NY Times reporter: Tough reporting on Biden's age is retribution for refusing an interview

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Imagine believing that

A. The NYT's reporting on Biden's age has been particularly tough

B. The degree of toughness is because AG Sulzberger has a vendetta against Biden

I'm sure there's some grain of truth to this story, but it's much more "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? Weird -- that sounds like he can't. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff." than "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? We need to punish him. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff."

Also, all the journalists/Biden staffers are dramatically overestimating the importance of this. The NYT's coverage has not significantly impacted Biden's odds in the general election, because few people will actually end up voting on the issue of Biden's age, and those who do will probably have not have had their perceptions substantially altered by the NYT, especially given that only ~10 millionish people read the NYT in the first place, most of whom are already partisan liberals.

Says a guy who takes as the gospel of truth the garbage he hears everyday on Fox and Newsmax.

And the National Enquirer.

To be clear, I've never watched Newsmax or read the National Enquirer. I have watched Fox, but only on election nights/for speeches/at airports and hotels. I do read the NYT, which is how I know that their coverage of Biden's infirmity for office is at best muted and at worst sycophantically dishonest.

So, what do you base your allegation of 'BIden's infirmity' on then? Certainly the vast majority of the time he seems perfectly capable and far better than bankrupt grifter rapist insurrectionist Trump

Speeches that I've seen? Transcripts or clips I've been sent? Reporting on the subject? This is a pretty widespread belief. Frankly, I'm too ideological to be the main demographic discussing it -- to me, Biden's sin is being a Democrat, not being old -- but I hear it a lot, even from people less interested in politics, and I see plenty of evidence for it.

I think your second sentence is also revealing. Trump may be bankrupt, a grifter, a rapist, or an insurrectionist (I don't think he's any of those, but that's not the point) but even if he were none of those would be relevant to the question of whether or not Biden is infirm.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Imagine believing that

A. The NYT's reporting on Biden's age has been particularly tough

B. The degree of toughness is because AG Sulzberger has a vendetta against Biden

I'm sure there's some grain of truth to this story, but it's much more "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? Weird -- that sounds like he can't. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff." than "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? We need to punish him. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff."

Also, all the journalists/Biden staffers are dramatically overestimating the importance of this. The NYT's coverage has not significantly impacted Biden's odds in the general election, because few people will actually end up voting on the issue of Biden's age, and those who do will probably have not have had their perceptions substantially altered by the NYT, especially given that only ~10 millionish people read the NYT in the first place, most of whom are already partisan liberals.

Journalism isn't about speculating. If that was true then every newspaper could make up stories just as long as they posted them as questions. That's not much better logic. And it's not uncommon for media outlets to run negative stories about someone who want talk to them.

Speculating? For articles, yeah. You shouldn't run articles without facts. But speculation is the key of investigative reporting -- hearing or wondering something and then following up by investigating on it.

Investigative reporting isn't about wondering or hearsay. You have to have something of substance to investigate. What you are referencing is tabloid reporting.

If I hear a rumor that Richard Nixon's men broke into the Watergate, and so I look into it and find that Richard Nixon's men broke into the watergate, is that tabloid reporting because I based my initial investigation off speculation?

It wasn't a rumor that there was a break in though, so that was the substance that motivated journalists to look into the story.

It was a rumor -- literally, a claim of dubious veracity by Mark Felt. That the rumor would turn out to be true was not known to the journalists at the time, so it was still a rumor. (If you want to argue that this is a bad example, you should point out that Mark Felt was a credible source. But if so, I'll reply that so are the eyes and ears of NYTimes journalists.)

Face it: lots of reporting -- in fact, most of the best -- comes from reporters acting off hunches, speculation, etc. What differentiates tabloid reporting from good reporting is not whether or not speculation played any role in the process, but whether or not the eventual claims are actually newsworthy and whether or not the reporting is reliable/trustworthy.

