The NYT, Washington Post and other media refuse to cover Trump's mental and physical deterioration even while psychiatrists, doctors and healthcare professionals point out his signs of frontotemporal dementia; gait & balance problems, word salads, phonemic paraphasia, classic FTD posture, random sleep patterns. The Goldwater Rule DOES NOT apply to Trump per the AUTHOR of it (Dr. John Gartner's podcast Shrinking Trump and Duty to Warn). The sanewashing extends to his congestive heart failure, fluid overload, bruising, worsening spasms. We can see all of this. We can see the reactions to his incontinence. This is worse than a disservice, it's hiding critical information about his ability to hold the job. Just because Russ Vought and Stephen Miller won't allow for his transfer to Walter Reed doesn't mean the public shouldn't know that his doctors tried to get him admitted last Friday for his post-stroke symptoms and her refused. The Times is as big a coward as the rest of the main stream media.
Perhaps the worst offender in the NYTimes' universe is its stable of headline writers and editors. Take today's story on Vance's homophobia-exploiting smear of James Talarico. The headline and subhead:
"Vance’s Talarico Attacks Show His Penchant for Personal Broadsides
At a rally in Texas, the vice president suggested the Democratic Senate nominee is gay, a comment criticized as homophobic.
A broadside is a sharply worded attack. Vance unleashed a homophobic slur. "Broadside" is a euphemism. In the subhead, the Times goes passive voice ("comment criticized as homophobic") and transforms an objective, unequivocal slander into mere opinion.
The Times spews junk like this almost every day. I suspect most of it is completely unconscious.
The NYT headlines are often so much worse than the stories, that I almost find myself believing it's deliberate. If they think the story is going to be too negative on the Republicans or the Administration, they make sure the headlines pulls punches and normalizes whatever horrible things the R's did as reflected in the story. They know many people don't read beyond the headlines, so it's their way of indemnifying themselves: seeming neutral, without taking flack for taking sides.
A very informative discussion. It reveals the mindset of our public news media as being very much more concerned with alienating some of its readers at the expense of not calling facts as facts. trump lies. It is a known fact. Mr. Healy is worried that stating this too often - at least as often as trump does lie - will somehow cause its readership to think that i
is being unjust, biased. I like the analogy Mr. Jacobs stated - afraid to call balls or strikes, but stating only that a pitch was thrown. That the NYT is somehow cowed into not calling out the FACT that trump has again lied - as he does constantly - does more a diservice to its readers and a discredit to what a news organization should be doing in these times. As stated - we all know trump lies; we all see what he is attempting to do to our democracy, our liberties; we all see the blatant corruption. Why won't the NYT back us up? I can only shudder to think what Thomas Paine would have written as "Common Sense" had he worked for the NYT.
"In my interview with Healy, I started with the Leavitt story. I tied it to the Times’ overall failure to come to grips with the threat facing both the press and our democracy. I said the Leavitt story amounted to “awarding her style points” as a fascist liar."
"But it cares way too much about appearing nonpartisan and not enough about standing for decency and democracy."
I listened to the interview and you were spot on. Healy was squishy. The NY times can't be squishy--not when Democracy is at stake. They can't keep treating trump like what he does is normal, just "his" way, etc. etc. I hope someone there heard you.
Mark, I’ve followed you for….?…a long time.I am strapped right now (house stuff )but I just subscribed to you anyway…had to after…reading this, in particular you deftly explaining to Healy the damage done by the NYTimes’ cutesy (in my opinion Junior High newspaper level) euphemisms instead of “telling it like it is” like it needs to be said…like a valuable, respected, publication would! (I’m getting emotional now☺️)
Thank you!!!! And,yes,slight tip’ of the hat to Healy for reaching out to you.Hope NYT now steps up to the plate and actually aggressively bats FOR TRUTH and Democracy!
Thank you for doing this vital, brilliant work. Surprising that they reached out to you. But I still don't see the vehement tone a la Biden. A few days ago POTUS uploaded videos of real people being mauled by wild cats. He commented on a male candidate's rear end at a recent rally. All is not well in country, and they insist on hedging most of the time.
