This post is in response to a recent comment. I’ve sampled and edited a recent and typical New York Times online Opinion Page, breaking the layout down and characterizing the way the columns are divided by content. There are three repeated themes: anti-Trump, anti-Republican, and sexual identity.
I think there are multiple ways of looking at it. One way is that their opinion page reflects the news. I think that’s far-fetched but that’s one way of looking at it.
Another way of looking at it is that it reflects the topics that are important to their readers. I think that’s closer to the mark.
I don’t see any way of looking at it and concluding that the NYT’s emphasis on those topics is a figment of right wing media’s imagination.
One of these days I’ll write a post on how layout affects opinion, the bastard measure, and so on. Another post.
Exercise for the interested student: open the Washington Post’s opinion page and go through the same steps.
The Republicans control all three branches of government, and are basically incompetent at governing (quick, name a major piece of legislation that’s been passed in the last six months). And, the Republicans are obsessed with taking away health insurance to cut taxes.
I think it’s just the news that dictates the layout of the page, with a few things about sexual politics added to keep it from getting monotonous.
If they’re trying to avoid getting monotonous, they’re failing. They haven’t had anything interesting or insightful to say about Trump in a year. There have been more interesting and insightful things written in the Post over that period, for goodness sake.
Commented before that I viewed your data as a shrewd business move. With the decline of classifieds and other advertising, the Times is more reliant on subscribers. They are only printing what keeps their subscribers happy — biting the hand that feeds them would be very foolish.
The mistake is Democrats let the New York Times conflate that their interests and the New York Times are synonymous.
In support of your comment without the financial sector New York City would be sunk and without federal subsidies the financial sector would be sunk. IMO the financial sector is a combination boat anchor and life preserver around the Democratic Party’s neck.
Curious. Is it possible to write an honest piece on Trump and not have it look anti-Trump? Put another way, if you wanted to write positive articles, while sticking with the facts, what would you write? You can’t write about Goresuch every day.
Steve
I can think of two, steve. Reduction in 800 some odd regulations and pulling out of Paris Accord. The only reason to write a negative Trump article would be ideological differences. And then its off to the races…….
I suspect a factor here is that The Times is a national newspaper, so the editorial pages are aimed at a national audience. So local issues — discussion of subway repairs, and recruiting library staffers, and codes of conduct for school kids, etc.. etc., etc. — get dropped in favor of things that arouse readers from Alaska to California to Maine to Florida. I.e., anti-Trump editorials and identity politics.
Pity in a way. I’ll follow a web post or a URL now and then to some LA Times web posting or an LA television studio web site, and discover stories about neighborhoods where I used to live or restaurants I’ve eaten in, etc. All very parochial but comforting, even if the occasion for the current story is gruesome ….
Yes, it is, but you’ve got to eschew speculation which the NYT in particular has not done. And then there’s something resembling Oscar Wilde’s line about parents: to lose one parent is unfortunate, to lose both begins to look like carelessness.
One anti-Trump article could be justified as covering the news. Two anti-Trump articles is harder to justify. Three should cause the editor to step in. Three or five over and over every day over the period of a year is certainly repetitive, impossible to justify as covering the news especially when so much of what is written is speculation, and it looks very much like obsession.
“The only reason to write a negative Trump article would be ideological differences. ”
Lying about his accomplishments would not require a negative article? Examples would include the Carrier deal, the F-35 and the $300 billions in contracts he claimed to bring back from Saudi Arabia. His travel ban which was written by some high schooler and not a legal team? His bad habit of contradicting his spokespeople? His tweets? If he just stopped tweeting, half the negative articles go away, bu the has to be the center of attention.
Finally, the Russia thing. After months of denying any meetings or working with the Russians, we now know that this campaign leadership team went to meet with what they thought were representatives of the Russian government. All of those Russia articles being called anti-Trump? Doesn’t look that way so much now. They were just telling the truth.
As to getting out of the climate change agreement, it was covered as positive news by some of the media. The regulations? I have yet to see a list. Do you have one? How many of those eliminated were special favors?
Steve
Steve
steve:
The definition of lying is stating something you know to be untrue with the intent to deceive. Simply saying something untrue isn’t a lie.
My point isn’t to defend Trump’s bloviations. It’s to note that definitively stating everything on your list is a lie requires one to know how much he knew when he said it and that he intended to deceive. They don’t so it’s a step too far.
“His tweets? If he just stopped tweeting, half the negative articles go away, bu the has to be the center of attention.”
The other side of that coin is that the dogs in the media can’t stop chasing that squirrel.