Doing an investigative story on a break in is different than running variations of "BIDEN IS OVER 80 SO HE MUST HAVE MEMORY ISSUES". And the Watergate story was done out of retribution.

Okay. Why isn't reporting newsworthy things -- like what Biden's doctor said: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/us/politics/biden-health-physical.html -- appropriate?

That's an article about a statement. It's not the same thing as speculation.

So which articles do you deem to be speculation? You're right that the above isn't, but you have the burden of proof because you're the critic.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Imagine believing that

A. The NYT's reporting on Biden's age has been particularly tough

B. The degree of toughness is because AG Sulzberger has a vendetta against Biden

I'm sure there's some grain of truth to this story, but it's much more "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? Weird -- that sounds like he can't. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff." than "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? We need to punish him. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff."

Also, all the journalists/Biden staffers are dramatically overestimating the importance of this. The NYT's coverage has not significantly impacted Biden's odds in the general election, because few people will actually end up voting on the issue of Biden's age, and those who do will probably have not have had their perceptions substantially altered by the NYT, especially given that only ~10 millionish people read the NYT in the first place, most of whom are already partisan liberals.

Journalism isn't about speculating. If that was true then every newspaper could make up stories just as long as they posted them as questions. That's not much better logic. And it's not uncommon for media outlets to run negative stories about someone who want talk to them.

Speculating? For articles, yeah. You shouldn't run articles without facts. But speculation is the key of investigative reporting -- hearing or wondering something and then following up by investigating on it.

Investigative reporting isn't about wondering or hearsay. You have to have something of substance to investigate. What you are referencing is tabloid reporting.

If I hear a rumor that Richard Nixon's men broke into the Watergate, and so I look into it and find that Richard Nixon's men broke into the watergate, is that tabloid reporting because I based my initial investigation off speculation?

It wasn't a rumor that there was a break in though, so that was the substance that motivated journalists to look into the story.

It was a rumor -- literally, a claim of dubious veracity by Mark Felt. That the rumor would turn out to be true was not known to the journalists at the time, so it was still a rumor. (If you want to argue that this is a bad example, you should point out that Mark Felt was a credible source. But if so, I'll reply that so are the eyes and ears of NYTimes journalists.)

Face it: lots of reporting -- in fact, most of the best -- comes from reporters acting off hunches, speculation, etc. What differentiates tabloid reporting from good reporting is not whether or not speculation played any role in the process, but whether or not the eventual claims are actually newsworthy and whether or not the reporting is reliable/trustworthy.

Completely false. Mark Felt did not come into this until sometime later.

He gave them key info that shaped their investigation, but that also constituted a rumor.

For the most part, that's not true either. All Felt did was confirm or refute what others had told them.

[DaleCooper]

Well of course. These people want Trump, because Trump is good for business.

Their trans dust-up, where the linchpin of the opinion article was a known anti-trans agitator creating fake news, shows that the NYT is an unserious outlet. It's one thing to stand by an article that goes against accepted opinion, but it's another to defend a flagrant violation of journalistic integrity as ~~impartial~~.

It's not just that Trump is good for business. This is life or death. Without another Trump presidency, these companies could go under within the decade.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Imagine believing that

A. The NYT's reporting on Biden's age has been particularly tough

B. The degree of toughness is because AG Sulzberger has a vendetta against Biden

I'm sure there's some grain of truth to this story, but it's much more "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? Weird -- that sounds like he can't. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff." than "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? We need to punish him. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff."

Also, all the journalists/Biden staffers are dramatically overestimating the importance of this. The NYT's coverage has not significantly impacted Biden's odds in the general election, because few people will actually end up voting on the issue of Biden's age, and those who do will probably have not have had their perceptions substantially altered by the NYT, especially given that only ~10 millionish people read the NYT in the first place, most of whom are already partisan liberals.

Journalism isn't about speculating. If that was true then every newspaper could make up stories just as long as they posted them as questions. That's not much better logic. And it's not uncommon for media outlets to run negative stories about someone who want talk to them.

