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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?