The New York Times - They're even more evil now

I don't get the out sized animosity towards Schiff.

drummerboy said:

I don't get the out sized animosity towards Schiff.

 Schiff was pursuing the allegations about Russian collusion, and you can't pursue the allegations about Russian collusion because that calls into question Trump's win in 2016 over Hillary, and you can't question Trump's win in 2016 over Hillary because Hillary is evil.

Everything goes back to their hatred of Hillary.

It's possible that Anti-Semitism plays a part.

Or maybe Anti-Californiaism.

I broke my "never read David Brooks" rule today, and as usual, I'm sorry I did.  What an idiot he is.  But the headline writer sucked me in to read it, hoping that Brooks actually wrote an intelligent column.  He actually wrote this:

But it wasn’t even attempted. There are many reasons, including the size of the Republicans’ offering, but the core is that most Democrats, outside Joe Biden, don’t trust Republicans and don’t believe in bipartisanship right now. We are too close to the horrors of the Trump presidency and the trauma of Jan. 6. With some justification, Democrats have contempt for Republicans and don’t want to work with them. The Democratic Party is not emotionally ready to enact the kind of government Biden promised.  

I think this is a mistake, but you can’t argue with an emotion. You can’t turn on trust like a light switch. It takes time.  

Biden Is Right to Go Big

The Democrats are not being guided by emotion here.  It's a rational decision based upon many years of Republicans' bad faith posturing on issue after issue.  It's the 2009 economic stimulus and the ACA all over again.  This sort of "both siderism" enables and emboldens the GOP's bad faith, at the country's expense in the middle of a pandemic crisis.

Shorter David Brooks: "It's up to the Democrats to make the GQP more trustworthy."

It seems like the paper is in the process of replacing journalists with activists.   It doesn't even make as good as a fish wrap anymore as they keep shrinking the darn thing.

terp said:

It seems like the paper is in the process of replacing journalists with activists.   It doesn't even make as good as a fish wrap anymore as they keep shrinking the darn thing.

Don't know how you get that from that article.

And Dean Baquet is an a$$ so I'm not defending him here.

But their problem is not that they're hiring "activists". Maybe you could give us an example.

The both-siders are at it again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/us/politics/biden-coronavirus-vaccine.html

The article tries to give Trump some kind of credit for the vaccination rollout, while blaming Biden for not giving credit to Trump, but fails in that it provides no significant details, while at the same time ignoring Trump's many failures in his pandemic response.

See Eric Boehlert for a dissection of the article.

DB — they are at it again..

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/opinion/biden-trump-health-care.html

mtierney said:

DB — they are at it again..

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/11/opinion/biden-trump-health-care.html

 Or you could read the article, and not just the headline, and see that it's an entirely different subject which has nothing to do with praising Trump for something he didn't actually do.

drummerboy said:

The both-siders are at it again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/us/politics/biden-coronavirus-vaccine.html

The article tries to give Trump some kind of credit for the vaccination rollout, while blaming Biden for not giving credit to Trump, but fails in that it provides no significant details, while at the same time ignoring Trump's many failures in his pandemic response.

See Eric Boehlert for a dissection of the article.

 the article is in another thread, and I pointed out the awfulness of it there.  Unbelievable that they print this kind of garbage still.  After the disaster of this past year, which was exacerbated by Trump and his cult.  The NYT is hopeless on the issue of false equivalence and "both siderism."

Operation Warp Speed seemed to be handled well, and I’m happy to give Trump credit for it since it happened on his watch.

DaveSchmidt said:

Operation Warp Speed seemed to be handled well, and I’m happy to give Trump credit for it since it happened on his watch.

And what do you think it accomplished exactly? Do you believe Trump's line that without Warp Speed, vaccines would have taken five years?

DaveSchmidt said:

Operation Warp Speed seemed to be handled well, and I’m happy to give Trump credit for it since it happened on his watch.

the first vaccine to market from Pfizer had nothing to do with OWS.  

I believe Moderna's candidate vaccine was announced before Warp Speed was even started.

The fact is that Warp Speed was a pretty garden variety set of government interventions, that was given the name Warp Speed by Trump - I'm sure his only contribution to the whole effort.

I'd also be happy to give Trump credit for vaccine development if there was any evidence that he or his administration actually made a meaningful contribution. But there isn't any.

Sorry, I forgot to use the quote function and add attribution. That statement was from Kevin Drum of Mother Jones.

DaveSchmidt said:

Sorry, I forgot to use the quote function and add attribution. That statement was from Kevin Drum of Mother Jones.

 The full quote would have been helpful 

OWS seems to have been handled well and I’m happy to give Donald Trump credit for it since it happened on his watch. But vaccine development started long before it was a twinkle in his eye; everyone understood from the start that speed was critical; and it was Congress that allocated the funds to make it possible. Only after all that did Trump wrap a bow around everything by giving it a name. It was hardly a stroke of genius that only he could ever have come up with.

IOW - You don't get special credit for doing the bare minimum.

Especially when the circumstances demanded a helluva lot more than that.

ml1 said:

The full quote would have been helpful

I tried to help by sparing everyone the both-siderism.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

The full quote would have been helpful

I tried to help by sparing everyone the both-siderism.

 Except the "other" side basically refutes your selective side. There are times when both-siderism is necessary to actually understand the truth.

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:

The full quote would have been helpful

I tried to help by sparing everyone the both-siderism.

ok

this is not from the times, but it could have been.

wow. is this the worst headline ever?

So has the Washington Post become more evil than the NY Times?

I thought this article was going to be about regular people now being able to afford a home in NYC.

A Home Buyers’ Bonanza in Manhattan 

Housing sales in New York City are finally picking up — along with deep discounts.

Nah.  Turns out it's billionaires getting "bargains" on condos that used to cost tens of millions and now only cost many many millions.

Talk about tone deaf.

yet again, the Times tries to both sides us to death

because there's something wrong with seeing xenophobia and white supremacy as immoral, and people with arsenals plotting attacks on the government as a threat.

Well, now, there is this...

https://nypost.com/2021/04/22/will-the-times-apologize-for-lying-about-officer-sicknicks-death/

mtierney said:

Well, now, there is this...

https://nypost.com/2021/04/22/will-the-times-apologize-for-lying-about-officer-sicknicks-death/

Two excerpts from that column, which indicate that nobody should trust his version of how the story developed as the facts came out.

"An unruly crowd entered the US Capitol on Jan. 6, while then-President Donald Trump addressed a rally several blocks away. One member of that crowd, Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed woman and a veteran, was shot by the Capitol Police."

"With all the interest in police shootings in other settings, reporters have been steadfastly incurious about the shooting of Babbitt. She was an unarmed woman shot to death, whatever the justice of her cause (or lack thereof)."

It's "all about the narrative", as he says, but the "narrative" he's pushing is to minimize the actions of the mob that sacked the Capitol.  And, nobody is "incurious" about how Ashli Babbitt died, it's all very obvious what happened. And since it's obvious. right-wing propagandists have to tell their audience that those facts aren't known - as part of their effort to rewrite recent history.