Speculating? For articles, yeah. You shouldn't run articles without facts. But speculation is the key of investigative reporting -- hearing or wondering something and then following up by investigating on it.

Investigative reporting isn't about wondering or hearsay. You have to have something of substance to investigate. What you are referencing is tabloid reporting.

If I hear a rumor that Richard Nixon's men broke into the Watergate, and so I look into it and find that Richard Nixon's men broke into the watergate, is that tabloid reporting because I based my initial investigation off speculation?

It wasn't a rumor that there was a break in though, so that was the substance that motivated journalists to look into the story.

It was a rumor -- literally, a claim of dubious veracity by Mark Felt. That the rumor would turn out to be true was not known to the journalists at the time, so it was still a rumor. (If you want to argue that this is a bad example, you should point out that Mark Felt was a credible source. But if so, I'll reply that so are the eyes and ears of NYTimes journalists.)

Face it: lots of reporting -- in fact, most of the best -- comes from reporters acting off hunches, speculation, etc. What differentiates tabloid reporting from good reporting is not whether or not speculation played any role in the process, but whether or not the eventual claims are actually newsworthy and whether or not the reporting is reliable/trustworthy.

Completely false. Mark Felt did not come into this until sometime later.

He gave them key info that shaped their investigation, but that also constituted a rumor.

For the most part, that's not true either. All Felt did was confirm or refute what others had told them.

We're getting bogged down in the details. If you say that Felt confirmed or refuted details they had but had not verified, you agree that they operated at at least some point on the basis of rumor, yes?

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Imagine believing that

A. The NYT's reporting on Biden's age has been particularly tough

B. The degree of toughness is because AG Sulzberger has a vendetta against Biden

I'm sure there's some grain of truth to this story, but it's much more "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? Weird -- that sounds like he can't. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff." than "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? We need to punish him. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff."

Also, all the journalists/Biden staffers are dramatically overestimating the importance of this. The NYT's coverage has not significantly impacted Biden's odds in the general election, because few people will actually end up voting on the issue of Biden's age, and those who do will probably have not have had their perceptions substantially altered by the NYT, especially given that only ~10 millionish people read the NYT in the first place, most of whom are already partisan liberals.

Journalism isn't about speculating. If that was true then every newspaper could make up stories just as long as they posted them as questions. That's not much better logic. And it's not uncommon for media outlets to run negative stories about someone who want talk to them.

Speculating? For articles, yeah. You shouldn't run articles without facts. But speculation is the key of investigative reporting -- hearing or wondering something and then following up by investigating on it.

Investigative reporting isn't about wondering or hearsay. You have to have something of substance to investigate. What you are referencing is tabloid reporting.

If I hear a rumor that Richard Nixon's men broke into the Watergate, and so I look into it and find that Richard Nixon's men broke into the watergate, is that tabloid reporting because I based my initial investigation off speculation?

It wasn't a rumor that there was a break in though, so that was the substance that motivated journalists to look into the story.

It was a rumor -- literally, a claim of dubious veracity by Mark Felt. That the rumor would turn out to be true was not known to the journalists at the time, so it was still a rumor. (If you want to argue that this is a bad example, you should point out that Mark Felt was a credible source. But if so, I'll reply that so are the eyes and ears of NYTimes journalists.)

Face it: lots of reporting -- in fact, most of the best -- comes from reporters acting off hunches, speculation, etc. What differentiates tabloid reporting from good reporting is not whether or not speculation played any role in the process, but whether or not the eventual claims are actually newsworthy and whether or not the reporting is reliable/trustworthy.

Completely false. Mark Felt did not come into this until sometime later.

He gave them key info that shaped their investigation, but that also constituted a rumor.

For the most part, that's not true either. All Felt did was confirm or refute what others had told them.

We're getting bogged down in the details. If you say that Felt confirmed or refuted details they had but had not verified, you agree that they operated at at least some point on the basis of rumor, yes?