PATRICK HEALY is now the NYT's "assistant managing editor for standards and trustcs?" The guy who went from the real estate to politics, engaging in the oxymoron that is politucal journalism? The guy who told the SF Chronicle he'd support Colin Powell for President? Failing upward, like any other white male at the Times
I totally agree with your criticism of the Times’ (and implicitly other mainstream media’s) tendency to normalize Trump’s most harmful acts by using euphemisms in place of simpler, more accurate terms. But I also see these same media go too far in criticizing Trump by intentionally misreading his idiosyncratic manner of speaking to make it appear more dangerous than it actually is. An old example of this was years ago when Trump taunted scientists in what he obviously thought of as a joke when he facetiously suggested they study the injection of cleaning agents in humans as a possible cure for Covid. Even today critics point to this as something Trump expected to be taken seriously and thus as evidence of his unsuitability for the office he holds. A more recent example was just last week when Trump attempted to justify the negative consequences of his war against Iran by saying that it is worth paying the price of these consequences in order to avoid Iran’s ever getting nuclear weapons that it might use against the United States. To make this point he used a common form of expression that included the phrase “Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.” It was obvious that he used these “Let them …” examples the same way a person might justify incurring an expense for something that might be needed only in rare circumstances, but which then might be life saving, such as the immediate availability of an ambulance to serve a rural community. In response to someone who objected to the cost of such a service one might say, “Let him suffer a heart attack; see what he says then.” This doesn’t mean one wishes the person objecting to the cost of an ambulance would suffer such an attack but only that his view on the subject might change if disaster should strike. So too with Trump’s response to those who question his priorities in starting a war against Iran. He’s saying let Iran bomb an American city, with the following phrase “and see what these persons would say then” being unstated but implied. What’s wrong with these kinds of criticisms of Trump based on an intentional misreading of what he said is that they undermine the many entirely justified criticisms of so much of what Trump does by giving him and his supporters enough opportunities to justifiably cry “Fake news!” suggesting that all criticism of Trump is unjustified. It seems to me that when you and others criticize the media for going too easy on Trump it might be well to include a paragraph or two pointing out that sometimes the media goes too far in the other direction, and why this is harmful.
Perhaps he used you to say what he’d like to be able to; without it coming from the NYT!!
The NYT, Washington Post and other media refuse to cover Trump's mental and physical deterioration even while psychiatrists, doctors and healthcare professionals point out his signs of frontotemporal dementia; gait & balance problems, word salads, phonemic paraphasia, classic FTD posture, random sleep patterns. The Goldwater Rule DOES NOT apply to Trump per the AUTHOR of it (Dr. John Gartner's podcast Shrinking Trump and Duty to Warn). The sanewashing extends to his congestive heart failure, fluid overload, bruising, worsening spasms. We can see all of this. We can see the reactions to his incontinence. This is worse than a disservice, it's hiding critical information about his ability to hold the job. Just because Russ Vought and Stephen Miller won't allow for his transfer to Walter Reed doesn't mean the public shouldn't know that his doctors tried to get him admitted last Friday for his post-stroke symptoms and her refused. The Times is as big a coward as the rest of the main stream media.
Perhaps the worst offender in the NYTimes' universe is its stable of headline writers and editors. Take today's story on Vance's homophobia-exploiting smear of James Talarico. The headline and subhead:
"Vance’s Talarico Attacks Show His Penchant for Personal Broadsides
At a rally in Texas, the vice president suggested the Democratic Senate nominee is gay, a comment criticized as homophobic.
A broadside is a sharply worded attack. Vance unleashed a homophobic slur. "Broadside" is a euphemism. In the subhead, the Times goes passive voice ("comment criticized as homophobic") and transforms an objective, unequivocal slander into mere opinion.
The Times spews junk like this almost every day. I suspect most of it is completely unconscious.
The NYT headlines are often so much worse than the stories, that I almost find myself believing it's deliberate. If they think the story is going to be too negative on the Republicans or the Administration, they make sure the headlines pulls punches and normalizes whatever horrible things the R's did as reflected in the story. They know many people don't read beyond the headlines, so it's their way of indemnifying themselves: seeming neutral, without taking flack for taking sides.
