Politics

10177 readers

21 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

151

A New York Times reporter was asked why they consistently frame things as bad for Biden but never bad for Trump. (old.reddit.com)

submitted 8 months ago by mozz@mbin.grits.dev to c/politics@beehaw.org

97 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"I think what you're reacting to is that, at the moment, Biden is an unpopular president seeking a second term while Trump is a popular figure inside his party who is winning primary races. I wouldn't necessarily compare the two."

Credit to @JoshuaHolland

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] arquebus_x@kbin.social 7 points 8 months ago (6 children)

Before we get out the flaming pitchforks, let us not forget that pretty much no one reads or cares about the New York Times. Their readership (print and web) is minuscule compared to entities like CNN, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC (and Fox, OANN, Breitbart, Joe Rogan...).

Sure, it sucks that the NYT is sucking Trump cock, but in the end, that won't move the needle.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 11 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

I won't necessarily disagree wrt the small readership -- but The New York Times is notable because it is at this point the only big outlet which is both still doing actual journalism (as in researching big stories from scratch and determining the truth of them from primary sources) and also making a profit at it. There are lots of examples of each one in isolation (although, tragically, less and less of the first one year by year), but they are the only one left that is doing both.

If they're starting to turn over to the "truth doesn't matter gimme that bag" side (which it seems like to some degree they are), then it's a significant loss.

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039 NYT not the only big outlet doing "actual journalism"

not sure about WSJ's profitability quarter to quarter, but I don't think they are actively sinking.

And of course: opinion side of any paper is NOT news, regardless of your alignment.

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 8 months ago

So most of my assertion that the Times is the only profitable one comes from this article.

But places like the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times now face similar crises: How does a newspaper make money in 2024? People looking to answer that question invariably turn toward the New York Times. At the end of last year, as scores of journalists were getting their pink slips, the paper announced that it had passed ten million total subscribers.

“There is like one place you can work right now with any kind of job security and it is The New York Times and that’s only because they have a shitload of recipes on a nicely coded little cooking app that you can subscribe to and also because your parents are hooked on Wordle.”

NYT not the only big outlet doing "actual journalism"

not sure about WSJ's profitability quarter to quarter, but I don't think they are actively sinking.

The Facebook Files story is not exactly the victory for journalism you're saying though... my immediately takeaway from that is that the journalistic impact of the (surely accurate) information in it will probably be exceeded by the propaganda impact of adding weight to the "Twitter Files" mythology by simply running the story and calling it that. Maybe I am wrong in that but that's my immediate takeaway.

So doomsaying stories about how all their readers are dying notwithstanding, I guess I should admit that WSJ is consistently making money (even during recent quarters when NewsCorp has dipped into the red overall). My own internal compass categorizes them not quite in the journalism category because they have such a right-wing-friendly perspective but I'll admit that's 100% based on ideology. They are journalism I guess, yes; it's not like they print lies or made up stuff or anything.

load more comments (3 replies)