No because this is only the reporter's side (Woodward and Bernstein in this case.) There is also the Washington Post side in publishing their findings. I forget how the Washington Post worked at that time, but I believe they required at a minimum two independent sources (independent of each other) to substantiate any speculation before they would even consider publishing it.

[wbrocks67]

Well of course. These people want Trump, because Trump is good for business.

Their trans dust-up, where the linchpin of the opinion article was a known anti-trans agitator creating fake news, shows that the NYT is an unserious outlet. It's one thing to stand by an article that goes against accepted opinion, but it's another to defend a flagrant violation of journalistic integrity as ~~impartial~~.

It's not just that Trump is good for business. This is life or death. Without another Trump presidency, these companies could go under within the decade.

Yeah I think people need to realize that this is all coming from the health of the business model. A boring president with no palace intrigue is basically death for outlets like NYT/Wapo. They'll still have tons of subscribers, but the clicks are going to be WAY down, as they are now, from the Trump years. It's basically why you see reporters acting the same way - they're pissed that the Biden WH is squeaky clean with no leaks while the Trump WH was leaking everywhere and they constantly got scoops.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Imagine believing that

A. The NYT's reporting on Biden's age has been particularly tough

B. The degree of toughness is because AG Sulzberger has a vendetta against Biden

I'm sure there's some grain of truth to this story, but it's much more "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? Weird -- that sounds like he can't. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff." than "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? We need to punish him. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff."

Also, all the journalists/Biden staffers are dramatically overestimating the importance of this. The NYT's coverage has not significantly impacted Biden's odds in the general election, because few people will actually end up voting on the issue of Biden's age, and those who do will probably have not have had their perceptions substantially altered by the NYT, especially given that only ~10 millionish people read the NYT in the first place, most of whom are already partisan liberals.

Says a guy who takes as the gospel of truth the garbage he hears everyday on Fox and Newsmax.

And the National Enquirer.

To be clear, I've never watched Newsmax or read the National Enquirer. I have watched Fox, but only on election nights/for speeches/at airports and hotels. I do read the NYT, which is how I know that their coverage of Biden's infirmity for office is at best muted and at worst sycophantically dishonest.

So, what do you base your allegation of 'BIden's infirmity' on then? Certainly the vast majority of the time he seems perfectly capable and far better than bankrupt grifter rapist insurrectionist Trump

Speeches that I've seen? Transcripts or clips I've been sent? Reporting on the subject? This is a pretty widespread belief. Frankly, I'm too ideological to be the main demographic discussing it -- to me, Biden's sin is being a Democrat, not being old -- but I hear it a lot, even from people less interested in politics, and I see plenty of evidence for it.

I think your second sentence is also revealing. Trump may be bankrupt, a grifter, a rapist, or an insurrectionist (I don't think he's any of those, but that's not the point) but even if he were none of those would be relevant to the question of whether or not Biden is infirm.

As supporters of Trump (correctly) say, 'the election is a binary choice.' And Trump frequently seems far more infirm than Trump.

We see Trump's grifting on a daily basis and we all saw his attempted insurrection on January 6, 2021, however, Trump has been found in a civil court to have committed rape. So, denying that he's a rapist at this point shows that you're not only biased as you acknowledge, but that everything you say here should be regarded as worthless junk.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And yet establishment Democrats are the last people taking the NY Times seriously.

[Progressive Pessimist]

They're as petty as Trump.

[Ferguson97]

“Biden is very old” and “NYT chose to emphasize that Biden is old to the extent that they have because they were mad at him for not doing an interview” can both simultaneously be true.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

They put out a statement - it is frankly embarrassing

https://www.nytco.com/press/a-statement-from-the-new-york-times-on-presidential-news-coverage/

Quite frankly, the tone of this statement and the quotes from the Politico article just reinforce and prove that what everyone is saying about their coverage and how they operate is true.

How could anyone trust them to be frank and fair about things especially after this?

