> During and between his terms as President of the United States, Donald Trump has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims
To have a productive discussion on HN, I'd like to ask a question I've always wondered about the USA: How come, given how the media represents things, there haven't been any new media companies, no new news shows, no new newspapers/websites, dedicated to honest, factual reporting, that have gone mainstream/nationwide?
The media should be asking about Epstein every time they have a chance, but it doesn't happen, because the news makes it's money through audience capture via FOMO, and you do that by always moving to the latest thing that happened, doesn't matter how irrelevant.
The NYT has been biased in favor of Trump since the day he appeared at the 2016 Republican convention. Trump sells papers, you see.
Using normalizing language in a headline such as this is a longstanding practice of theirs.
(Laughable? Your homework assignment for tonight is to Google the term Pied piper strategy. The NYT played ball with the Democrats at their request, and never stopped carrying it.)
By painting Trump's actions as rational developments. By putting his words on equal standing as any prior president's.
Look at the headline here for instance - US and Iran send conflicting signals, as though both parties are sending incorrect messaging regarding a potential peace deal.
What's really happening though is Trump unilaterally lying through his teeth (established), perhaps so that entities tied to him, likely his erstwhile bankrupt family, can manipulate the stock market (speculative). Of course, you won't see the NY Times or any American paper of record narrate the news that way. That's what GP means by the NYT's sanewashing. Because for them, any news sells, and you don't cut off the source.
The Pied Piper Strategy was interesting to read about, but that doesn't agree with my experience of reading the Times. It seems more than happy to pander to its subscribers' biases.
I wish I could agree with you there, but I remember all too well what it was like in 2016, eating breakfast every morning with the NYT open on my iPad.
Day after day, I'd scream at them under my breath: You idiots are going to get him elected. You know that, right? Right?
Why you would ever think a paper run by out of touch New York elites who think they can solve everything would support an out of touch New York elite who claims he can solve everything? That's just crazy talk! Don't you know they often wear different color ties? And one uses big words while the other uses small words.
The headline reads "US and Iran Send Conflicting Signals on Peace Prospects." But that's not an accurate description of what happened, is it? "Iran Denies Existence of Talks with Trump Administration" might serve better.
I mean, it's not as if they're actually going to come out with the correct headline: "Trump Continues Lying About War, Makes Up Unlikely-Sounding Excuse for Chickening Out," is it?
But they can do better than "Conflicting Signals."
Anything that is said needs to be looked through the lens of: Are the markets open, and, how will the statement impact them.
https://archive.ph/hiXaL
"Conflicting Signals".
I don't even mean to be political, but one of the two parties here is notorious for lying, so much so that there's a wikipedia page dedicated to the falsehoods they have come out with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements...
First line:
> During and between his terms as President of the United States, Donald Trump has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims
To have a productive discussion on HN, I'd like to ask a question I've always wondered about the USA: How come, given how the media represents things, there haven't been any new media companies, no new news shows, no new newspapers/websites, dedicated to honest, factual reporting, that have gone mainstream/nationwide?
Is there something preventing this?
The media should be asking about Epstein every time they have a chance, but it doesn't happen, because the news makes it's money through audience capture via FOMO, and you do that by always moving to the latest thing that happened, doesn't matter how irrelevant.
More Trump sanewashing from NYT. Yay.
When the history of this era is written, possibly on a cave wall, the media will bear a heavy portion of responsibility.
What does this mean?
I don't know either, but if it means that the NY Times is biased in favor of Trump, that's rich.
NYT is in favor of Israel. They'll whitewash and president who bombs middle-eastern countries.
The NYT has been biased in favor of Trump since the day he appeared at the 2016 Republican convention. Trump sells papers, you see.
Using normalizing language in a headline such as this is a longstanding practice of theirs.
(Laughable? Your homework assignment for tonight is to Google the term Pied piper strategy. The NYT played ball with the Democrats at their request, and never stopped carrying it.)
> NYT has been biased in favor of Trump since the day he appeared
In the sense that it sells papers and ads? Sure, I guess. That’s the price of an attention economy. Someone who commands attention gains economies.
Or do you mean the Times is ideologically aligned with Trump?
By painting Trump's actions as rational developments. By putting his words on equal standing as any prior president's.
Look at the headline here for instance - US and Iran send conflicting signals, as though both parties are sending incorrect messaging regarding a potential peace deal.
What's really happening though is Trump unilaterally lying through his teeth (established), perhaps so that entities tied to him, likely his erstwhile bankrupt family, can manipulate the stock market (speculative). Of course, you won't see the NY Times or any American paper of record narrate the news that way. That's what GP means by the NYT's sanewashing. Because for them, any news sells, and you don't cut off the source.
That's laughable.
The Pied Piper Strategy was interesting to read about, but that doesn't agree with my experience of reading the Times. It seems more than happy to pander to its subscribers' biases.
I wish I could agree with you there, but I remember all too well what it was like in 2016, eating breakfast every morning with the NYT open on my iPad.
Day after day, I'd scream at them under my breath: You idiots are going to get him elected. You know that, right? Right?
Turns out that yes, they did.
Why you would ever think a paper run by out of touch New York elites who think they can solve everything would support an out of touch New York elite who claims he can solve everything? That's just crazy talk! Don't you know they often wear different color ties? And one uses big words while the other uses small words.
The headline reads "US and Iran Send Conflicting Signals on Peace Prospects." But that's not an accurate description of what happened, is it? "Iran Denies Existence of Talks with Trump Administration" might serve better.
I mean, it's not as if they're actually going to come out with the correct headline: "Trump Continues Lying About War, Makes Up Unlikely-Sounding Excuse for Chickening Out," is it?
But they can do better than "Conflicting Signals."