Just look at some of the things he said. Wednesday’s briefing was arguably the most abnormal moment yet in a profoundly abnormal presidency. But top news organizations, rather than accurately representing Trump’s alarming behavior, made it sound like nothing untoward happened at all.
Progressive podcaster Benjamin Dixon posted the audio on Monday afternoon, explaining how Bloomberg’s “racist explanation and justification… shows that he operates from a deeply troubling framework,” and calling for its widespread dissemination. It worked.
How do you normalize something as appalling as Donald Trump’s purge of truth tellers? If you’re a star reporter at the New York Times, you make it sound like he’s just fighting back.
Talking to Michael Barbaro on the Times’s “The Daily” podcast, Baquet refused to in any way condemn a recent Times article that was widely and appropriately cited as a canonical example of bothesidesism, and instead reiterated that Times reporters will not be “taking sides” -- even when one side is the truth and the other side is a lie.
An article about how Democrats and Republicans have turned themselves “upside-down” when it comes to their views of John Bolton is a master class in false equivalence. Democrats don't suddenly like him, they just believe hist testimony could help arrive at the truth.
I compared impeachment coverage from the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press on these three criteria: How did they assess and convey the significance of the act of impeachment? How did they describe the nature of the floor debate? What did they consider most newsworthy about Trump’s campaign rally?
The New York Times’s three-year struggle to sustain its reporting algorithms, built for two political parties that have comparable relationships to reality, collapsed into sordid heap of nonsense over the weekend.
Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman accepted what White House officials said about a new executive order on face value. But their report, stating that Trump would order Judaism to be interpreted as a nationality, lacked appropriate skepticism about the motives behind the move -- and maybe about its meaning as well.
Yes, Peter Baker of the New York Times, truth was on trial on Monday, as you wrote in your lede, but your job was not to throw up your hands and wink, it was to shout the truth from the rooftops, and you failed.
The Washington Post "broke" the story. The New York Times chased it. But was it worth giving sources anonymity in order to dutifully report what was effectively a trial balloon previewing possible spin from Bill Barr's Justice Department? And why was it worth chasing?