Reading this, the New York Times is clearly falling back on the notion of 'civic duty' that journalists claim they perform (and why they receive specific protection in the Constitution.)

I wouldn't say that nobody believes this stuff anymore and believe that all media outlets have their own agenda and promote narratives whether they are specific things the outlets want to highlight or whether they are the more general promotion of sensation and conflict, in the abstract, this certainly seems to be something that those on both the left and the right are finding agreement over.

However, in specific cases, too many on the left still unquestionably believe reporting that favors their side (including me at times I'm sure) and on the right, too many fall for what should be dismissed as absolute nonsense.

So, journalism likely won't change until people get over their dissonance and connect their views of the media in the abstract with specific reporting.

[SWE]

It'd make more sense for Biden to give an interview with Fox News than the NY Times. Either way it's a platform that's explicitly hostile to him, but at least if he goes on Fox News people will see it

[Landslide Lyndon]

Just their last headline where they essentially said that Biden and Trump are equally flawed messengers when it comes to abortion should have been reason enough for any self-respecting liberal to cancel their subscriptions.
These people are hellbent to normalize Trump when just a few years ago they used weasel words to imply that a meeting between then SoS Hillary Clinton and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate was somehow scandalous.

[wbrocks67]

Just their last headline where they essentially said that Biden and Trump are equally flawed messengers when it comes to abortion should have been reason enough for any self-respecting liberal to cancel their subscriptions.
These people are hellbent to normalize Trump when just a few years ago they used weasel words to imply that a meeting between then SoS Hillary Clinton and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate was somehow scandalous.

Yep. Just look at the comparison of Biden being old and Trump. No objective observer can say that their coverage is fair- The Hur report had something like 80 total articles on NYT the week it blew up. The amount of articles about Trump falling asleep at his trial? 1

[DrScholl]

Imagine believing that

A. The NYT's reporting on Biden's age has been particularly tough

B. The degree of toughness is because AG Sulzberger has a vendetta against Biden

I'm sure there's some grain of truth to this story, but it's much more "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? Weird -- that sounds like he can't. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff." than "Biden won't sit down for an interview with us? We need to punish him. Let's take a second look at the aging stuff."

Also, all the journalists/Biden staffers are dramatically overestimating the importance of this. The NYT's coverage has not significantly impacted Biden's odds in the general election, because few people will actually end up voting on the issue of Biden's age, and those who do will probably have not have had their perceptions substantially altered by the NYT, especially given that only ~10 millionish people read the NYT in the first place, most of whom are already partisan liberals.

Journalism isn't about speculating. If that was true then every newspaper could make up stories just as long as they posted them as questions. That's not much better logic. And it's not uncommon for media outlets to run negative stories about someone who want talk to them.

Speculating? For articles, yeah. You shouldn't run articles without facts. But speculation is the key of investigative reporting -- hearing or wondering something and then following up by investigating on it.

Investigative reporting isn't about wondering or hearsay. You have to have something of substance to investigate. What you are referencing is tabloid reporting.

If I hear a rumor that Richard Nixon's men broke into the Watergate, and so I look into it and find that Richard Nixon's men broke into the watergate, is that tabloid reporting because I based my initial investigation off speculation?

It wasn't a rumor that there was a break in though, so that was the substance that motivated journalists to look into the story.

It was a rumor -- literally, a claim of dubious veracity by Mark Felt. That the rumor would turn out to be true was not known to the journalists at the time, so it was still a rumor. (If you want to argue that this is a bad example, you should point out that Mark Felt was a credible source. But if so, I'll reply that so are the eyes and ears of NYTimes journalists.)

Face it: lots of reporting -- in fact, most of the best -- comes from reporters acting off hunches, speculation, etc. What differentiates tabloid reporting from good reporting is not whether or not speculation played any role in the process, but whether or not the eventual claims are actually newsworthy and whether or not the reporting is reliable/trustworthy.

