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

[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.

[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.

Yes, after that it was speculation and questioning. The initial reporting at the Washington Post was done by the local reporters, since, after all the break in was in Washington D.C, and, if I recall correctly, when the Nixon plumbers were getting bail, the reporter noticed that one of the lawyers was a guy who worked for Nixon and he wondered why such a high ranking lawyer would be working for a gang trying to commit a local robbery. And, I believe, he also spoke to the plumbers and asked where they got the money to either hire the lawyer (or for the bail, or both) and one of them also mentioned a known Nixon associate.

If I further recall correctly though, I believe the Washington Post at that point refused the reporter to mention any possible Nixon connection in the story because it was, at that point, just speculation, but it intrigued some higher up in the newsroom.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.