uncommitted Democratic vote in context by pointing out that in 2012, the uncommitted vote was 10+%, without any campaign to get people to vote that way.
Local coverage said Uncommitted in MN received approx 2600 in 2020.
How about previous presidential elections? The Bulwark probably picked 2012 because it wasn't a high-pressure election: Obama was the incumbent and Romney was credible, whether you agreed with him or not. In 2020 the stakes were a lot higher.
Google may be your friend here