A very informative discussion. It reveals the mindset of our public news media as being very much more concerned with alienating some of its readers at the expense of not calling facts as facts. trump lies. It is a known fact. Mr. Healy is worried that stating this too often - at least as often as trump does lie - will somehow cause its readership to think that i
is being unjust, biased. I like the analogy Mr. Jacobs stated - afraid to call balls or strikes, but stating only that a pitch was thrown. That the NYT is somehow cowed into not calling out the FACT that trump has again lied - as he does constantly - does more a diservice to its readers and a discredit to what a news organization should be doing in these times. As stated - we all know trump lies; we all see what he is attempting to do to our democracy, our liberties; we all see the blatant corruption. Why won't the NYT back us up? I can only shudder to think what Thomas Paine would have written as "Common Sense" had he worked for the NYT.
"In my interview with Healy, I started with the Leavitt story. I tied it to the Times’ overall failure to come to grips with the threat facing both the press and our democracy. I said the Leavitt story amounted to “awarding her style points” as a fascist liar."
"But it cares way too much about appearing nonpartisan and not enough about standing for decency and democracy."
I listened to the interview and you were spot on. Healy was squishy. The NY times can't be squishy--not when Democracy is at stake. They can't keep treating trump like what he does is normal, just "his" way, etc. etc. I hope someone there heard you.
“So you’re saying you want to retain the potency of the word ‘lie’ by not using it?” 100%
Mark, I’ve followed you for….?…a long time.I am strapped right now (house stuff )but I just subscribed to you anyway…had to after…reading this, in particular you deftly explaining to Healy the damage done by the NYTimes’ cutesy (in my opinion Junior High newspaper level) euphemisms instead of “telling it like it is” like it needs to be said…like a valuable, respected, publication would! (I’m getting emotional now☺️)
Thank you!!!! And,yes,slight tip’ of the hat to Healy for reaching out to you.Hope NYT now steps up to the plate and actually aggressively bats FOR TRUTH and Democracy!
💙🇺🇸💙
Thank you for doing this vital, brilliant work. Surprising that they reached out to you. But I still don't see the vehement tone a la Biden. A few days ago POTUS uploaded videos of real people being mauled by wild cats. He commented on a male candidate's rear end at a recent rally. All is not well in country, and they insist on hedging most of the time.
PATRICK HEALY is now the NYT's "assistant managing editor for standards and trustcs?" The guy who went from the real estate to politics, engaging in the oxymoron that is politucal journalism? The guy who told the SF Chronicle he'd support Colin Powell for President? Failing upward, like any other white male at the Times
I totally agree with your criticism of the Times’ (and implicitly other mainstream media’s) tendency to normalize Trump’s most harmful acts by using euphemisms in place of simpler, more accurate terms. But I also see these same media go too far in criticizing Trump by intentionally misreading his idiosyncratic manner of speaking to make it appear more dangerous than it actually is. An old example of this was years ago when Trump taunted scientists in what he obviously thought of as a joke when he facetiously suggested they study the injection of cleaning agents in humans as a possible cure for Covid. Even today critics point to this as something Trump expected to be taken seriously and thus as evidence of his unsuitability for the office he holds. A more recent example was just last week when Trump attempted to justify the negative consequences of his war against Iran by saying that it is worth paying the price of these consequences in order to avoid Iran’s ever getting nuclear weapons that it might use against the United States. To make this point he used a common form of expression that included the phrase “Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.” It was obvious that he used these “Let them …” examples the same way a person might justify incurring an expense for something that might be needed only in rare circumstances, but which then might be life saving, such as the immediate availability of an ambulance to serve a rural community. In response to someone who objected to the cost of such a service one might say, “Let him suffer a heart attack; see what he says then.” This doesn’t mean one wishes the person objecting to the cost of an ambulance would suffer such an attack but only that his view on the subject might change if disaster should strike. So too with Trump’s response to those who question his priorities in starting a war against Iran. He’s saying let Iran bomb an American city, with the following phrase “and see what these persons would say then” being unstated but implied. What’s wrong with these kinds of criticisms of Trump based on an intentional misreading of what he said is that they undermine the many entirely justified criticisms of so much of what Trump does by giving him and his supporters enough opportunities to justifiably cry “Fake news!” suggesting that all criticism of Trump is unjustified. It seems to me that when you and others criticize the media for going too easy on Trump it might be well to include a paragraph or two pointing out that sometimes the media goes too far in the other direction, and why this is harmful.