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

[Landslide Lyndon]

You liberal media at work.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219



In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency. Beyond that, he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, according to a third person familiar with the publisher’s thinking. Sulzberger himself was part of a group from the Times that sat down with Trump, who gave the paper several interviews despite his rantings about its coverage. If Trump could do it, Sulzberger believes, so can Biden.

“All these Biden people think that the problem is Peter Baker or whatever reporter they’re mad at that day,” one Times journalist said. “It’s A.G. He’s the one who is pissed [that] Biden hasn’t done any interviews and quietly encourages all the tough reporting on his age.”

[DaleCooper]

The last time I visited the New York Times website was back around one of the big primary nights. The front page was dominated by pictures of Taylor Swift and her football player boyfriend. This isn't a news outlet anymore.

[emailking]

The last time I visited the New York Times website was back around one of the big primary nights. The front page was dominated by pictures of Taylor Swift and her football player boyfriend. This isn't a news outlet anymore.

Didn't you guarantee she wouldn't be POTY? I think you lost the battle on this one.

[Morning in Atlas]

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~~.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

[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.

[wbrocks67]

It's the principle of it all. The NY Times reporters think they're above everyone and everything, that's why there's never any introspection into their work. They're never wrong, and they get wildly defensive when you criticize them. They feel above reproach in every single way. Biden's team is right, they're just patently full of themselves and think their sh*t doesn't stink. NYT has a ton of great writers and is a great paper, but let's not be kidding ourselves that they also have serious issues and it's been objectively obvious that they have not taken Trump as seriously as they should, nor have they been tempered about the Biden age issue and others.

No one is saying that A.G. is literally going to people and saying WRITE MORE BIDEN OLD STORIES! but it's clear there's a very obvious river that runs through all their coverage and its peppered by the feelings from the top.

[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?

[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.

[President Johnson]

Except that this kind of attitude is not the definition of quality journalism.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[wbrocks67]

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?

[DaleCooper]

The last time I visited the New York Times website was back around one of the big primary nights. The front page was dominated by pictures of Taylor Swift and her football player boyfriend. This isn't a news outlet anymore.

Didn't you guarantee she wouldn't be POTY? I think you lost the battle on this one.

I said she shouldn't be person of the year. I remember thinking that she wouldn't be because apparently I was under the delusion that TIME was still a serious institution.

[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.

[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.