Doing an investigative story on a break in is different than running variations of "BIDEN IS OVER 80 SO HE MUST HAVE MEMORY ISSUES". And the Watergate story was done out of retribution.

Okay. Why isn't reporting newsworthy things -- like what Biden's doctor said: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/us/politics/biden-health-physical.html -- appropriate?

That's an article about a statement. It's not the same thing as speculation.

So which articles do you deem to be speculation? You're right that the above isn't, but you have the burden of proof because you're the critic.

Every article they post about Biden's age is speculation. They've never backed it up with official medical records.

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

https://twitter.com/SonnyBunch/status/1783868973806694855

[GeneralMacArthur]

Joe Biden has done plenty of sit-down interviews and also appears in public on a regular basis both interacting ad-hoc with regular people and accepting ad-hoc questions from the press.

To claim that he must be mentally deficient and therefore incapable of doing a sit-down interview because he won't do one with you in particular is the height of irresponsible journalism.  It's an absurd speculation that makes absolutely no sense and is really just self-indulgent.

It's also arrogant in the extreme.  What, your interview was going to be so tough, so devastating, so thorough and powerful, that it would finally reveal the truth that no other interview can -- that Biden is a broken and braindead old man?  He's been faking his way through these other interviews, but yours is going to be so strong that it would finally be what breaks him?  And that's why you're saying he's hiding from you?

Get real.  Let's remember that the last time the NYT Editorial Board interviewed a member of the Biden Administration it was when they accused Pete Buttigieg of personally manipulating bread prices in Canada because he happened to work for McKinsey at the same time the company was tangentially involved in something to do with Canadian bread.

Pair that with the fact that this all started when the NYTimes refused to stop obsessively pursuing the Hunter Biden Burisma allegations story being spoon-fed to them by MAGA, and then threw a pissy baby fit when the Biden campaign froze them out after they wouldn't stop trying to ask about it.  Why do you think Joe Biden doesn't want to do a sit-down interview with the people who were obsessively pursuing this fake conspiracy theory story about his last living son, and kept asking questions about it even when ordered not to?

I think Biden has very good reasons not to do an interview with the NYTimes -- their coverage of his campaign has been relentlessly negative, their political coverage in general is amateurish both-sides-ism (as illustrated by the PitchBot account mentioned in the article), they've engaged in conspiracy theories about his family that have no place in a civil conversation, they've made it clear that they're determined to fish around for any hint of evidence that he's too old and too tired to be president, and in particular their current state of petty grievance against the campaign means they'd probably use the interview as an opportunity to punish him.

On top of that, the fact that they've been covering him negatively because he won't do the interview is even more reason why he shouldn't do the interview.  Biden shouldn't reward this kind of blackmail and bullying.

[Pres Mike]

The NYT and CNN no longer care about civic journalism, only their bottom line. They opposed Trump because it got clicks and subscriptions. Now they oppose President Biden to get Trump back in office, to oppose him. I can't stand this 3D chess they are playing. Journalism is already struggling in America, why ruin your credibility?

Besides, the MSM never liked President Biden anyway despite him being the best president in a generation. They did not want him to be the nominee. I'll never forget how Buttigieg and Klobuchar got more media coverage in the 2020 primaries despite Biden being the front runner. The MSM resents President Biden because he is a straight old white man.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The mutual hostility between Biden and elite political media like the Failing New York Times isn’t a bad thing for the President politically.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Sulzberger is a pathetic little failson.

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://twitter.com/admcrlsn/status/1784265480502440280

[Frodo]

The mutual hostility between Biden and elite political media like the Failing New York Times isn’t a bad thing for the President politically.

He should probably campaign boasting about how the New York Times hates him, especially in the swing states. 

[All Along The Watchtower]

And yet establishment Democrats are the last people taking the NY Times seriously.

That’s not true. Donald Trump is famously obsessed with the NY Times, specifically their coverage of him (obviously).

[politicallefty]

White liberals need to stop supporting them. If it goes under in its current incarnation, nothing of value would be lost.